Explosions and shooting in paris

[798686]

i can't proof it, but I'm 100% sure the situation wouldn't have looked different
In this case you are wrong...
The EU, with more than 500 million people could handle the crisis.
But in the past 4 years, the EU ignored the events and just Italy and Greece had to handle the crisis.

And this summer, as the exodus happened, the small Greece was no longer able to deal with the arriving masses. do you really know WHAT Merkel said and WHEN?
AFTER the situation escalated in Greece and it looked like a disaster seemed to happen in Budapest, Merkel said "those Syrians in Budapest are allowed to come to Germany"

Germany tried to solve the mess the EU created by not acting

It would work, if EVERY member would accept a realistic quota

P! You can't stop a mass influx from being a problem, just because you say so!

Even Schauble agrees with me! Too many, too quickly to be dealt with properly. Angela's invitation was meant well 'no Syrian will be turned away' - but it sends the wrong message. We've somehow got to resolve the problem there so less come - but also accept the ones that do come in a sensible and practical way. We're not going to agree on this, so I won't go into it any further!

I agree with you re: racists - the Paris attacks aren't an excuse to turn away all refugees, or blame muslims, or anything like that. But it is a chance to re-assess whether our policies are causing the problem in the first place (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc), and also whether letting people in en masse is enabling terrorists to enter whilst pretending to be refugees.

I don't think it's an attempt to give refugees a bad name - more a chance to get into the EU whilst pretending to be a genuine refugee. :/ The problems are interlinked, but not the same.

 

[Perados]

P! You can't stop a mass influx from being a problem, just because you say so!

"mass influx" always has to be seen in relation to the "welcoming masses"

In 2015 not even 0.2% in relation to the European population has arrived... you can't tell me we wouldn't have been able to handle it.

Even Schauble agrees with me! Too many, too quickly to be dealt with properly.

and he was talking for Germany, not Europe...
Also is he one of the very conservatives in the CDU. I wasn't expecting something esle from him

Angela's invitation was meant well 'no Syrian will be turned away' - but it sends the wrong message.

but it was send to the Syrians in Budapest

We've somehow got to resolve the problem there so less come - but also accept the ones that do come in a sensible and practical way. We're not going to agree on this, so I won't go into it any further!

i agree with you, we have to solve the problem in Syria...
But a "sensible and practical way" can't mean to close the border or let just a few EU members struggle with this problem

I agree with you re: racists - the Paris attacks aren't an excuse to turn away all refugees, or blame muslims, or anything like that. But it is a chance to re-assess whether our policies are causing the problem in the first place (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc), and also whether letting people in en masse is enabling terrorists to enter whilst pretending to be refugees.

do we have to control who is coming? Sure we have...

But the current demands and rhetoric is "let's close our borders and increase the bombing"

That's the wrong way

I don't think it's an attempt to give refugees a bad name - more a chance to get into the EU whilst pretending to be a genuine refugee. :/ The problems are interlinked, but not the same.

1. There are 3600 French people on the watch, because they could become a threat / and in Belgium live more than 500 people who were fighting for IS in Syria - there is no need for terrorists from the middle east to make it to Europe

2. There are more easy and safe ways to make it to Europe than to use a smuggler.
Something like a faked passport

 

[rbkwp]

guts of it all and maybe a total consequence of this entire movement of humanity
it MAY get the fuckwut warmongering polityicians to partially stop starting wars all over the world
Obama keeping deathly quiet on the matter, he cant say its a European problem, as hes expected to US 'interfere' in anything/everything
in saying maybe no more wars
one can almost see, the next US president, gearing up for several global wars in his/her 8 year term ..

 

[temptotalk]

Well...it started. Figured it would too.

Marco Rubio: We Can't Take In Syrian Refugees After Paris Attacks

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said Saturday allowing thousands of "Syrian Muslim refugees" into the country is "nothing less than lunacy," while also saying that Christians fleeing persecution deserve "safe haven." GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, meanwhile, has said allowing thousands of refugees with "big problems" into the country is "just insane."

Jeb Bush: Let's Focus On Helping The Christian Syrian Refugees, Rather Than The Muslims
"I think we need to do thorough screening and take in a limited number," Bush said on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday. "There are a lot of Christians in Syria that have no place now. They'll be either executed or imprisoned, either by Assad or by ISIS. We should focus our efforts as it relates to the refugees for the Christians that are being slaughtered."

