QuoteParis shootings in city centre and explosion at Stade de France
6 minutes ago
From the section Europe
Breaking News image
Gunmen have opened fire in several places in the French capital, Paris, causing several casualties, French media report.
At least one man opened fire with an automatic gun at the Cambodge restaurant in the 11th district.
Liberation newspaper reports four deaths. It also reports shootings near the Bataclan arts centre.
An explosion is also reported to have targeted a bar near Stade de France, where France were hosting Germany.
Reports say President Francois Hollande was watching the match and has been evacuated.
A BBC journalist at the Cambodge restaurant says he can see 10 people on the road either dead or seriously injured.
He says police have now arrived.
Shooting is said to be continuing.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34814203
Newspaper Liberation reports at least 18 dead. :(
A witness is reporting hearing gunshots nearby, some distance from the restaurant and the stadium. He says this was in the Rue de Charon (sp?) in the 11th and there were several sustained bursts, perhaps police engaging with a suspect.
:( here we go again.
Agence France-Presse (sounds official, never heard of them) reporting hostages taken at a concert hall.
https://twitter.com/AFP
Possible IS revenge for today's setbacks in Iraq/Syria with the loss of Sinjar town and the elimination of 'Jihadi John'
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2015, 04:44:22 PM
Possible IS revenge for today's setbacks in Iraq/Syria with the loss of Sinjar town and the elimination of 'Jihadi John'
This sounds reasonably well-planned out - you don't throw something like this together in a day.
Police confirm at least 18 killed.
A reputable French magazine/news journalist says:
QuoteAgnes Poirier
@AgnesCPoirier 5m
3 separate attacks in #Paris now. On going. Hostages at Bataclan theatre, shootout rue de Charonne, 3 explosions near Stade France.18 deads
Incidentally BB, how could you not have heard of AFP, famous, famous news agency/wire service. UK Reuters seem to be slow on this breaking news.
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2015, 04:50:09 PM
Police confirm at least 18 killed.
A reputable French magazine/news journalist says:
QuoteAgnes Poirier
@AgnesCPoirier 5m
3 separate attacks in #Paris now. On going. Hostages at Bataclan theatre, shootout rue de Charonne, 3 explosions near Stade France.18 deads
Incidentally BB, how could you not have heard of AFP, famous, famous news agency/wire service. UK Reuters seem to be slow on this breaking news.
Because I can't speak or read French. :mellow:
Theater is where Eagles of Death Metal :( were playing apparently.
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2015, 05:06:34 PM
Because I can't speak or read French. :mellow:
They're the 3rd largest news group in the world (behind Reuters and AP, I think?), and they're sourced by many media in English and German as well.
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2015, 04:43:50 PM
Agence France-Presse (sounds official, never heard of them) reporting hostages taken at a concert hall.
https://twitter.com/AFP
Really? AFP is one the biggest news agency in the world. Top 3 along with AP & Reuters.
Beatean by 50 seconds.
Well now folks, there are worse things in the world than BB not having heard of AFP.
say goodbye to Schengen.
Yeah, AFP is comparable to Reuters.
I hope the French will go Vandee on islamist asses.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2015, 05:14:36 PM
Well now folks, there are worse things in the world than BB not having heard of AFP.
Yes.
Who are the attackers?
Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2015, 05:18:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2015, 05:17:30 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 13, 2015, 05:16:18 PM
say goodbye to Schengen.
What's the connection?
Crazy Ivan doesn't like Schengen.
If certain Schengen countries are not enforcing border security then it becomes far less attractive to the other members of the area.
Of course France has a plentiful supply of Mahgrebi Methodists of its own, no need to get them from fellow Schengen members.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 13, 2015, 05:16:18 PM
say goodbye to Schengen.
Not only has not enough time passed to start discussing the implications of this, but it's literally going on at this very moment.
Lets just keep hoping and praying for those hostages.
OK, I can see how Ivan's point could make sense if he's talking about Muslim crazies legally living in France traveling to other Schengen countries to shoot people up.
Number of dead now reported as at least 35. :(
Also around 100 people taken as hostages.
This fucking sucks. Poor people. :(
Friday night in Paris, a footie match, concert, people going to a restaurant :(
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2015, 05:33:49 PM
Friday night in Paris, a footie match, concert, people going to a restaurant :(
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. :(
Bad joke inside. Don't read if you are easily offended. :Embarrass:
[spoiler]Of course, this being Friday the 13th, this could be fucking Templars.[/spoiler]
This is horrible, all those people and it's not even over yet :(
Some Polish media are reporting at least 60 dead. I hope this is not true. :(
I hate Muslims.
:o :weep:
Italian media are reporting about 60 dead, 100 hostages, with some victims hit by bullets shot at random from cars running around the city.
W.T.F.
L.
Hollande has declared a state of emergency and closed France's borders.
Quote from: Pedrito on November 13, 2015, 06:01:05 PM
Italian media are reporting about 60 dead, 100 hostages, with some victims hit by bullets shot at random from cars running around the city.
W.T.F.
L.
This is goddamn insane.
This is madness.
Reports of gunfire within the theatre were the hostages are held.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2015, 05:59:27 PM
I hate Muslims.
Damn. It's getting harder and harder not to, isn't it?
The EU summit on immigration is being held on Malta today. This is bound to affect the outcome.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2015, 06:01:43 PM
Hollande has declared a state of emergency and closed France's borders.
Damn, had clients from Paris visiting Warsaw earlier this week, was on the phone with them this evening/afternoon. This is insanity.
Reports of shoots fired inside a mall in central Paris.
Quote
BREAKING: Another shooting reported in Paris, at Les Halles shopping mall: Europe 1 Radio
by cassandra.garrison 10:36 PM
This will have huge political ramifications. On everything from Britain's EU in/out referendum, to Euroskeptics around the union, to countries already leery of accepting Syrian refugees.
It appears the hostage takers have explosives on them and reloaded 3 times whilemachine-gunning the crowd before taking the survivors hostage
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2015, 06:05:55 PM
Reports of shoots fired inside a mall in central Paris.
Les Halles, yes. It's like Paris's Covent Garden.
Quote from: Tamas on November 13, 2015, 06:09:41 PM
It appears the hostage takers have explosives on them and reloaded 3 times whilemachine-gunning the crowd before taking the survivors hostage
Fuck. :cry:
It's a death metal concert, so probably lots of kids.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2015, 06:01:43 PM
Hollande has declared a state of emergency and closed France's borders.
He's growing some balls at last... So is it clear whether or not Muslims are involved?
G.
Quote from: Grallon on November 13, 2015, 06:13:32 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2015, 06:01:43 PM
Hollande has declared a state of emergency and closed France's borders.
He's growing some balls at last... So is it clear whether or not Muslims are involved?
G.
Not yet but I would be surprised if it was anyone else.
Let's await some facts. It's not like Islam is the only death cult in recent history. The Irish, Communists, etc...
Quote from: Grallon on November 13, 2015, 06:13:32 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2015, 06:01:43 PM
Hollande has declared a state of emergency and closed France's borders.
He's growing some balls at last... So is it clear whether or not Muslims are involved?
G.
The only thing I have heard is that there were shouts of "Allahu Akbar" at the theatre..............plus there are not really any other suspects doing the rounds in Western Europe atm.
Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2015, 06:14:37 PM
Quote from: Grallon on November 13, 2015, 06:13:32 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2015, 06:01:43 PM
Hollande has declared a state of emergency and closed France's borders.
He's growing some balls at last... So is it clear whether or not Muslims are involved?
G.
Not yet but I would be surprised if it was anyone else.
German news had reports of terrorists shouting "alahu akbar" while opening fire.
Explosions and shooting heard in the last 20 minutes from the concert hall
I think the police's hand will be forced and they'll have to go into the music venue to stop more killings.
edit:
Just seen this on France24 within the last few minutes, reports of gunfire and explosions (possibly stun/concussion grenades) from area of music hall.
:mad:
Quote from: Tamas on November 13, 2015, 06:24:05 PM
Explosions and shooting heard in the last 20 minutes from the concert hall
I heard 6 explosions live on tv, that's, well, that's terrible.
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2015, 06:25:19 PM
I think the police's hand will be forced and they'll have to go into the music venue to stop more killings.
edit:
Just seen this on France24 within the last few minutes, reports of gunfire and explosions (possibly stun/concussion grenades) from area of music hall.
There is a report of a journalist making it out alive of a concert hall. Apparently, they are shooting the hostages one after another.
I am seriously evaluating my stance on immigration atm, btw.
Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2015, 06:32:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2015, 06:25:19 PM
I think the police's hand will be forced and they'll have to go into the music venue to stop more killings.
edit:
Just seen this on France24 within the last few minutes, reports of gunfire and explosions (possibly stun/concussion grenades) from area of music hall.
There is a report of a journalist making it out alive of a concert hall. Apparently, they are shooting the hostages one after another.
I am seriously evaluating my stance on immigration atm, btw.
Why?
Police are mounting an assault on the venue.
edit:
French security sources confirm 7 separate attacks.
Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2015, 06:32:20 PM
I am seriously evaluating my stance on immigration atm, btw.
Let's not fight but I think your energies, if directed towards self-focused thoughts would be better aimed at why you jump so quickly to hate on wide swathes of people. Why you generalise to the extreme.
The guardian has a pretty good live feed :
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/13/shootings-reported-in-eastern-paris-live
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2015, 06:38:23 PM
The guardian has a pretty good live feed :
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/13/shootings-reported-in-eastern-paris-live
Yeah as much as looking at any source is 'good', they've been the English language source I've been looking at.
Quote from: garbon on November 13, 2015, 06:37:12 PM
Let's not fight but I think your energies, if directed towards self-focused thoughts would be better aimed at why you jump so quickly to hate on wide swathes of people. Why you generalise to the extreme.
Reconsidering one's stance on immigration is not becoming a neo-nazi... Or is that too difficult to grasp? :rolleyes:
G.
let's wait tomorrow to have that debate, in seperate thread.
Quote from: garbon on November 13, 2015, 06:39:35 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2015, 06:38:23 PM
The guardian has a pretty good live feed :
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/13/shootings-reported-in-eastern-paris-live
Yeah as much as looking at any source is 'good', they've been the English language source I've been looking at.
Good as in the Guardian has strong links with their Parisian equivalents...........their feed has been far more informative than the BBC's so far.
Pictures.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2015%2F11%2F13%2F22%2F2E6C84E600000578-3317776-At_least_26_people_have_been_killed_and_at_least_seven_wounded_i-a-72_1447454685720.jpg&hash=09421b538a8d61484ea38faf77618147b911180f)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2015%2F11%2F13%2F22%2F2E6C8B2C00000578-3317776-Bodies_litter_the_streets_of_a_Paris_alley_after_a_string_of_ter-a-74_1447454685806.jpg&hash=b5786449a98ef94628f82d6e47fda1fb5a09046d)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2015%2F11%2F13%2F22%2F2E6C9FD000000578-3317776-Victims_lay_on_the_pavement_outside_Paris_restaurant_following_a-a-62_1447454685402.jpg&hash=a6836c979396977ff9416c64e1bd5edfa46d7865)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2015%2F11%2F13%2F23%2F2E6CE23100000578-3317776-image-a-1_1447455748434.jpg&hash=ef6076960c252150313cd296ca30d6310cb88fc2)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3317776/Machine-gun-fire-heard-central-Paris-police-flood-scene-not-far-Charlie-Hebdo-shootings.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3317776/Machine-gun-fire-heard-central-Paris-police-flood-scene-not-far-Charlie-Hebdo-shootings.html)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2015, 06:44:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 13, 2015, 06:39:35 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2015, 06:38:23 PM
The guardian has a pretty good live feed :
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/13/shootings-reported-in-eastern-paris-live
Yeah as much as looking at any source is 'good', they've been the English language source I've been looking at.
