French Terrorist Attacks

[ONeill]

The figure is still small compared with London, where each citizen is caught on average several hundred times a day. Britain has about four million closed-circuit security cameras compared with France's 340,000.

This is from a few years ago. I wonder has much changed.

[Milltown Row2]

The passport thing could relate to just having ID and not being suspicious if ask leading up to these attacks or part of a deliberate plan to have their identity known right away

[moysider]

How did this happen if a few of the killers were known by the authorities?

Even if we're talking about 1000 suspects, surely every move they make is monitored.

Are we talking about tens of thousands?

Easy. Unless you lock up every suspect in a Guantanamo Bay type detention camp what to do?
We re familiar with interment ourselves. You would be better placed to know if that was a good idea?

There is a huge clash of law culture here. A potential terrorist and the local burglar/drug dealer gets the same benefit of being presumed innocent until something bad happens.
These IS soldiers have carte blanche to wreck havoc and plenty opportunity to do so. They must be having a laugh. US got a lot of grief for Guantanamo Bay and it looked very ugly indeed.
Merkel, Hollande, Cameron etc. have to keep their people safe. That is the bottom line. We can beat ourselves up over history and legacy of colonialism, but there's no turning back the clock. Current issues have to be addressed.

[Rossfan]

So do we make Muslims wear a big star and crescent and "resettle" them?
Do we put 20% of the population in police forces?
Or maybe we could stop interfering in sovereign States whose rulers we don't like.

[moysider]

The passport thing could relate to just having ID and not being suspicious if ask leading up to these attacks or part of a deliberate plan to have their identity known right away

True. Reports that at least one Stade bomber was refused entry to Stade because security had doubts about him.
That makes sense. Why blow youself up outside if you can make a bigger impact inside and take out more?
Especially on live tv with the French President in attendance!
Time to get real about this.

[ONeill]

How did this happen if a few of the killers were known by the authorities?

Even if we're talking about 1000 suspects, surely every move they make is monitored.

Are we talking about tens of thousands?

Easy. Unless you lock up every suspect in a Guantanamo Bay type detention camp what to do?
We re familiar with interment ourselves. You would be better placed to know if that was a good idea?

Hmm. You seem to be a bit out of touch in terms of secret service intelligence.

[muppet]

How did this happen if a few of the killers were known by the authorities?

Even if we're talking about 1000 suspects, surely every move they make is monitored.

Are we talking about tens of thousands?

Easy. Unless you lock up every suspect in a Guantanamo Bay type detention camp what to do?
We re familiar with interment ourselves. You would be better placed to know if that was a good idea?

There is a huge clash of law culture here. A potential terrorist and the local burglar/drug dealer gets the same benefit of being presumed innocent until something bad happens.
These IS soldiers have carte blanche to wreck havoc and plenty opportunity to do so. They must be having a laugh. US got a lot of grief for Guantanamo Bay and it looked very ugly indeed.
Merkel, Hollande, Cameron etc. have to keep their people safe. That is the bottom line. We can beat ourselves up over history and legacy of colonialism, but there's no turning back the clock. Current issues have to be addressed.

I would see Guantanamo as less of a solution and more of a cause.

[Tony Baloney]

How did this happen if a few of the killers were known by the authorities?

Even if we're talking about 1000 suspects, surely every move they make is monitored.

Are we talking about tens of thousands?

Easy. Unless you lock up every suspect in a Guantanamo Bay type detention camp what to do?
We re familiar with interment ourselves. You would be better placed to know if that was a good idea?

Hmm. You seem to be a bit out of touch in terms of secret service intelligence.

The name's O'Neill...

[whitey]

So do we make Muslims wear a big star and crescent and "resettle" them?
Do we put 20% of the population in police forces?
Or maybe we could stop interfering in sovereign States whose rulers we don't like.

Anyone who travels to join ISIS permanently barred from returning to EU.

Put their immediate and extended family members under enhanced observation.

House arrest for hate preachers.