 

[Perados]

They are in no way better than IS... selection by religion is wrong

 

[Boobalaa]

I concur, often repeated and purposely ignored is the fact that this is a multi-nation financed war on Shia Islam.
Having said that, in this Slate piece, certain quotes reinforce previously posted sentiments..
Molenbeek: the Brussels borough becoming known as Europe's jihadi central

A critique on the ICSR,
Electronic Intifada
https://electronicintifada.net/blog...perts-have-strong-links-israeli-establishment

https://electronicintifada.net/content/who-benefits-eu-israel-academic-cooperation/9262

 

[Boobalaa]

more from The Gaurdian;
Paris attacks: This is a war of ideas

"
On Friday one of the targets was the Comptoir Voltaire, a cafe in the 11th arrondissement. Most attacks happened in this bourgeois-bohemian neighbourhood, which on a Friday night is the embodiment of French insouciance and joie de vivre. But it is also the district of Charlie Hebdo and the marches that followed the attacks of last January. In fact, Friday night’s attackers followed closely the traditional itinerary of most French political demonstrations, from Place de la République to Place de la Nation, all along Boulevard Voltaire. Also targeted were the Stade de France, hosting a friendly football game between France and Germany: the very symbol and incarnation of European reconciliation and rejection of war. And a rock concert at the Bataclan, an all-purpose venue where French Jewish community meetings and rallies are often held.

This should be enough to make it clear that what was targeted on Friday night was, once again, about the very identity and soul of Paris, the “capital of abominations and perversions”, according to Islamic State. Most French people were surprised to see their uber-secular country described as the one that “carries the banner of the Cross” by Isis’s vengeful communique.

The point here is that French policies in the Middle East are a secondary rationale for armed jihadists. President Hollande said as much in his short Saturday morning address: we are targeted for what we are...Bush's exact words after 9/11

 

[Perados]

more from The Gaurdian;
Paris attacks: This is a war of ideas

"
On Friday one of the targets was the Comptoir Voltaire, a cafe in the 11th arrondissement. Most attacks happened in this bourgeois-bohemian neighbourhood, which on a Friday night is the embodiment of French insouciance and joie de vivre. But it is also the district of Charlie Hebdo and the marches that followed the attacks of last January. In fact, Friday night’s attackers followed closely the traditional itinerary of most French political demonstrations, from Place de la République to Place de la Nation, all along Boulevard Voltaire. Also targeted were the Stade de France, hosting a friendly football game between France and Germany: the very symbol and incarnation of European reconciliation and rejection of war. And a rock concert at the Bataclan, an all-purpose venue where French Jewish community meetings and rallies are often held.

This should be enough to make it clear that what was targeted on Friday night was, once again, about the very identity and soul of Paris, the “capital of abominations and perversions”, according to Islamic State. Most French people were surprised to see their uber-secular country described as the one that “carries the banner of the Cross” by Isis’s vengeful communique.

The point here is that French policies in the Middle East are a secondary rationale for armed jihadists. President Hollande said as much in his short Saturday morning address: we are targeted for what we are...Bush's exact words after 9/11

It shows that the attack was well planed and has one goal, get us into a real war with IS...
All the crimes IS did in the middle east weren't enough. Not the destruction of art and cultural places and not the slaughtering of innocent people.
After Afghanistan and Iraq, the west was smart enough not to make the same mistake a third time.

The choosen places are a provocation. A try to let our emotions rule, not our common sense.
The choosen words to explain these attacks show that IS wants to make it look like a religious war.


The sad thing is, it looks like it works what they tried...
Holland's reaction is very close to Bush's back in 2001. And just like the German chancellor Schroeder guaranteed total support to Bush, repeats Merkel the same words and guarantees total support to Holland.

Do we really make the same mistakes as in 2001???

We can't win a guerrilla war in Syria!
Currently IS is losing ground in Syria and Iraq, it looks like on the long term they won't be able to establish their own state.
Also is it contra productive for their image to fight against Islamic nations only.

That's why they desperately need the west to join this war.
If the can't create a state, they have to become a guerrilla troup, like the Taliban became in Afghanistan.
Also is a war against the west a better propaganda tool than the current mess, they are into.