Good as in the Guardian has strong links with their Parisian equivalents...........their feed has been far more informative than the BBC's so far.
Oh I didn't mean to be critical of your use of good. :blush:
Quote from: viper37 on November 13, 2015, 06:44:30 PM
let's wait tomorrow to have that debate, in seperate thread.
Yeah, I'm not touching that. :hug:
Looks like cops storming concert venue.
Here's the issue, I do not think you can just say "these are a small number of extremists, you cannot judge broadly" and just rely on the numbers. Yes, there are over a billion Muslims, yes, only a super small percentage carry out terrorist attacks. But the problem is that these attacks are largely glorified, to a degree not seen really with anything else in the modern world, in the broader Muslim world. Are they glorified by all Muslims? Of course not. But they're glorified by a very concerning percentage, based on the reactions we've seen to these attacks around the world.
Like how many anti-immigrant Christians celebrated Breivik's massacre? Maybe like 100 people, across all of Europe. How many Muslims around the world celebrated 9/11? The Charlie Hebdo attack? The 3/11 attacks in Spain? Etc. Muslim youth are enthralled by videos the jihadists put out, and while only a small portion of them will actually radicalize and become violent there's a serious, international cultural problem going on. It's not just limited to Muslim hell hole warzone countries like Syria and Iraq. You're seeing thousands of Muslims come from stable and moderate Muslim countries in Southeast Asia to fight in jihad in the Middle East. You're seeing British Muslims in concerning numbers radicalize and go to the Middle East on jihad, this is gravely concerning behavior and crosses national and ethnic boundaries.
It's not as simple as just saying "only a few are killing people." In the 1920s only a few small percentage of Southerners put on white bedsheets and started lynching blacks. But how many "respectable" Southerners quietly cheered them on? How many would serve on juries that acquitted even the most blatant murderers? How many didn't cheer, but quietly supported them? How many didn't care enough to speak out against it? No one questions there were profound problems with Southern society in regards to race in that era, because no one naively says that "only a small number ever lynched blacks or joined the Klan", it's recognized the Klan was the tip of a spear that represented a gravely immoral and unacceptable cultural ethos in the Southern states during that time.
NP garbon.
I only looked at the news on the offchance, was planning on a major LOTRO session
Possible good news, a CNN producer near the concert hall reports police bringing out first around 100 people, then another group of 20 out and then a single injured young man, CNN went on to discuss/conjecture the gunman still holding another dozen people.
My fear is the producer might have been seeing groups of people in nearby buildings being led to safety rather than those from the concert.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2015, 06:49:21 PM
NP garbon.
I only looked at the news on the offchance, was planning on a major LOTRO session
I know I'm kicking myself that I looked at the news. -_-
There's some reports the police are visibly "less tense" at the concert hall. I can only speculate if that's the case they must have eyes on the dead attackers inside.
Reuters saying concert hall operation over, two attackers killed
I was at the Cinémathèque for a B-movie night with Charles Bronson, with the second movie quite on the right side of the political spectrum. As I left behind the cinema screen, first news came of the attacks by people checking their cell phones. The Cinémathèque has Wi-fi and I switched on my mobile phone after switching it off during the movie. Then came SMS and some calls from people I know asking where I was or if I was home...
As to Les Halles mall it is right by the biggest transportation hub in Paris/Île de France with 6 metro lines, and 3 RER/S-Bahn/express suburban lines. Returned home through since trains were still rolling.
It was a good time to say on the rive gauche (left bank of the Seine).
The Bataclan is quite a famous concert venue in Paris, mostly pop, rock, metal and the like. Not one of the biggest though, room for 1500 people.
Three terrorists dead according to French TV LCI (news channel).
Seems there were suicide attacks at the Stade of France, mass untargeted attacks to kill as much as possible, unlike the ones in January (Charlie Hebdo Journalists and Jews).
edit for the location of the suicide attacks
Thanks for that Duque, I was wondering if you were in town and if so safe.
Terrible news :(
IS has blown up a Russian plane, bombed Beirut and attacked Paris within the last two weeks. How long until they strike at America?
Monday's Breaking News:
Quote
Millions of people get up and go to work in Paris.
Tuesday's Breaking News:
Quote
Millions of people get up and go to work in Paris.
Wednesday's Breaking News:
Quote
Millions of people get up and go to work in Paris.
Thursday's Breaking News:
Quote
Millions of people get up and go to work in Paris.
Friday's Breaking News:
Quote
Millions of people get up and go to work in Paris.
..................................................
Terrible what is happening in Paris. My thoughts and condolences go out to those in France. This is a very devastating and upsetting time for all. :(
Quote from: Josephus on November 13, 2015, 06:58:03 PM
Reuters saying concert hall operation over, two attackers killed
From BBC:
AFP quotes police sources as saying about 100 people have been killed in the Bataclan concert venue.
The French channel iTele, quoting un-named officials at the Bataclan, earlier said there were "dozens" of fatalities inside the club.
Dear god. :(
Quote from: Malicious Intent on November 13, 2015, 07:18:33 PM
Quote from: Josephus on November 13, 2015, 06:58:03 PM
Reuters saying concert hall operation over, two attackers killed
From BBC:
AFP quotes police sources as saying about 100 people have been killed in the Bataclan concert venue.
The French channel iTele, quoting un-named officials at the Bataclan, earlier said there were "dozens" of fatalities inside the club.
Dear god. :(
Aye the numbers will get a lot worse.
Quote from: Malicious Intent on November 13, 2015, 07:18:33 PM
Quote from: Josephus on November 13, 2015, 06:58:03 PM
Reuters saying concert hall operation over, two attackers killed
From BBC:
AFP quotes police sources as saying about 100 people have been killed in the Bataclan concert venue.
The French channel iTele, quoting un-named officials at the Bataclan, earlier said there were "dozens" of fatalities inside the club.
Dear god. :(
Just saw this. This is the biggest attack on the West since 9/11 :(
I heard reports of gunfire at the concert place, that social media from inside saying the terrorists were killing people. The police stormed the building, apparently capturing one of the attackers. Also heard that about 100 killed at the concert area, plus others killed at other locations. Terrible, what a horror.
The "Jungle" refugee camp in Calais has been set on fire, France and Europe is going to erupt from this.
So 7 attacks all in all including two explosions near the Stade de France. 41 dead confirmed, 60 more critically injured. Expect the number to increase a lot, a hundred is already predicted.
State of emergency issued by governement, this includes the closure of borders until further notice.
Schools and universities closed tomorrow in Île-de-France (beyond Greater Paris). People asked to stay at home.
8 metro stations closed, contradictory statements about metro lines closed. They stay open later on week-ends till 02 30 or so, post at CET 01 29.
100 people at the venue? Earlier reports indicated there were only around that number at the venue, so that implies just about everyone killed. :(
Venue can hold till 1500, don't know the attendance numbers of Eagles of Death Metal.
Hey if Raqqa is a radioactive crater when I wake up to tomorrow I'll pretend to never notice, mmkay France.
Ok, no, early reports said around 100 people were taken hostage, so I guess the hostages were all killed.
:cry:
Quote from: Liep on November 13, 2015, 07:30:30 PM
The "Jungle" refugee camp in Calais has been set on fire, France and Europe is going to erupt from this.
Any idea by whom?
140 dead...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2015, 07:37:01 PM
Quote from: Liep on November 13, 2015, 07:30:30 PM
The "Jungle" refugee camp in Calais has been set on fire, France and Europe is going to erupt from this.
Any idea by whom?
Twitter speculates it might be revenge from right wingers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2015, 07:37:01 PM
Quote from: Liep on November 13, 2015, 07:30:30 PM
The "Jungle" refugee camp in Calais has been set on fire, France and Europe is going to erupt from this.
Any idea by whom?
Possibly neonazi hooligans - this is not the first fire at a refugee camp in Europe in the recent weeks.
140 dead
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/13/shootings-reported-in-eastern-paris-live
I know this me being an armchair general, but the police should have stormed the building as soon as possible. You have to be prepared to lose cops to save civilians. Waiting an hour until you've got all your ducks in line is just not something you can do when dealing with these death cultists.
I think you are underestimating how "civilian" a city like Paris is.
Please shut up Tim.
Quote from: Josephus on November 13, 2015, 07:36:29 PM
Ok, no, early reports said around 100 people were taken hostage, so I guess the hostages were all killed.
:cry:
Reports did say that some people escaped, some of those escapees using social media, or so it's reported.
There was never a hostage* situation in the concert hall, they were just holding them whilst they worked their way through the most effecient way to kill as many of them as possible.
I think 'we'/the authorities have to move to something similar to the modern response by passengers to an airline hijack.
*people only become hostages once the attackers issue a series of demands/open negotiation with authorities, these sort of guys have no intentions of coming to a peaceful compromise
Very sad news. :(
Is it clear whether the attackers are all dead or could they still be at large?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2015, 07:42:47 PM
I think you are underestimating how "civilian" a city like Paris is.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here? :unsure:
Obviously only a fraction of a percent of the population are police, but given the size of the city that still adds up to thousands if not tens of thousands of officers .
Quote from: Zanza on November 13, 2015, 07:48:41 PM
Very sad news. :(
Is it clear whether the attackers are all dead or could they still be at large?
Yes, the leaders of these attackers would like to see some get away or copycat attacks to occur so it can extend the confusion and the public anxiety.
Trump is such a douche.
Quote from: Liep on November 13, 2015, 07:39:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2015, 07:37:01 PM
Quote from: Liep on November 13, 2015, 07:30:30 PM
The "Jungle" refugee camp in Calais has been set on fire, France and Europe is going to erupt from this.
Any idea by whom?
Twitter speculates it might be revenge from right wingers.
Likely, though there were also big riots inside the camp just a few days ago.
There was no "hostage" situation, the terrorists were just killing them asap, it took a while before French cops with sufficient firepower got there.
Quote from: katmai on November 13, 2015, 07:52:46 PM
Trump is such a douche.
Haven't heard what he said, but no doubt he's doubling down.
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2015, 07:54:24 PM
Quote from: katmai on November 13, 2015, 07:52:46 PM
Trump is such a douche.
Haven't heard what he said, but no doubt he's doubling down.
his twitter post
QuoteIsn't it interesting that the tragedy in Paris took place in one of the toughest gun control countries in the world?
Quote from: Zanza on November 13, 2015, 07:48:41 PM
Very sad news. :(
Is it clear whether the attackers are all dead or could they still be at large?
Good question. That's why the borders are closed. There could another team as well, as in January.
I heard on French TV the police captured a terrorist but it's unconfirmed, while now there is talk of four terrorists killed at the Bataclan.
As for civilian Paris this photo shows they called reinforcements from a police unit specialised in suburban (banlieue) criminality. BAC 94 (Brigade anti-criminalité Val-de-Marne close suburbs SE of Paris). Anti-terrorism is not their thing, thrashing suburban scum is their raison d'être.