Stuttering of Mosques that encourage Jihad

That would be a start.....time to take the gloves off

[moysider]

So do we make Muslims wear a big star and crescent and "resettle" them?
Do we put 20% of the population in police forces?
Or maybe we could stop interfering in sovereign States whose rulers we don't like.

No, no and no.

What do you suggest Rossfan? Put up with regular bombings in London, Madrid and Paris? Soak it up for past sins of colonialism?

The third no. Were you happy with the Taliban's vision of things? Are you happy with no interference with Janjaweed or Nigerian schoolgirls being abducted for 'wives' for 'soldiers?

Sovereign states my hole! they never existed in the first place!

The border between Pakistan and India was drawn up by an engineer in a shed pouring over a map. The 'border' went through villages and towns. The result of Britain's quick exit from India was at least 1 million deaths.

There is a responsibility now for developed countries to stabilise the region. It wont be nice but it has to be done.
The vast majority of Muslims who are good people will benefit most.

[moysider]

How did this happen if a few of the killers were known by the authorities?

Even if we're talking about 1000 suspects, surely every move they make is monitored.

Are we talking about tens of thousands?

Easy. Unless you lock up every suspect in a Guantanamo Bay type detention camp what to do?
We re familiar with interment ourselves. You would be better placed to know if that was a good idea?

Hmm. You seem to be a bit out of touch in terms of secret service intelligence.

[/b]

Hmmm. It didn t seem to work to well in France did it

Just after watching a French security expert on Sky being amazed by the expertise of the perpetrators.
Ffs, they were being monitored!!
They were hardly high-tec either!!!
Kalashnikovs, grenades and suicide belts!
Obviously effective but not exactly cutting edge.
Not like France were not a prime target. Their intelligence and intervention strategies let them down. Hollande's reputation is in tatters as well. He has presided over his capital being destroyed by terror X2. It's serious.

[muppet]

I didn't know whether to post this here, or on the recent religious thread as an example to Tony Fearon of people constantly re-working 'Scripture' to suit themselves.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/11/14/after-the-paris-attacks-heres-how-to-think-about-the-relationship-between-isis-and-islam/?tid=ss_tw

The horrific terrorist attacks in Paris on Friday night have sparked yet another debate about the Islamic State and Islam. The question boils down to this:Does Islamic scripture justify the violent actions of ISIS?

It's worth noting at the outset that Islamic scripture is vast. It's not just the Koran; it includes many statements later attributed to Muhammad, the founder of Islam, by his followers. Muslim scholars debate the authenticity of these scriptures like Christian scholars debate the authenticity of various passages in the Gospels.

Because the body of scripture is so large, it's full of contradictions. Christians, for example, are both praised as brethren and scorned as infidels. Different schools of thought proliferated in early Islam to make sense of the contradictions. The Islamic State belongs to one of the more austere of those schools, so it's already predisposed to intolerant readings of Islamic scripture.

Just as there are many passages in Islamic scripture that one could cite to justify religious intolerance, there are plenty more that justify violence. After all, Muhammad waged a war to establish a religious state. He fought infidels, assassinated rivals and executed prisoners. His career has a lot in common with the leaders of the ancient Hebrews, who established their own religious state.

Still, Muhammad was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. He could be lenient with his adversaries, make truces with his enemies and collaborate with the infidels for the common good.

The Islamic State elides these parts of Muhammad's career or argues that they don't apply today; its enemies are simply too powerful or too ruthless. The best example of this is the burning of the Jordanian pilot. Muhammad expressly forbade the burning of apostates, which is what the Islamic State labeled him.

Recognizing the contradiction, the Islamic State pointed to other scriptures where Muhammad endorsed retaliating against your enemies with the same sort of violence they used against you. The Jordanians dropped bombs on Islamic State targets, so ISIS had the right to incinerate one of Jordan's pilots. If one scripture doesn't justify ISIS's violence, the Islamic State will find another one.

Which brings us to the attacks in Paris.

The Islamic State claims that the attacks are justified by scripture, but most Muslims claim they are not. As someone who's spent most of his adult life studying Islamic scripture and the career of Muhammad, I find it implausible that Muhammad would have sanctioned such attacks were he alive today; he made too many pronouncements against attacking noncombatants.