The best way to beat IS is to stay out of the middle east

 

[JulieInNaplesFL]

Perados, What is America suppose to do when they come here in a few month's? Heck, they can just walk across the border, guns and all.

And they will. That's what they want. And they are loosing ground? Really?

 

[Jason]

@Perados, I think you are right. (I'll go and sit somewhere quiet for a while and hope I recover. ) ISIS is trying to provoke retaliation, and Hollande's response may well be just what they want.

And yes Hollande does look like Bush in 2001. And we all know that went wrong. The problem is that ISIS are going to provoke and provoke until they get the response. Had Hollande given a speech to the effect that France must guard against over-reaction and pursue diplomatic ends he would have almost guaranteed another atrocity from ISIS (as well as being lynched by the French). So I am going to both say that you are right @Perados and that therefore Hollande is wrong, and also that Hollande's response was the best possible in the circumstances and therefore Hollande is right.

Politicians are put in a position where the best possible response is nonetheless wrong. In effect politicians select between wrong decisions, in a circumstance where doing nothing is also wrong. They are put in a position where every single decision is morally wrong, and in war they are put in a position where every single decision they can possibly make is criminal. This is the lesson the world has to learn.

The really clever way for France to deal with the problem is to find an alternative to a direct attack on ISIS. France has a history of involvement in Syria (which was a French mandate). A solution to Syria has to be getting rid of both Assad and ISIS, and the biggest obstacle for a solution is Russia. Therefore a clever French response would be a diplomatic offensive against Russia. I'm guessing we might see this.

By the way Izvestia (Russian newspaper) has today said France provoked the attack and is therefore to blame.

 

[rbkwp]

will say one thing
dont think because they have successfully had a 2nd go at Frtance that any of the other Eu countries wont be attacked or affected by whomever
Fance may only be the start?
pity whatever country comes under a simililar attack, thats for sure
complacenc is pure idiocy
theres terror in itself

1/4 of a million Syrians killed in 4 years!

 

[Snakebyte]

if the people of Germany put pressure on Merkel to do something about the initial opening of Germanys borders, as you have sayd
then she must act, perhaps without her peoples prompts/or indeed before they say, enougthy is ejnough'
because its obviously getting out of hand, as was expected, by me anyway ha
i am surprised the leaders of the rest of the Eu havent had the guts to say much, or have they
do you knoiw pera ..

Thing is, in reality Merkel loned it. It was neither requested by the Germans nor backed by the political base. Don't believe everything that guy is telling you.

 

[Perados]

@Jason...
Just remember Norway.
Their response to the terror attack done by Brievik done in 2011 was the best a society could give.
No increase of security, no military action, no new laws...
But a clear statement "we are and will be a free and liberal society".

In the same case do we have to react now.
We have to bear it! Yes, it is very likely that there will be even more terror, but we will have to bear it!
This is the only way to show even the most ignorant and most stupid extremist that we aren't the problem.

To respons with violence won't solve anything. It will be hard to do "nothing", but we will have to bear it.

 

[Boobalaa]

I concur, besides the classic "Victimhood cliche'" ..We are targeted for Who We Are", is right out of the
Zionist's playbook, which excuses the victims of any wrong doing because they are only defending themselves against "the evils of terrorism" and any other iteration there of.
On the flip side, which is often ignored, and never asked by a reporter at a press conference; "Well if they target us for who we are, then, How Are "We" positive this is the reason, unless "We" know something and are fooling ourselves and playing dumb?
Who else are "We" trying to fool besides ourselves?
Who/What made "the target on us in the first place". Did "We" ?

 

[798686]

What horrifies me more than anything is the largely American (well... completely American) suggestion that this wouldn't have happened if everyone had been armed to the teeth.

This, of course, is absolute bollocks. A situation where the aggressors had no guns would be far better - and arming everyone else makes the situation worse not better.

It's similar to the statement I heard the other day, that the holocaust would never have happened if the Jews had a personal stash of handguns. Sigh. I can't even. :/

 

[rbkwp]

yes Joll
said earlier the gun sales have likely gone up, gun manufacturerts increased there output etc
F'nj ridiculous ..