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/2fb14581b7fca6dc580a68915f7f0566a134b5ad/0_0_3500_2424/master/3500.jpg?w=1920&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=d717142e490d6bbaa09729997dd076b8)
Quote from: katmai on November 13, 2015, 07:56:06 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2015, 07:54:24 PM
Quote from: katmai on November 13, 2015, 07:52:46 PM
Trump is such a douche.
Haven't heard what he said, but no doubt he's doubling down.
his twitter post
QuoteIsn't it interesting that the tragedy in Paris took place in one of the toughest gun control countries in the world?
Your next President?
The West needs to start taking real measures to stop this. The Arab muslim worlds needs to be set on fire, asap.
No, he won't even be the GOP nominee
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 13, 2015, 07:58:29 PM
The West needs to start taking real measures to stop this. The Arab muslim worlds needs to be set on fire, asap.
Ok grallon jr.
The bear has to stop letting himself be poke.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 13, 2015, 07:58:29 PM
The West needs to start taking real measures to stop this. The Arab muslim worlds needs to be set on fire, asap.
Do you not have the cart before horse:
Much of the Arab muslim world is on fire hence what's happening, as a consequence the West
and the surviving Arab governments need to start taking real measures to end the war in Syria, conquer IS in Iraq and Syria and extinquish the sources of radicalism in their state institutions and populations.
So, hotter fire?
Quote from: The Brain on November 13, 2015, 08:00:23 PM
We have almost no new information about Islam after these attacks. Why should we change the way we act regarding Islam?
I guess my question is what's our move? Before 9/11 the U.S.'s involvement in the Middle East, at least in terms of troops on the ground, wasn't very high. We had a presence in Saudi Arabia, obviously Turkey is a NATO country, and we supported Israel. This was enough to get 9/11. After 9/11 we've killed literally hundreds of thousands of Muslim jihadists, that has clearly not worked.
Do we simply accept that we'll always suffer terrorist attacks, because terrorists can easily take advantage of our free and open societies?
Do we retrench even more than pre-9/11? Meaning no support for Israel, not a single boot on the ground anywhere in the Middle East? I'm not sure that would matter--how many soldiers does France have in the Middle East? They're being targeted by their own Muslim immigrants. Do we stop letting Muslims move into our countries? Or do we just accept there's nothing we can do?
I genuinely have no answers, but I think if you look around various Western countries, I think we've seen a pretty wide spectrum of behaviors. You've had America's militant response on one end of the spectrum, to countries like Sweden or Norway which have taken a much different approach. Pretty much the entire spectrum of countries have also been the targets of terrorist attacks by Muslims.
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2015, 08:02:42 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 13, 2015, 07:58:29 PM
The West needs to start taking real measures to stop this. The Arab muslim worlds needs to be set on fire, asap.
Do you not have the cart before horse:
Much of the Arab muslim world is on fire hence what's happening, as a consequence the West and the surviving Arab governments need to start taking real measures to end the war in Syria, conquer IS in Iraq and Syria and extinquish the sources of radicalism in their state institutions and populations.
Something like that, agreed. IMO the biggest push needs to come from Arab/Muslim governments, not the US/west. The west can help with supplies, equipment, etc. but Islam needs to take the lead in sorting this stuff out. If the west takes on much of it then it's seen as outsiders meddling and provides more impetus for radicals to take action.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTvAuJ-UAAA_V03.jpg)
Map of the attacks. This was in the trendy Eastern Paris, lots of cafés, venues and lots of youths on a Friday night. The closest touristic sight is the Père-Lachaise cemetary. Eiffel Tower, Arc de Triomphe, Champs Elysées i.e the golden mile is out of the map. (west). Louvre museum as shown on the map is not far away, same goes for the Elysée palace (French presidency seat).
As for Saint-Denis, it's a notorious banlieue, though the stadium area is actually nice. French kings are buried in a not so nice area, not far from there.t
Hollande already showed up at the Bataclan and had a press conference to announce the state of emergency and other steps.
Two explosions were heard during the France-Germany football game by the audience at the Stade de France, and on TV as well it seems but nobody seems to have realised.
Quote from: KRonn on November 13, 2015, 08:27:08 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2015, 08:02:42 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 13, 2015, 07:58:29 PM
The West needs to start taking real measures to stop this. The Arab muslim worlds needs to be set on fire, asap.
Do you not have the cart before horse:
Much of the Arab muslim world is on fire hence what's happening, as a consequence the West and the surviving Arab governments need to start taking real measures to end the war in Syria, conquer IS in Iraq and Syria and extinquish the sources of radicalism in their state institutions and populations.
Something like that, agreed. IMO the biggest push needs to come from Arab/Muslim governments, not the US/west. The west can help with supplies, equipment, etc. but Islam needs to take the lead in sorting this stuff out. If the west takes on much of it then it's seen as outsiders meddling and provides more impetus for radicals to take action.
Indeed, though I've no idea how this can be achieved?
One short term aim, end the war in Syria, the West has to swallow a little pride viz Putin, force the other Arab countries to peace talks and end the fighting. If that means leaving Assad in power for a while longer so be it, but end the war asap, then set about killing the existing Jihadis and forcing them back into the shadows.
After that, how do you solve Iraq? it's nearly impossible.
And Afghanistan is verging on being a basket case.
According to some reports by survivors, attackers claimed their attacks were a payback for the French participation on the war vs Daesh in Syria.
That's possible, but weren't the first French airstrikes just in September? I suspect these guys were already planning this by that point.
Anyway, the only way to quickly end the Syrian war would be to get Assad, the FAS/non-ISIS rebels, and ISIS split the country up. Even then the ideology of the ISIS caliphate requires continuous expansion.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2015, 08:06:33 PM
...
Do we simply accept that we'll always suffer terrorist attacks, because terrorists can easily take advantage of our free and open societies?
...
It's too late for that - there are millions of them within our borders already; and with the Syrian crisis there are hundreds of thousands more on the way. Are they all blood thirsty jihadis? Of course not - yet as we are witnessing even now - all it takes are a few hundreds, well organized, and you'll keep having to live through that kind of nightmare.
But of course the apologists haven't begun their bleeting just yet - no doubt realizing they'd be shouted down at this point. But never fear, within the week we'll see and hear them explaining how this bloody mess really is the West's fault. They'll line up all sorts of justifications in a feeble attempt to alleviate the scope of what happened - and will go on happening.
The bile is rising up at the mere thought of the spectacle of their cowardly delusions.
G.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2015, 08:39:16 PM
That's possible, but weren't the first French airstrikes just in September? I suspect these guys were already planning this by that point.
Anyway, the only way to quickly end the Syrian war would be to get Assad, the FAS/non-ISIS rebels, and ISIS split the country up. Even then the ideology of the ISIS caliphate requires continuous expansion.
Well yes widespread ceasefires would amount to that, then we could have a 'great power' induced 'peace process' until one side gets the upper hand in a future conflict, rather like Croatia regained it's strenght and then went on the offensive. The trick would be to get the Syrian state and rebel groups to engage ISIS in a renewed conflict and make sure IS isn't one of the last two men standing.
I agree, if not for Syria and the infrequent French bombing runs, they would have claimed something else such as "French persecution of Muslims with their infidel secular laws" or some lingo like that.
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2015, 08:44:12 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2015, 08:39:16 PM
That's possible, but weren't the first French airstrikes just in September? I suspect these guys were already planning this by that point.
Anyway, the only way to quickly end the Syrian war would be to get Assad, the FAS/non-ISIS rebels, and ISIS split the country up. Even then the ideology of the ISIS caliphate requires continuous expansion.
Well yes widespread ceasefires would amount to that, then we could have a 'great power' induced 'peace process' until one side gets the upper hand in a future conflict, rather like Croatia regained it's strenght and then went on the offensive. The trick would be to get the Syrian state and rebel groups to engage ISIS in a renewed conflict and make sure IS isn't one of the last two men standing.
I don't see how your plan brings the Syrian war to a close anytime soon.
Just heard about this. Terrible. :mad: The whole world must stand with France today.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2015, 08:46:49 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2015, 08:44:12 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2015, 08:39:16 PM
That's possible, but weren't the first French airstrikes just in September? I suspect these guys were already planning this by that point.
Anyway, the only way to quickly end the Syrian war would be to get Assad, the FAS/non-ISIS rebels, and ISIS split the country up. Even then the ideology of the ISIS caliphate requires continuous expansion.
Well yes widespread ceasefires would amount to that, then we could have a 'great power' induced 'peace process' until one side gets the upper hand in a future conflict, rather like Croatia regained it's strenght and then went on the offensive. The trick would be to get the Syrian state and rebel groups to engage ISIS in a renewed conflict and make sure IS isn't one of the last two men standing.
I don't see how your plan brings the Syrian war to a close anytime soon.
So what does end the Syria war?
I mean it's as old as the Spanish civil war now.
Quote from: Grallon on November 13, 2015, 08:44:08 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2015, 08:06:33 PM
...
Do we simply accept that we'll always suffer terrorist attacks, because terrorists can easily take advantage of our free and open societies?
...
It's too late for that - there are millions of them within our borders already; and with the Syrian crisis there are hundreds of thousands more on the way. Are they all blood thirsty jihadis? Of course not - yet as we are witnessing even now - all it takes are a few hundreds, well organized, and you'll keep having to live through that kind of nightmare.
But of course the apologists haven't begun their bleeting just yet - no doubt realizing they'd be shouted down at this point. But never fear, within the week we'll see and hear them explaining how this bloody mess really is the West's fault. They'll line up all sorts of justifications in a feeble attempt to alleviate the scope of what happened - and will go on happening.
The bile is rising up at the mere thought of the spectacle of their cowardly delusions.
Just shut up Grallon, at least for one day.
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2015, 08:51:58 PM
Just shut up Grallon, at least for one day.
LOL, Wire Service Noob.
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2015, 08:49:25 PMSo what does end the Syria war?
I mean it's as old as the Spanish civil war now.
I dunno, I think that's hard to predict. I don't think anything ends it quickly short of a massive, similar in scale to the 2003 Iraq invasion, invasion of Syria by the United States and NATO allies and a follow up occupation. During said occupation we'd be fighting a vicious insurgency, but the "civil war" would be over.
Sri Lanka fought a civil war for like 35 years or something. There's no reason to assume the Syrian war ends in a generation. It could, though. I just don't pretend to have a crystal ball. Based on what I see right now, as long as Russia backs Assad he's going nowhere. As long as there is no serious opposition to them on the ground in their territory ISIS is going nowhere. So to me it looks like it'll be going on for awhile.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 13, 2015, 08:57:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2015, 08:51:58 PM
Just shut up Grallon, at least for one day.
LOL, Wire Service Noob.
And the prodigal non returns, Money glad to hear from you, how's things? :hug:
Just a reminder that the Paris prosecuter leading the investigation has said there are still assaliants on the loose.
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2015, 08:51:58 PM
Just shut up Grallon, at least for one day.
Is the clamor of your guilty conscience troubling you already?
Tell me, is this how you raise your children? Teaching them that shutting their eyes and averting their faces will make the monster go away?
The elephant is in the room BB - all of you should stop pretending it isn't!
* Glad to see you Money :)
G.
Seeing a large casualty spread. Many websites say 120~ dead, just as many more say 150~
Alway find it odd, that the firemen seen in tonight news footage are actually part of the French army and trained as soldiers was well as first aiders.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/BSPP_flag_Bastille_Day_2008.jpg/800px-BSPP_flag_Bastille_Day_2008.jpg)
This shit ruined my night.