Then again, the Islamic State can point to passages in scripture and incidents in Muhammad's life to make the case.

Ultimately, it's for Muslims to decide whether the Islamic State is being faithful to scripture. For the nonbelievers, it's enough to recognize that Islamic scripture is contradictory when it comes to violence and to rejoice that most Muslims makes sense of these contradictions in a very different way than ISIS.

[muppet]

This is well worth a read as well. It hits a very uncomfortable nail bang on the head. I am certainly guilty of accusation made, namely why are we not sympathising with the innocent dead of Beirut as well?

http://stateofmind13.com/2015/11/14/from-beirut-this-is-paris-in-a-world-that-doesnt-care-about-arab-lives/

[moysider]

I didn't know whether to post this here, or on the recent religious thread as an example to Tony Fearon of people constantly re-working 'Scripture' to suit themselves.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/11/14/after-the-paris-attacks-heres-how-to-think-about-the-relationship-between-isis-and-islam/?tid=ss_tw

The horrific terrorist attacks in Paris on Friday night have sparked yet another debate about the Islamic State and Islam. The question boils down to this:Does Islamic scripture justify the violent actions of ISIS?

It's worth noting at the outset that Islamic scripture is vast. It's not just the Koran; it includes many statements later attributed to Muhammad, the founder of Islam, by his followers. Muslim scholars debate the authenticity of these scriptures like Christian scholars debate the authenticity of various passages in the Gospels.

Because the body of scripture is so large, it's full of contradictions. Christians, for example, are both praised as brethren and scorned as infidels. Different schools of thought proliferated in early Islam to make sense of the contradictions. The Islamic State belongs to one of the more austere of those schools, so it's already predisposed to intolerant readings of Islamic scripture.

Just as there are many passages in Islamic scripture that one could cite to justify religious intolerance, there are plenty more that justify violence. After all, Muhammad waged a war to establish a religious state. He fought infidels, assassinated rivals and executed prisoners. His career has a lot in common with the leaders of the ancient Hebrews, who established their own religious state.

Still, Muhammad was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. He could be lenient with his adversaries, make truces with his enemies and collaborate with the infidels for the common good.

The Islamic State elides these parts of Muhammad's career or argues that they don't apply today; its enemies are simply too powerful or too ruthless. The best example of this is the burning of the Jordanian pilot. Muhammad expressly forbade the burning of apostates, which is what the Islamic State labeled him.

Recognizing the contradiction, the Islamic State pointed to other scriptures where Muhammad endorsed retaliating against your enemies with the same sort of violence they used against you. The Jordanians dropped bombs on Islamic State targets, so ISIS had the right to incinerate one of Jordan's pilots. If one scripture doesn't justify ISIS's violence, the Islamic State will find another one.

Which brings us to the attacks in Paris.

The Islamic State claims that the attacks are justified by scripture, but most Muslims claim they are not. As someone who's spent most of his adult life studying Islamic scripture and the career of Muhammad, I find it implausible that Muhammad would have sanctioned such attacks were he alive today; he made too many pronouncements against attacking noncombatants.

Then again, the Islamic State can point to passages in scripture and incidents in Muhammad's life to make the case.

Ultimately, it's for Muslims to decide whether the Islamic State is being faithful to scripture. For the nonbelievers, it's enough to recognize that Islamic scripture is contradictory when it comes to violence and to rejoice that most Muslims makes sense of these contradictions in a very different way than ISIS.

I suspect that most Muslims would take out Islamic State themselves. They are the David Koresh Waco version of Islam that have managed to establish themselves in a dysfunctional time and place. They have to eliminated for the sake of everybody.

[foxcommander]

This is nothing to do with immigration.

Of course it does. Stop deluding yourself. This is the result of immigration from years ago.
The seeds of the next phase of immigration issues are being sewn right now. And the liberal idiots of Europe are waving flags welcoming them to their countries. Fools.

I wouldn't be surprised if one of the irish navy boats ferried one of the paris attackers over. There's always the chance they did.

What a great idea that was.