Don't believe everything that guy is telling you.

independant thinker here
dont need to belioeve on anyone, have enough of a problem interpretingg media, western iin particular
sort of accept other sources are likelyhas just as much crap content ha'

 

[Drifterwood]

I concur, besides the classic "Victimhood cliche'" ..We are targeted for Who We Are", is right out of the
Zionist's playbook, which excuses the victims of any wrong doing because they are only defending themselves against "the evils of terrorism" and any other iteration there of.
On the flip side, which is often ignored, and never asked by a reporter at a press conference; "Well if they target us for who we are, then, How Are "We" positive this is the reason, unless "We" know something and are fooling ourselves and playing dumb?
Who else are "We" trying to fool besides ourselves?
Who/What made "the target on us in the first place". Did "We" ?

People like you tried to cover up the murder of two million people in Cambodia.

 

[Boobalaa]

Okidoke....so your point is..an accusation..What I ask is an explanation for your accusation..its just like "A link should support your point..not be your point"

Besides, Why does the phrase People like you, matter ? Have I offended your sensibilities, morals, virtues? What are the reasons for your accusation?

 

[alcor972]

I'm not sure if I accept that, but I found an interesting article that supports your claim: Graham E. Fuller, "A World Without Islam," Foreign Policy, October 8, 2009.

This, then, is the portrait of a putative "world without Islam." It is a Middle East dominated by Eastern Orthodox Christianity — a church historically and psychologically suspicious of, even hostile to, the West. Still riven by major ethnic and even sectarian differences, it possesses a fierce sense of historical consciousness and grievance against the West. It has been invaded repeatedly by Western imperialist armies; its resources commandeered; borders redrawn by Western fiat in conformity with its various interests; and regimes established that are compliant with Western dictates. Palestine would still burn. Iran would still be intensely nationalistic. We would still see Palestinians resist Jews, Chechens resist Russians, Iranians resist the British and Americans, Kashmiris resist Indians, Tamils resist the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, and Uighurs and Tibetans resist the Chinese. The Middle East would still have a glorious historical model — the great Byzantine Empire of more than 2,000 years’ standing — with which to identify as a cultural and religious symbol. It would, in many respects,perpetuate an East-West divide.​

…

Wow the extract you’ve posted yesterday has induced on me cool reasoning today, Calboner… lol.

… The author actually asks what would the Middle East be if Constantinople/Istanbul hasn’t fallen…

Wow my imagination is very stimulated… because the fall of Constantinople seems being such an important event for historians… that it is sometimes considered as the frontier between the Middle Age and the Modern Times…

… But not all the point of views give that role to Constantinople… lol… Others say that the end of the Middle Age is the end of the Spanish Reconquista with the Grenada fall… which can be associated with the Christoper Colombus travels in the Caribbean… as both those acts have been realized under the queen Isabel and king Ferdinand reign…

Have you got a preference between those two possibilities, Calboner?... lol

Or are there another possibilities to separate the Middle Age from the Modern Times?...

For me… I would choose… lol… err…

…

…

…

Lol…

I don’t know… Actually it seems just a controversy between the European and Arab/Islamic civilizations… The first solution gives the first role to the Muslims who conquered definitely the Eastern Roman Empire… whereas the second solution gives the first role to the European who succeeded in definitely keeping their continent free from the political Muslim influence…

The answer must be a mix between those two solutions…The Middle Age ended gradually at the end of the 15th century as the European and Muslim civilizations found some equilibrium/consensus in their areas of influence…

Anyway, thank you, Calboner, for having made me somewhat imagine cool things today about that era…

I’ve found two paintings illustrating the two events…

… the end of Constantinople… by the painter Benjamin Constant

… Christoper Colombus return to Spain after his first trip to the Caribbean Islands… I haven’t found the painter’s name… sorry.

 

[Calboner]

I think you have to take Fuller's arguments with a sizable grain of salt. Counterfactual claims are inherently speculative--that is, factually undecidable--and the further that the hypothesis is from reality, the emptier the claim. There is an old saying, by way of parody of such claims: "If my grandmother had two wheels, she'd be a bicycle." In this case, we are supposed to imagine a history of the world without Islam. I think that goes pretty far into two-wheeled grandmother territory.

Where I think the writer has a plausible claim is his argument that factors of ethnic and political conflict in the Middle East, and conflicts of interest between the peoples and states of that part of the world and those of the West, are by themselves enough to predict violent conflict between them and us in some form or other. But I am not persuaded that the conflict would be as bloody, persistent, and intractable without the cause of Islam.