To be paris is just another foreign city. But so many people here have connections and friends.there
Really Fucked up to have this kind of thing coming into real life.
Just recently heard the news. :(
My sister and her family are visiting Paris, just got word that they are fine.
The next newscaster who calls the Eagles of Death Metal a heavy metal band will feel the full fury of my twins psychic powers.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 13, 2015, 07:49:47 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2015, 07:42:47 PM
I think you are underestimating how "civilian" a city like Paris is.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here? :unsure:
Obviously only a fraction of a percent of the population are police, but given the size of the city that still adds up to thousands if not tens of thousands of officers .
I haven't followed the news on the intervention itself and live media reports are always chaotic, but, assuming there were 6 or 7 distinct attacks, that is 6 or 7 points where you need to gather your police force and even if there are tens of thousands of officers in Paris, they may not be all at work at this moment, they may be on the other side of the city, so it takes time gathering them all in this sector. Plus, you need police officers to keep civilians at bay, you need some to watch airpots, train stations, any other target of value.
And then we get to the hostage situation. So, I don't know if there was ever a real hostage situation that police believed in (I was watching an old Nordiques DVD with a friend, it seemed less depressing), but if they believed it was an hostage situation, certainly, they'd want to take measures to avoid civilian casualties. Storming in unprepared is usually a bad idea, as the Russians have proven.
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2015, 08:02:42 PM
Much of the Arab muslim world is on fire hence what's happening, as a consequence the West
Depends on how you look at it.
Quote
and the surviving Arab governments need to start taking real measures to end the war in Syria, conquer IS in Iraq and Syria and extinquish the sources of radicalism in their state institutions and populations.
Basically, you wait for the impossible.
Quote from: frunk on November 13, 2015, 10:13:32 PM
My sister and her family are visiting Paris, just got word that they are fine.
Good to hear that.
Quote from: Grallon on November 13, 2015, 09:10:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2015, 08:51:58 PM
Just shut up Grallon, at least for one day.
Is the clamor of your guilty conscience troubling you already?
Tell me, is this how you raise your children? Teaching them that shutting their eyes and averting their faces will make the monster go away?
The elephant is in the room BB - all of you should stop pretending it isn't!
* Glad to see you Money :)
G.
Well, we have at least one person cheering because of the attack.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 13, 2015, 08:33:44 PM
Hollande already showed up at the Bataclan and had a press conference to announce the state of emergency and other steps.
Two explosions were heard during the France-Germany football game by the audience at the Stade de France, and on TV as well it seems but nobody seems to have realised.
one of the player seemed to have heard it, but seeing that no one reacted, he kept playing.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 13, 2015, 10:16:38 PM
The next newscaster who calls the Eagles of Death Metal a heavy metal band will feel the full fury of my twins psychic powers.
I'm assuming they're actually a death metal band? :unsure:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 13, 2015, 10:33:16 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 13, 2015, 10:16:38 PM
The next newscaster who calls the Eagles of Death Metal a heavy metal band will feel the full fury of my twins psychic powers.
I'm assuming they're actually a death metal band? :unsure:
No.
Quote from: KRonn on November 13, 2015, 08:27:08 PM
Something like that, agreed. IMO the biggest push needs to come from Arab/Muslim governments, not the US/west. The west can help with supplies, equipment, etc. but Islam needs to take the lead in sorting this stuff out. If the west takes on much of it then it's seen as outsiders meddling and provides more impetus for radicals to take action.
on the other hand, most of them have no real incentive to act on their own. AQ and ISIS are attacking us, mostly. There's a few attacks over there, but I suspect they are of the same mentality as Assad: they can countain the threat by themselves and they have a bigger opponet: people calling for reforms.
Quote from: viper37 on November 13, 2015, 10:22:03 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2015, 08:02:42 PM
Much of the Arab muslim world is on fire hence what's happening, as a consequence the West
Depends on how you look at it.Quote
and the surviving Arab governments need to start taking real measures to end the war in Syria, conquer IS in Iraq and Syria and extinquish the sources of radicalism in their state institutions and populations.
Basically, you wait for the impossible.
You truncated the quote at the
and which I was stressing, has to be the West and those arab government, primarily the West using whatever leverage they have to get the Qatari,Saudis et al to change or throw them under a bus, preferable one what like a B52 running route 101 to downtown Riyadh. :)
QuoteAfter 9/11 we've killed literally hundreds of thousands of Muslim jihadists, that has clearly not worked.
Why hasn't it worked? Clearly, it's because we haven't killed enough of them yet. We just need to correct that.
Quote from: viper37 on November 13, 2015, 10:35:02 PM
Quote from: KRonn on November 13, 2015, 08:27:08 PM
Something like that, agreed. IMO the biggest push needs to come from Arab/Muslim governments, not the US/west. The west can help with supplies, equipment, etc. but Islam needs to take the lead in sorting this stuff out. If the west takes on much of it then it's seen as outsiders meddling and provides more impetus for radicals to take action.
on the other hand, most of them have no real incentive to act on their own. AQ and ISIS are attacking us, mostly. There's a few attacks over there, but I suspect they are of the same mentality as Assad: they can countain the threat by themselves and they have a bigger opponet: people calling for reforms.
Yeah true, but let's look at it this way. Radical Islam threatens all the Arab governments. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, and more. Those are the eventual targets especially as ISIS/AQ types get stronger. As ISIS gets stronger that may cause revolts by radicals in some of those nations serious enough to threaten them. So even though the radicals also attack the west, I think attacking the west and killing infidels gets them more visibility, brings in more volunteers, but they also target other Muslims and the governments of the region are the ones who will fall someday. That has to be a real threat. I think part of the reason these governments don't act against ISIS so much is because they don't have the capability or confidence to do so without a lot of help from the US/Europe. Saudi Arabia is kind of bogged down in Yemen, so that's probably enough for them for now and shows their limitations.
Quote from: viper37 on November 13, 2015, 10:35:02 PM
on the other hand, most of them have no real incentive to act on their own. AQ and ISIS are attacking us, mostly.
ISIS is attacking us mostly? That would surely be welcome news to all the locals they have slaughtered. And their goal is to conquer every single Muslim nation between the Atlantic and China...so...
I have nothing to say but this is a horrible crime perpetrated by some of the worst people on the planet. I hope everything is now under control.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 13, 2015, 10:34:26 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 13, 2015, 10:33:16 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 13, 2015, 10:16:38 PM
The next newscaster who calls the Eagles of Death Metal a heavy metal band will feel the full fury of my twins psychic powers.
I'm assuming they're actually a death metal band? :unsure:
No.
Oh. Is this just some sort of "tyranny of small differences" posturing on your part or do they play, bona fide, different genre?
Is France capable of declaring and prosecuting a war on ISIS? Because I may be wrong but based on recent pronouncements by Hollande, this is what may happen, imo.
Btw, ISIS definitely is a "state" in the international law sense (even though it is not recognised by the international community) as it meets all the criteria (territory, effective control, own laws it enforces etc.) so if the attack was actually carried out by ISIS (and not some copycats/fanbois), then this should amount to a foreign attack on a NATO country.
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2015, 02:51:55 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 13, 2015, 10:34:26 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 13, 2015, 10:33:16 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 13, 2015, 10:16:38 PM
The next newscaster who calls the Eagles of Death Metal a heavy metal band will feel the full fury of my twins psychic powers.
I'm assuming they're actually a death metal band? :unsure:
No.
Oh. Is this just some sort of "tyranny of small differences" posturing on your part or do they play, bona fide, different genre?
They're a rock band.
QuoteDespite their band name, Eagles of Death Metal are not a death metal band. Hughes stated that a friend was introducing Josh Homme to the death metal genre. When he played a song by the Polish band Vader and made a claim that the song was within the death metal genre, Homme then referred to Vader as "The Eagles of Death Metal". After hearing this phrase, he wondered what a cross between the Eagles and a death metal band would sound like. In a 2003 interview Homme described the sound of the band as a combination of "bluegrass slide guitar mixed with stripper drum beats and Canned Heat vocals." Hughes is known for his enthusiastic interaction with audiences at live performances.
Thanks. To be honest I thought at first that "Eagles of Death Metal" is a name of an event (presumably featuring different death metal bands) and not the name of a band. :blush:
There's less people than usual on a Saturday morning that's for sure. Feels like a bank holiday.On bank holidays, most bakeries are open and they are the first shops to open anyways during the week in France , for baguettes, pains au chocolat and croissants, but the one I go opens later today, 10 instead of 7, citing the "events".
This bakery is one where the Brain could order a croissant in Swedish, since the boss and part of the staff is Swedish. The Swedish Church being only a metro station away.
Is it clear that the terrorists that shot at those cafes and restaurants are actually dead? Was it the same people that attacked the Bataclan?
Quote from: Zanza on November 14, 2015, 04:24:31 AM
Is it clear that the terrorists that shot at those cafes and restaurants are actually dead? Was it the same people that attacked the Bataclan?
My understanding is that it's not clear that they were the same people.
Quote from: Zanza on November 14, 2015, 04:24:31 AM
Is it clear that the terrorists that shot at those cafes and restaurants are actually dead? Was it the same people that attacked the Bataclan?
They jusy don't know yet. There was enough time between the attacks for a single team to do them but they can't know for sure
Hollande: "We are going to lead a war which will be pitiless. When terrorists are capable of committing such atrocities, they must be certain that they are facing a determined France, a united France, a France that is together, and does not let itself be moved"
Ok, now I have a frog boner. :frog:
:frog:
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2015, 07:06:28 AM
Hollande: "We are going to lead a war which will be pitiless. When terrorists are capable of committing such atrocities, they must be certain that they are facing a determined France, a united France, a France that is together, and does not let itself be moved"
Ok, now I have a frog boner. :frog:
Small, green and warty?
Reports of ISIS claiming responsibility and a Syrian passport being found on one attacker's body.
More about found passports: one Egyptian as well.
A "French" extremist, a radical known to the police from suburban and/or countryside Essonne (both in Île-de-France/Paris Region) was identified through his fingerprints according to Liberation newspaper.
Might be just a coincidence, but a burnt car with a French plate has been found in northern Catalonia, just off the route that takes you to the French border. It contained a bunch of cell phones and fake European car plates.
Spanish police is investigating it.
Quote from: Valmy on November 13, 2015, 11:28:35 PM
ISIS is attacking us mostly? That would surely be welcome news to all the locals they have slaughtered.
Not many ISIS slaughter in Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Bharein.
What happens in Syria and Irak does not concern that much the gulf countries, otherwise, Saudi Arabia would have troops in Syria, not in Yemen.
And if you look at the refugee situation, the gulf countries have close to 0 refugees in their borders.
Quote from: celedhring on November 14, 2015, 09:56:01 AM
Might be just a coincidence, but a burnt car with a French plate has been found in northern Catalonia, just off the route that takes you to the French border. It contained a bunch of cell phones and fake European car plates.
Spanish police is investigating it.
Several witnesses in Paris also saw gunmen use a car with Belgian plates.
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2015, 02:54:00 AM
Is France capable of declaring and prosecuting a war on ISIS? Because I may be wrong but based on recent pronouncements by Hollande, this is what may happen, imo.
Btw, ISIS definitely is a "state" in the international law sense (even though it is not recognised by the international community) as it meets all the criteria (territory, effective control, own laws it enforces etc.) so if the attack was actually carried out by ISIS (and not some copycats/fanbois), then this should amount to a foreign attack on a NATO country.
It's the same as the US declaring war on terror. Maybe France will invade Egypt...
Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2015, 10:16:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2015, 02:54:00 AM
Is France capable of declaring and prosecuting a war on ISIS? Because I may be wrong but based on recent pronouncements by Hollande, this is what may happen, imo.
Btw, ISIS definitely is a "state" in the international law sense (even though it is not recognised by the international community) as it meets all the criteria (territory, effective control, own laws it enforces etc.) so if the attack was actually carried out by ISIS (and not some copycats/fanbois), then this should amount to a foreign attack on a NATO country.
It's the same as the US declaring war on terror. Maybe France will invade Egypt...
Not at all the same, for the reason I mentioned.
Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2015, 10:16:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2015, 02:54:00 AM
Is France capable of declaring and prosecuting a war on ISIS? Because I may be wrong but based on recent pronouncements by Hollande, this is what may happen, imo.
Btw, ISIS definitely is a "state" in the international law sense (even though it is not recognised by the international community) as it meets all the criteria (territory, effective control, own laws it enforces etc.) so if the attack was actually carried out by ISIS (and not some copycats/fanbois), then this should amount to a foreign attack on a NATO country.
It's the same as the US declaring war on terror. Maybe France will invade Egypt...
From the heights of those pyramids, forty-two centuries will look down on them?
#Greece PublicOrderMin Toskas confirms Paris attacker w Syrian passport was registered as refugee on Leros island in Oct. /via @AntennaNews
https://twitter.com/YanniKouts/status/665555110467084289?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw (https://twitter.com/YanniKouts/status/665555110467084289?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
If confirmed, danke Gutmenschen.
Found on lefigaro.fr
QuoteSyrian passport found on Paris attacker's body belonged to refugee who passed through Greece
The holder of a Syrian passport found near the body of one of the gunmen who died in Friday night's attacks in Paris passed though Greece in October, a Greek minister told Reuters.
"The holder of the passport passed through the island of Leros on October 3, 2015, where he was identified according to EU rules," said Nikos Toscas, Greece's deputy minister in charge of policing.
A Greek police source told Reuters that European countries had been asked to check the passport holder to see if they had been registered.
While this heavily implies that one of the gunman came into Europe along with refugees, Syrian passports are known to be valuable currency amongst those trying to enter Europe, and it is not confirmed yet whether the holder of the passport is indeed the perpetrator.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/14/paris-terror-attacks-attackers-dead-mass-killing-live-updates (http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/14/paris-terror-attacks-attackers-dead-mass-killing-live-updates)
The Guardian in damage control mode in the end while Berlin said to not link the "migrant" and terrorist issues.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 14, 2015, 11:39:03 AM
#Greece PublicOrderMin Toskas confirms Paris attacker w Syrian passport was registered as refugee on Leros island in Oct. /via @AntennaNews
https://twitter.com/YanniKouts/status/665555110467084289?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw (https://twitter.com/YanniKouts/status/665555110467084289?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
If confirmed, danke Gutmenschen.
Found on lefigaro.fr
QuoteSyrian passport found on Paris attacker's body belonged to refugee who passed through Greece
The holder of a Syrian passport found near the body of one of the gunmen who died in Friday night's attacks in Paris passed though Greece in October, a Greek minister told Reuters.
"The holder of the passport passed through the island of Leros on October 3, 2015, where he was identified according to EU rules," said Nikos Toscas, Greece's deputy minister in charge of policing.
A Greek police source told Reuters that European countries had been asked to check the passport holder to see if they had been registered.
While this heavily implies that one of the gunman came into Europe along with refugees, Syrian passports are known to be valuable currency amongst those trying to enter Europe, and it is not confirmed yet whether the holder of the passport is indeed the perpetrator.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/14/paris-terror-attacks-attackers-dead-mass-killing-live-updates (http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/14/paris-terror-attacks-attackers-dead-mass-killing-live-updates)
The Guardian in damage control mode in the end while Berlin said to not link the "migrant" and terrorist issues.
Ok, so what exactly it means, according to you? Three of the other shooters were from Brussels' suburbs, one from Paris...
You seem to be building a strawman that the pro-refugee side was somehow guaranteeing that noone like that can slip through the cracks. Is this it?
Appears to be a real ceasefire deal in Syria being worked out. Huge. Hugehugehuge.
Yeah that was what I was afraid of. If Syrians were involved the refugees are in serious trouble.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 14, 2015, 11:53:41 AM
Appears to be a real ceasefire deal in Syria being worked out. Huge. Hugehugehuge.
What are you babbling about now?
Quote from: Queequeg on November 14, 2015, 11:53:41 AM
Appears to be a real ceasefire deal in Syria being worked out. Huge. Hugehugehuge.
Between who?
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2015, 03:30:34 AM
Thanks. To be honest I thought at first that "Eagles of Death Metal" is a name of an event (presumably featuring different death metal bands) and not the name of a band. :blush:
They're part of the desert rock scene from Southern California, the band is actually a side project for Josh Homme, from Queens of the Stone Age, with childhood friend Jessee Hughes, who are the only permanent members of the band. Homme doesn't tour with the band and it's normally just Hughes and other musicians the ones who do that. Curiously enough Hughes is a big Republican, pro-gun, pro war on terror advocate, so I'm a bit curious on what he'll have to say about this once the dust settles.
Edit: This might be their best known song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZrctLnsF4M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZrctLnsF4M)
Btw, Foo Fighters, who were touring Europe at the moment, have cancelled their tour in light of these events.
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 11:56:26 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 14, 2015, 11:53:41 AM
Appears to be a real ceasefire deal in Syria being worked out. Huge. Hugehugehuge.
Between who?
I believe he refers to the Syria talks in Vienna today. The participants seem to have agreed on talking to the opposition and start a dialogue between them and Asad.
Yea.
I am very cold at a friend's birthday party in Kosovo so do not expect long posts.
http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/11/14/syria-talks-begin-in-vienna-under-pall-of-paris-attacks
QuoteGerman foreign minister: Syrian talks agree to seek meeting between opposition, government
VIENNA (AP) — High-level talks on the future of Syria have produced an agreement to seek meetings between the opposition and the government of President Bashar Ashad by year's end, Germany's foreign minister said Saturday.
Frank-Walter Steinmeier also said that there will be efforts to create a new constitution for the war-torn country and attempts to create a transitional government within 18 months.
Steinmeier spoke at the end of a daylong meeting of nearly 20 countries represented by foreign ministers and their deputies seeking to end Syria's war. It was overshadowed by the terrorist shootings and bombings in Paris that killed more than 120 people.
Syria as a breeding ground for terrorism moved Saturday to the foreground of a meeting of foreign ministers on the war in that country, with participants linking the shooting and bombing attacks in Paris to Mideast turmoil and the opportunities it gives for terror.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov both condemned the attacks as they began meetings with senior representatives from Iran, Saudi Arabia and other countries with strongly conflicting views on how to end the more than four-year war. Key differences include what, if any role Syrian President Bashar Assad should play in any transition government and which groups fighting him should be grouped as terrorists.
Those differences appeared to be put aside at least temporarily as the meeting started.
"These kinds of attacks are the most vile, horrendous, outrageous, unacceptable acts on the planet," said Kerry, after speaking with Lavrov and shortly before the main meeting convened at a luxurious Vienna hotel. "And the one thing we could say to those people is that what they do in this is stiffen our resolve, all of us, to fight back, to hold people accountable, and to stand up for rule of law, which is exactly what we are here to do.
"And if they've done anything, they've encouraged us today to do even harder work to make progress and to help resolve the crises that we face," Kerry said.
Lavrov, standing next to Kerry, said there was "no justification for terrorist acts, and no justification for us not doing much more to defeat ISIS and al-Nusra and the like," adding: "I hope that this meeting as well would allow us to move forward."
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged ministers "to move beyond their differences on Syria" and work on a negotiated end to the war.
Ahead of the meeting, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said the attacks in Paris made it all the more necessary for the international community to find a common approach in Syria and terrorism, sentiments echoed by the foreign ministers of Germany, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told Iranian state TV Saturday that the attacks in Paris show the urgency of fighting terrorism and extremism on a global level. He joined the talks later in the day.
Jordan's foreign minister, Nasser Judeh, said the Paris attack "reaffirms our collective commitment" to fight terror and extremism wherever it may occur, while EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said no one could turn away from the common threat.
"We are together in this: Europeans, Arabs, East and West, all the international community," she declared. "The best response to this is actually coming together, overcoming our differences, and trying together to lead the way towards peace in Syria."
More than 250,000 people have been killed in the Syrian war. Eleven million have been uprooted from their homes. The conflict has allowed Islamic State militants to carve out significant parts of Syria and Iraq for their would-be caliphate. Europe and Syria's neighbors, meanwhile, are struggling to cope with the worst migrant crisis since World War II.
Police had cordoned off a larger area than usual around Hotel Imperial today, but things were quiet. There were a few dozen peaceful pro-opposition protesters.
Some rumors/hoaxes disproven
Nobody hurt in the Calais jungle fire yesterday, declared to be accidental by the préfet, "electrical causes", no arson. So no evil extreme right wing/nazi/fascist arson.
http://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/nord-pas-de-calais/calais-incendie-dans-la-jungle-2500-m2-touches-pas-de-blesse-852061.html (http://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/nord-pas-de-calais/calais-incendie-dans-la-jungle-2500-m2-touches-pas-de-blesse-852061.html)
2500 m² of tents and cabins burned, fire has been put out and the situation is calm, as far as it can be there.
There was no attack in the Halles forum. After all, i went back home by a RER line going through.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 14, 2015, 12:19:39 PM
Some rumors/hoaxes disproven
Nobody hurt in the Calais jungle fire yesterday, declared to be accidental by the préfet, "electrical causes", no arson. So no evil extreme right wing/nazi/fascist arsont.
http://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/nord-pas-de-calais/calais-incendie-dans-la-jungle-2500-m2-touches-pas-de-blesse-852061.html (http://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/nord-pas-de-calais/calais-incendie-dans-la-jungle-2500-m2-touches-pas-de-blesse-852061.html)
2500 m² of tents and cabins burned, fire has been put out and the situation is calm, as far as it can be there.
There was no attack in the Halles forum. After all, i went back home by a RER line going through.
Was one of the attacks on a cafe/restaurant popular with cyclist at its called La Belle Équipe?
So they have agreed to meet and and start talking about a potential ceasefire if all the 738 factions can agree on one?
PEACE IMMINENT
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rts.ch%2F2015%2F11%2F14%2F11%2F54%2F7253286.image&hash=84fbd330890059b1cce273d009a36fb2de364dcd)
Quote from: mongers on November 14, 2015, 12:54:06 PM
Was one of the attacks on a cafe/restaurant popular with cyclist at its called La Belle Équipe?
Yep, 18 killed there according to the last info.
QuotePlus au sud, au croisement de la rue Faidherbe et de la rue de Charonne, un peu avant 22 heures, une riveraine a vu un homme descendre d'une voiture pour tirer avec une arme de gros calibre sur la terrasse du café La Belle Equipe, dans le 11e arrondissement. Selon une source policière, 18 personnes sont mortes dans cette attaque.
Un journaliste du Monde présent sur place a pu apercevoir plusieurs blessés. « J'ai entendu des détonations, je suis allé à ma fenêtre, indique une riveraine, interrogée par Gérard Davet, journaliste au Monde. J'ai une vue directe sur le café. J'ai vu un homme descendre d'une voiture et tirer sur la terrasse, au jugé. Il a tiré à plusieurs reprises. Par rafales. J'ai entendu des cris. Puis l'homme est remonté dans sa voiture et reparti. Comme ça... »
Executive Summary
Not a drive-by shooting but the gunman stepped out of a car, sprayed the café's terrace without really aiming with several bursts, using a large caliber weapon. Then he went back in the car and left the scene.
A journalist from Le Monde was there and got a glimpse of the wounded.
http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/11/13/fusillade-meurtriere-a-paris_4809485_3224.html (http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/11/13/fusillade-meurtriere-a-paris_4809485_3224.html)
Quote from: Tamas on November 14, 2015, 12:56:04 PM
So they have agreed to meet and and start talking about a potential ceasefire if all the 738 factions can agree on one?
PEACE IMMINENT
The Peace of Westphalia eventually happened as well, so let's at least try.
I'm trying to wonder just what is IS' plan with this one.
They must know logically its not going to make France suddenly stop attacking...and trolling them into attacking more to try and build a Islam vs. the west war?....it isn't 2001 anymore. And there is viable local opposition to them so they can't claim to be the only ones standing up to the west...
Guess its just insanity. What do you expect of people who respond to their imaginary friend saying to kill people by going "OK!"
This is but a feeble consolation but it could have been even worse according to the Wall Street Journal:
QuoteParis Attacks: Suicide Bomber Wearing an Explosive Vest Was Blocked From Entering Stade de France Soccer Venue
At least one suicide bomber had a ticket to the France-Germany soccer game, but his explosive vest was found during a security check at the gate
PARIS—At least one of the attackers outside France's national soccer stadium had a ticket to the game and attempted to enter the 80,000-person venue, according to a Stade de France security guard who was on duty and French police.
Quote
The guard—who asked to be identified only by his first name, Zouheir—said the attacker was discovered wearing an explosives vest when he was frisked at the entrance to the stadium about 15 minutes into the game. France was playing an exhibition against Germany inside.
While attempting to back away from security, Zouheir said, the attacker detonated the vest. Zouheir, who was stationed by the players' tunnel, said he was briefed on the sequence by the security frisking team at the gate.
A police officer confirmed the sequence, adding that police suspect the attacker aimed to detonate his vest inside the stadium in order to provoke a deadly stampede.
Around three minutes later, a second person also blew himself up outside the stadium. A third suicide attacker detonated explosives at a nearby McDonald's, police said. One civilian died in the attacks, police said.
The account sheds light on why the suicide attacks on Stade de France failed to cause the carnage that occurred at the Bataclan concert hall and restaurants across Paris. More than 120 people died in the string of attacks Friday.
The blasts occurred during the first half of the game, sowing confusion throughout the stadium. At least two blasts were heard clearly inside the stadium, witnesses said, and on the television broadcast. Loud blasts aren't uncommon at soccer matches on the European continent where fans sometimes set off firecrackers.
A witness who was in the Stade de France soccer stadium during the terror attacks on Nov. 13, said he thought that the explosion, "was fireworks, or some kind of cannon," or something deliberately done during the game.
At first, Zouheir said he too thought the early blast was a firecracker. Then his walkie-talkie came alive with chatter, and he noticed that French President François Hollande—who was in attendance at the Stade de France—was being ushered out of the stadium.
"Once I saw Hollande being evacuated, I knew it wasn't firecrackers," said Zouheir, who could see the VIP box from his post. He added that President Hollande left after the first blast.
The game continued for the regulation 90 minutes. French soccer federation head Noel le Graet said that the information wasn't communicated to the fans or the players in order to avoid a panic. Witnesses reported that news began to spread inside the stadium late in the second half.
"During the second half I started getting news alerts about attacks in Paris, but I didn't make the connection immediately," said Pierre Tissier, 27, who heard the explosions during the game, but said he thought it might have just been firecrackers.
A spokesman for the French soccer federation didn't respond to requests Saturday to comment on the events.
Germany manager Joachim Löw said after the game that he feared an attack as soon as he heard the blasts.
"Of course we thought of it," he said. "It was very loud. You could imagine what had happened.
The attacks came seven months before France is set to host the monthlong European soccer championships. Mr. Le Graet told reporters that the incident raised new concerns about security for the tournament.
Euro 2016 is set up to be played at 10 venues around the country with two in the capital region: the Parc des Princes in the western part of the city and the Stade de France in the northern suburb of St. Denis. It is the first major soccer tournament in the country since the 1998 World Cup.
A video Zouheir shot on his phone Saturday showed the gate where the suicide bomber was turned away and what appeared to be blood and viscera on a nearby sidewalk. On Saturday street-cleaning crews spent several hours hosing down the area.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/attacker-tried-to-enter-paris-stadium-but-was-turned-away-1447520571 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/attacker-tried-to-enter-paris-stadium-but-was-turned-away-1447520571)
Based on the first name I would guess that the security guard was also a Muslim. It's telling how the lines of conflict in French society really are. I am sure more Muslims are with us than against us.
Christ, I can't even imagine what would've happened if he had entered.
One of the attackers used a Syrian passport to claim asylum in Greece in early October.
QuoteAccording to the Greek Public Order Minister Dimitris Toskas, the attacker found at the Stade de France who was found with a Syrian passport passed through the Greek island of Leros.
This happened in early October, under EU rules which mean migrants passing through must identify themselves.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995541/Paris-terror-attacks-isil-suspects-arrests-victims-live.html#update-20151114-1626 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995541/Paris-terror-attacks-isil-suspects-arrests-victims-live.html#update-20151114-1626)
Oh my god! One of them was a Syrian asylum seeker! Well that settles it, we better shoot all Syrians on sight just to be sure.
Oh my god! One of them was a Syrian asylum seeker! Well that settles it, we better shoot all Syrians on sight just to be sure.
Cops are now allowed to keep their police-issued guns at all times, i.e out of duty.
More from the Figaro.fr live feed:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualites/2015/11/13/01001-20151113LIVWWW00406-fusillade-paris-explosions-stade-de-france.php#185435 (http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualites/2015/11/13/01001-20151113LIVWWW00406-fusillade-paris-explosions-stade-de-france.php#185435)
QuoteDeux migrants, enregistrés en Grèce, sont recherchés par la police dans le cadre des attentats de Paris, selon la police grecque.
Two migrants, registered in Greece, are sought by the police as part of the investigation on the Paris attacks, according to Greek police.
Source is a bit vague though.
Quote from: Syt on November 14, 2015, 12:58:33 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rts.ch%2F2015%2F11%2F14%2F11%2F54%2F7253286.image&hash=84fbd330890059b1cce273d009a36fb2de364dcd)
Cool! Two Americas showed up!
Landmarks all over Europe being illuminated tonight with blue, white and red. :frog:
Good to see Charlie Hebdo staff keeping it classy. One of the cartoonists penned a quick bit for social media to point out that while people are sending their prayers, Paris doesn't need anymore religion in it.
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 03:42:42 PM
Good to see Charlie Hebdo staff keeping it classy. One of the cartoonists penned a quick bit for social media to point out that while people are sending their prayers, Paris doesn't need anymore religion in it.
I hope you are not being sarcastic. That's an awesome response.
I think it is a dreadful response and the kind that I would expect from that puerile publication.
Seems a pretty common sentiment on Facebook/Twitter.
This is going around:
"Please don't pray for Paris. Think for Paris. Love for Paris. Laugh for Paris. Have sex for Paris. We've had enough religion for one night"
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 03:54:54 PM
I think it is a dreadful response and the kind that I would expect from that puerile publication.
It is a wonderfully anti-clerical stance, their resolve knows no bound.
This is what he said:
Quote
Friends from the whole world,
Thank you for #PrayForParis,
But we don't need more
Religion! Our faith goes
To Music! Kisses! Life!
Champagne and joy!
#ParisIsAboutLife
Doesn't look that dreadful to me :huh:
I think it's an American vs. European thing here, we're much less used to religion actively used and people offering prayers are not common here.
The empty moral preening on social media after every Islamoid atrocity deeply disgusts me.
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 03:54:54 PM
I think it is a dreadful response and the kind that I would expect from that puerile publication.
Go fuck yourself. We don't need your shitty religion. Keep it to yourself.
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 04:04:48 PM
I think it's an American vs. European thing here, we're much less used to religion actively used and people offering prayers are not common here.
Yeah I know, it makes me slightly uncomfortable too.
But even apart from that it's not a hostile message at all.
If two people can get so upset about how to morn things look very bleak.
Quote from: Maladict on November 14, 2015, 04:09:42 PM
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 04:04:48 PM
I think it's an American vs. European thing here, we're much less used to religion actively used and people offering prayers are not common here.
Yeah I know, it makes me slightly uncomfortable too.
But even apart from that it's not a hostile message at all.
Me too, and yes, I don't understand Garbon's response to it and certainly not Martinus' response to the response (but that's not uncommon).
Quote from: Legbiter on November 14, 2015, 04:06:52 PM
The empty moral preening on social media after every Islamoid atrocity deeply disgusts me.
Yeah, I unfollowed probably two dozens leftist politicians and pundits.
Read a very interesting and balanced article from a security specialist today - too bad it is in Polish or I would repost.
I count it as support, not my cup of tea, but I don't think it's a good idea to make such a fuss about it, on both sides.
PS: I prefer Fight for Paris seen elsewhere on the web.
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 04:12:00 PM
Quote from: Maladict on November 14, 2015, 04:09:42 PM
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 04:04:48 PM
I think it's an American vs. European thing here, we're much less used to religion actively used and people offering prayers are not common here.
Yeah I know, it makes me slightly uncomfortable too.
But even apart from that it's not a hostile message at all.
Me too, and yes, I don't understand Garbon's response to it and certainly not Martinus' (but that's not uncommon).
My response comes mainly as a reaction to Garbon's (and some other sanctimonious American fools on Facebook).
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 14, 2015, 11:39:03 AM
#Greece PublicOrderMin Toskas confirms Paris attacker w Syrian passport was registered as refugee on Leros island in Oct. /via @AntennaNews
https://twitter.com/YanniKouts/status/665555110467084289?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw (https://twitter.com/YanniKouts/status/665555110467084289?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
If confirmed, danke Gutmenschen.
Found on lefigaro.fr
QuoteSyrian passport found on Paris attacker's body belonged to refugee who passed through Greece
The holder of a Syrian passport found near the body of one of the gunmen who died in Friday night's attacks in Paris passed though Greece in October, a Greek minister told Reuters.
"The holder of the passport passed through the island of Leros on October 3, 2015, where he was identified according to EU rules," said Nikos Toscas, Greece's deputy minister in charge of policing.
A Greek police source told Reuters that European countries had been asked to check the passport holder to see if they had been registered.
While this heavily implies that one of the gunman came into Europe along with refugees, Syrian passports are known to be valuable currency amongst those trying to enter Europe, and it is not confirmed yet whether the holder of the passport is indeed the perpetrator.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/14/paris-terror-attacks-attackers-dead-mass-killing-live-updates (http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/14/paris-terror-attacks-attackers-dead-mass-killing-live-updates)
The Guardian in damage control mode in the end while Berlin said to not link the "migrant" and terrorist issues.
a reminder to be careful about who we let in. Proper screening must still take place.
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2015, 04:07:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 03:54:54 PM
I think it is a dreadful response and the kind that I would expect from that puerile publication.
Go fuck yourself. We don't need your shitty religion. Keep it to yourself.
Yes, that's exactly how it reads.
Btw, unlike you, I've never actually been religious.
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 04:12:00 PM
Quote from: Maladict on November 14, 2015, 04:09:42 PM
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 04:04:48 PM
I think it's an American vs. European thing here, we're much less used to religion actively used and people offering prayers are not common here.
Yeah I know, it makes me slightly uncomfortable too.
But even apart from that it's not a hostile message at all.
Me too, and yes, I don't understand Garbon's response to it and certainly not Martinus' response to the response (but that's not uncommon).
It's spite thrown back at people offering their condolences. Or are condolences only to be offered in the 'right' way? It is no different from people saying they are keeping good thoughts - unless one is making a ridiculous link between the religion of the attackers and the religion of those making prayers.
Quote from: Maladict on November 14, 2015, 04:00:35 PM
This is what he said:
Quote
Friends from the whole world,
Thank you for #PrayForParis,
But we don't need more
Religion! Our faith goes
To Music! Kisses! Life!
Champagne and joy!
#ParisIsAboutLife
Doesn't look that dreadful to me :huh:
Yeah that is pretty spiteful garbon. I totally understand your rage :mellow:
Trump's reaction: http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/11/14/donald-trump-paris-attacks-guns-victims-sot.cnn/video/playlists/paris-shootings/
It only happened because the victims were unarmed.
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 04:35:34 PM
It's spite thrown back at people offering their condolences. Or are condolences only to be offered in the 'right' way? It is no different from people saying they are keeping good thoughts - unless one is making a ridiculous link between the religion of the attackers and the religion of those making prayers.
I don't see the spite. He's thanking people for their thoughts but ask they not use God as a mediator. If I had just been attacked by people praising God while doing so I think I would ask the same.
They could have done without the religion line. It is a slap to the face to compassionate Americans offering their sympathies. Just accept the gesture.
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2015, 04:37:03 PM
Quote from: Maladict on November 14, 2015, 04:00:35 PM
This is what he said:
Quote
Friends from the whole world,
Thank you for #PrayForParis,
But we don't need more
Religion! Our faith goes
To Music! Kisses! Life!
Champagne and joy!
#ParisIsAboutLife
Doesn't look that dreadful to me :huh:
Yeah that is pretty spiteful garbon. I totally understand your rage :mellow:
:secret: It mentioned champagne. Garbonites do not appreciate it.
Trump is an idiot.
A person carrying a gun can perhaps deter or stop a crime like a mugging, but it is silly to think they were going to stop a bunch of terrorists with assault rifles. What were they going to do? Go to a concert with body armor and a AK47 strapped across their back?
On top of that, it was at a concert. Even in the US, there are plenty of venues that use metal detectors and won't let people in if they're carrying guns. Like Disneyland.
Quote from: Jaron on November 14, 2015, 04:44:45 PM
They could have done without the religion line. It is a slap to the face to compassionate Americans offering their sympathies. Just accept the gesture.
I think the ones that need to be understanding in this situation are the Americans. Europeans are less religious, get over it and show your compassion like a French would by going out, getting drunk and making love to someone.
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 04:50:37 PM
Quote from: Jaron on November 14, 2015, 04:44:45 PM
They could have done without the religion line. It is a slap to the face to compassionate Americans offering their sympathies. Just accept the gesture.
I think the ones that need to be understanding in this situation are the Americans. Europeans are less religious, get over it and show your compassion like a French would by going out, getting drunk and making love to someone.
So your response would be we should not express ourselves in a way that makes sense to us and instead engage in behavior that is probably contrary to the beliefs of the people making those statements? That seems like a very silly response.
When some tragedy happens, some people will say "I'm sorry for your loss." and others will say "You are in my prayers." It is the same sentiment and not worth nitpicking over. Just say thanks and move on.
Quote from: Jaron on November 14, 2015, 04:53:32 PM
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 04:50:37 PM
Quote from: Jaron on November 14, 2015, 04:44:45 PM
They could have done without the religion line. It is a slap to the face to compassionate Americans offering their sympathies. Just accept the gesture.
I think the ones that need to be understanding in this situation are the Americans. Europeans are less religious, get over it and show your compassion like a French would by going out, getting drunk and making love to someone.
So your response would be we should not express ourselves in a way that makes sense to us and instead engage in behavior that is probably contrary to the beliefs of the people making those statements? That seems like a very silly response.
When some tragedy happens, some people will say "I'm sorry for your loss." and others will say "You are in my prayers." It is the same sentiment and not worth nitpicking over. Just say thanks and move on.
Exactly.
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 04:42:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 04:35:34 PM
It's spite thrown back at people offering their condolences. Or are condolences only to be offered in the 'right' way? It is no different from people saying they are keeping good thoughts - unless one is making a ridiculous link between the religion of the attackers and the religion of those making prayers.
I don't see the spite. He's thanking people for their thoughts but ask they not use God as a mediator. If I had just been attacked by people praising God while doing so I think I would ask the same.
So then they are making the ridiculous connection with a not so veiled sneer at religion.
And I don't know, perhaps I might emotionally feel that way if such were to happen to me, but I'd hope that I wouldn't have it color my opinions of all religious people, particularly those who are just trying to express their condolences.
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2015, 04:37:03 PM
Quote from: Maladict on November 14, 2015, 04:00:35 PM
This is what he said:
Quote
Friends from the whole world,
Thank you for #PrayForParis,
But we don't need more
Religion! Our faith goes
To Music! Kisses! Life!
Champagne and joy!
#ParisIsAboutLife
Doesn't look that dreadful to me :huh:
Yeah that is pretty spiteful garbon. I totally understand your rage :mellow:
Excuse me? Rage? Is that how it is because I'm black? ;)
I came across this as Buzzfeed had an article saying it was beautiful. I don't think this is a beautiful response to people offering their condolences.
Quote from: Jaron on November 14, 2015, 04:53:32 PM
So your response would be we should not express ourselves in a way that makes sense to us and instead engage in behavior that is probably contrary to the beliefs of the people making those statements? That seems like a very silly response.
When some tragedy happens, some people will say "I'm sorry for your loss." and others will say "You are in my prayers." It is the same sentiment and not worth nitpicking over. Just say thanks and move on.
I don't think it's silly to think about who's hurt here. I know a lot of people who'd be less accepting of "being in someone prayers" than that Hebdo writer.
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 05:01:12 PM
Quote from: Jaron on November 14, 2015, 04:53:32 PM
So your response would be we should not express ourselves in a way that makes sense to us and instead engage in behavior that is probably contrary to the beliefs of the people making those statements? That seems like a very silly response.
When some tragedy happens, some people will say "I'm sorry for your loss." and others will say "You are in my prayers." It is the same sentiment and not worth nitpicking over. Just say thanks and move on.
I don't think it's silly to think about who's hurt here. I know a lot of people* who'd be less accepting of "being in someone prayers" than that Hebdo writer.
* Mostly old left wingers, but I reckon there's a few of those in France as well
Quote from: Jaron on November 14, 2015, 04:53:32 PM
So your response would be we should not express ourselves in a way that makes sense to us and instead engage in behavior that is probably contrary to the beliefs of the people making those statements? That seems like a very silly response.
When some tragedy happens, some people will say "I'm sorry for your loss." and others will say "You are in my prayers." It is the same sentiment and not worth nitpicking over. Just say thanks and move on.
Indeed. One of the most anti-religious publications says possibly the least ugly thing it has ever said about religious people. Just say thanks and move on.
The New Polish government has announced that due to the attacks they find it politically impossible to take in their quota of an additional 4500 refugees (in addition to the 2000 already in the country).
Quote from: Syt on November 14, 2015, 05:06:15 PM
The New Polish government has announced that due to the attacks they find it politically impossible to take in their quota of an additional 4500 refugees (in addition to the 2000 already in the country).
Yeah that was what I was worried about. Alot of governments are going to have this problem now. This is certainly not going to help the cause of any friends the Syrian Refugees have over in the USA.
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2015, 05:08:57 PM
Quote from: Syt on November 14, 2015, 05:06:15 PM
The New Polish government has announced that due to the attacks they find it politically impossible to take in their quota of an additional 4500 refugees (in addition to the 2000 already in the country).
Yeah that was what I was worried about. Alot of governments are going to have this problem now. This is certainly not going to help the cause of any friends the Syrian Refugees have over in the USA.
as I said, for Canada, 25 000 in one month is way too much.
I don't the situation of Poland, I don't know their resources. But if they thought they had enough resources to meet their quota before, they should still move forward, maybe a little slower to be extra careful.
The US should immediately send back the refugees we just had arrive.
Quote from: Tyr on November 14, 2015, 02:45:19 PM
Oh my god! One of them was a Syrian asylum seeker! Well that settles it, we better shoot all Syrians on sight just to be sure.
I don't see it getting much press but apparently one of the attackers was a French national.
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 06:33:11 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 14, 2015, 02:45:19 PM
Oh my god! One of them was a Syrian asylum seeker! Well that settles it, we better shoot all Syrians on sight just to be sure.
I don't see it getting much press but apparently one of the attackers was a French national.
Mentioned earlier in the thread and on French media. This attacker comes from a notorious banlieue, Courcouronnes, in the Essonne département.
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 04:58:04 PM
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 04:42:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 04:35:34 PM
It's spite thrown back at people offering their condolences. Or are condolences only to be offered in the 'right' way? It is no different from people saying they are keeping good thoughts - unless one is making a ridiculous link between the religion of the attackers and the religion of those making prayers.
I don't see the spite. He's thanking people for their thoughts but ask they not use God as a mediator. If I had just been attacked by people praising God while doing so I think I would ask the same.
So then they are making the ridiculous connection with a not so veiled sneer at religion.
And I don't know, perhaps I might emotionally feel that way if such were to happen to me, but I'd hope that I wouldn't have it color my opinions of all religious people, particularly those who are just trying to express their condolences.
A ridiculous connection sure, but if you think religion is ridiculous it's easy to make that connection. And the sneer is rather thin for a Hebdoist.
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 02:00:37 PM
Christ, I can't even imagine what would've happened if he had entered.
I think it's possible more would have died in the ensuing stampede than in the rest of the attacks combined.
Brussels seems a hotbed recently. Wasn't a large cell with heavy weapons and stolen police uniforms discovered earlier this year?
The French police mentioned earlier that, besides the seven terrorists killed, there was a third team behind the coordinated attacks and that it fled. Seems they caught some of them at the Franco-Belgian border and there was a Belgian police operation in a Bruxelles suburb. This does not mean it's over, of course.
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 06:41:48 PM
And the sneer is rather thin for a Hebdoist.
Which is why I said they were classy as always. Which led to a typical Marti rampage. :P
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 11:56:26 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 14, 2015, 11:53:41 AM
Appears to be a real ceasefire deal in Syria being worked out. Huge. Hugehugehuge.
Between who?
The Byzantines and the Mamluks. Maybe they can hold off the Mongols.
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 04:42:03 PM
I don't see the spite. He's thanking people for their thoughts but ask they not use God as a mediator. If I had just been attacked by people praising God while doing so I think I would ask the same.
I think it is incredibly presumptuous of hims to speak for all of France in rejecting any religious responses to terrorism. From "my fiaht" on, it is fine, and he should have deleted all the snark and presumption before those words.
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 04:50:37 PM
I think the ones that need to be understanding in this situation are the Americans. Europeans are less religious, get over it and show your compassion like a French would by going out, getting drunk and making love to someone.
Stereotype much?
Quote from: grumbler on November 14, 2015, 10:38:13 PM
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 04:50:37 PM
I think the ones that need to be understanding in this situation are the Americans. Europeans are less religious, get over it and show your compassion like a French would by going out, getting drunk and making love to someone.
Stereotype much?
Yes.
Quote from: grumbler on November 14, 2015, 10:38:13 PM
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 04:50:37 PM
I think the ones that need to be understanding in this situation are the Americans. Europeans are less religious, get over it and show your compassion like a French would by going out, getting drunk and making love to someone.
Stereotype much?
You don't think Europeans are less religious than Americans? When is the last time you heard a French President say something like "God Bless you and God Bless France" at the end of their speeches to the nation?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2015, 11:03:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 14, 2015, 10:38:13 PM
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 04:50:37 PM
I think the ones that need to be understanding in this situation are the Americans. Europeans are less religious, get over it and show your compassion like a French would by going out, getting drunk and making love to someone.
Stereotype much?
You don't think Europeans are less religious than Americans? When is the last time you heard a French President say something like "God Bless you and God Bless France" at the end of their speeches to the nation?
That comes from the God Save the King stuff. That may be more of a language thing because I don't think even very religious French politicians ever said something like that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2015, 11:03:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 14, 2015, 10:38:13 PM
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 04:50:37 PM
I think the ones that need to be understanding in this situation are the Americans. Europeans are less religious, get over it and show your compassion like a French would by going out, getting drunk and making love to someone.
Stereotype much?
You don't think Europeans are less religious than Americans? When is the last time you heard a French President say something like "God Bless you and God Bless France" at the end of their speeches to the nation?
They never do - it's just not done. The French equivalent is "Vive la France, vive la Republique". :cool:
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2015, 11:41:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2015, 11:03:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 14, 2015, 10:38:13 PM
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 04:50:37 PM
I think the ones that need to be understanding in this situation are the Americans. Europeans are less religious, get over it and show your compassion like a French would by going out, getting drunk and making love to someone.
Stereotype much?
You don't think Europeans are less religious than Americans? When is the last time you heard a French President say something like "God Bless you and God Bless France" at the end of their speeches to the nation?
That comes from the God Save the King stuff. That may be more of a language thing because I don't think even very religious French politicians ever said something like that.
Swedish politicians never mention God in public. Most because they're not religious, and the rest because they would come across as weird.
Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2015, 03:16:54 AM
Swedish politicians never mention God in public. Most because they're not religious, and the rest because they would come across as weird.
What do they say when they want to put the fear of God in someone?
Anti-clericalism has been strong in France ever since the Revolution, bringing God into the political sphere is vaguely anti the Republic.
The town was a lot quieter than normal last night. I wonder if it is related .
quote author=Martinus link=topic=13510.msg925847#msg925847 date=1447534083]
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 03:42:42 PM
Good to see Charlie Hebdo staff keeping it classy. One of the cartoonists penned a quick bit for social media to point out that while people are sending their prayers, Paris doesn't need anymore religion in it.
I hope you are not being sarcastic. That's an awesome response.
[/quote]
Yeah. That's pretty good. Praying for Paris is like offering a box of chocolates to somebody who has just been diagnosed as a diabetic
And Tyr making an analogy is kinda like Martinus making an analogy.
:D
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 04:35:34 PM
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 04:12:00 PM
Quote from: Maladict on November 14, 2015, 04:09:42 PM
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 04:04:48 PM
I think it's an American vs. European thing here, we're much less used to religion actively used and people offering prayers are not common here.
Yeah I know, it makes me slightly uncomfortable too.
But even apart from that it's not a hostile message at all.
Me too, and yes, I don't understand Garbon's response to it and certainly not Martinus' response to the response (but that's not uncommon).
It's spite thrown back at people offering their condolences. Or are condolences only to be offered in the 'right' way? It is no different from people saying they are keeping good thoughts - unless one is making a ridiculous link between the religion of the attackers and the religion of those making prayers.
It's like offering consolation sex to a rape victim.
I also love that garbon is suddenly firmly in the camp of saying that when communicating a message one is free to ignore cultural context in which the message is going to be received by the addressee, as long as there is a positive intention behind it. :lol:
Quote from: Solmyr on November 15, 2015, 05:36:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 04:35:34 PM
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 04:12:00 PM
Quote from: Maladict on November 14, 2015, 04:09:42 PM
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 04:04:48 PM
I think it's an American vs. European thing here, we're much less used to religion actively used and people offering prayers are not common here.
Yeah I know, it makes me slightly uncomfortable too.
But even apart from that it's not a hostile message at all.
Me too, and yes, I don't understand Garbon's response to it and certainly not Martinus' response to the response (but that's not uncommon).
It's spite thrown back at people offering their condolences. Or are condolences only to be offered in the 'right' way? It is no different from people saying they are keeping good thoughts - unless one is making a ridiculous link between the religion of the attackers and the religion of those making prayers.
It's like offering consolation sex to a rape victim.
:D
It's even worse, given that the French have not just been victimised by religious fanatics, but are generally anti-religious.
It's like offering straight consolation sex to a lesbian raped by a man.
When did we start a broken analogy brigade?
Well noted for the future though. If Marti suffers a personal tragedy, best response is to have no response. :thumbsup:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2015, 11:03:05 PM
You don't think Europeans are less religious than Americans? When is the last time you heard a French President say something like "God Bless you and God Bless France" at the end of their speeches to the nation?
France isn't representative of the entire continent.
"European" also includes Poland, Greece, Romania, Croatia, parts of Turkey, etc. It is also quite common in Europe for religions to receive state support and for there to be religious expression in national anthems and symbols. Even in uber secular France, my understanding is that Catholic schools receive state funding--which does not happen in the US. In other cases, there is religious instruction in schools.
So...its more complicated.
Europe does not include Turkey, specially with islamists like Erdogan.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2015, 07:05:54 AM
France isn't representative of the entire continent.
"European" also includes Poland, Greece, Romania, Croatia, parts of Turkey, etc. It is also quite common in Europe for religions to receive state support and for there to be religious expression in national anthems and symbols. Even in uber secular France, my understanding is that Catholic schools receive state funding--which does not happen in the US. In other cases, there is religious instruction in schools.
So...its more complicated.
Not that complicated. When a European from Western Europe says European he does not generally include Eastern Europe. Maybe Poland, because they have behaved somewhat, but no one else from 'there'. Is it wrong? Maybe. But it wasn't until about 2005 that EU expanded east.
State funding religious school is not condoning the religion they teach but the education they provide. We do it here too if they live up to some standard of education.
Even for Central and Eastern Europe, it's debatable. Czechs are not religious for instance.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2015, 07:05:54 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2015, 11:03:05 PM
You don't think Europeans are less religious than Americans? When is the last time you heard a French President say something like "God Bless you and God Bless France" at the end of their speeches to the nation?
France isn't representative of the entire continent.
"European" also includes Poland, Greece, Romania, Croatia, parts of Turkey, etc. It is also quite common in Europe for religions to receive state support and for there to be religious expression in national anthems and symbols. Even in uber secular France, my understanding is that Catholic schools receive state funding--which does not happen in the US. In other cases, there is religious instruction in schools.
So...its more complicated.
Certainly true that France is towards the extreme of irreligious but it is pretty accurate to say europe is less religious than the US.
Back to topic, there is still one terrorist being hunted, presumed to be the last of the eight, he might have crossed the Franco-Belgian border and went to Molenbeek, the notorious islamist suburb of Brussels, for all we know since his name was not yet on a search list. Two Molenbeek residents, holders of French passports, have been identified as perpetrators of the attacks. Five more Molenbeek residents were arrested there following Belgian police operations.
Name of the terrorist having a French passport has been revealed. [spoiler]• Ismaël Omar Mostefaï[/spoiler]
No real surprise, petty suburban delinquent, convicted 8 times, but still no jail time (bleeding heart judges?), yet listed as radical (classé S). :hmm:
Earlier, a car with Kalashnikov rifles was found in the eastern suburb of Montreuil, bordering Paris, not far from République and Nation where the attacks took place. The car, a black Seat Leon, was used for the terrorist attacks.
At least a dozen nationalities among the foreign victims: three Belgians, one Spaniard, two Portuguese, one Briton, two Romanians, two Tunisians, three Chileans, one American, two Algerians, one Moroccan, two Mexicans and probably a Swede.
PS: French link with more details and names, since the info is now somewhat outdated
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2015/11/15/97001-20151115FILWWW00118-attentats-de-paris-une-vingtaine-de-victimes-etrangeres.php (http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2015/11/15/97001-20151115FILWWW00118-attentats-de-paris-une-vingtaine-de-victimes-etrangeres.php)
Duque, thanks for that and for being our news stringer on the ground. :)
Quote from: Solmyr on November 15, 2015, 05:36:09 AM
It's like offering consolation sex to a rape victim.
It would be exactly like this if the well-wishers were offering to shoot and bomb some French people out of sympathy. The terrorists didn't pray their victims to death.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2015, 03:44:18 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on November 15, 2015, 05:36:09 AM
It's like offering consolation sex to a rape victim.
It would be exactly like this if the well-wishers were offering to shoot and bomb some French people out of sympathy. The terrorists didn't pray their victims to death.
Okay. It's like showing rough BDSM porn to a rape victim.
Breaking News: France as started launching what might be regarded as retaliatory airstrikes against IS targets.
edit:Details here:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/11/15/uk-france-shooting-airstrikes-idUKKCN0T416M20151115 (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/11/15/uk-france-shooting-airstrikes-idUKKCN0T416M20151115)
Quoteorld | Sun Nov 15, 2015 9:06pm GMT
French warplanes strike Islamic State Syria bastion
French fighter jets launched their biggest raids in Syria to date targeting the Islamic State's stronghold in Raqqa just two days after the group claimed coordinated attacks in Paris that killed more than 130 people, the defence ministry said.
"The raid ... including 10 fighter jets, was launched simultaneously from the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. Twenty bombs were dropped," the statement said, adding that the mission had taken place this evening.
The operation, carried out in coordination with U.S. forces, struck a command centre, recruitment centre for jihadists, a munitions depot and a training camp for fighters, it said.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 15, 2015, 04:33:19 PM
Okay. It's like showing rough BDSM porn to a rape victim.
It would be exactly like showing rough BDSM porn to a rape victim if the well-wishers had offered to dress up as terrorists and stage mock attacks to express their sympathy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2015, 04:42:47 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on November 15, 2015, 04:33:19 PM
Okay. It's like showing rough BDSM porn to a rape victim.
It would be exactly like showing rough BDSM porn to a rape victim if the well-wishers had offered to dress up as terrorists and stage mock attacks to express their sympathy.
I know the Americans meant well with the whole praying thing so I don't get the outcry BUT you do seem unable to understand the European viewpoint:
In Europe unless you are seriously religious, Christianity is A religion. So it seems obvious that when a religiously motivated massacre happens, you don't necessarily want to mention praying.
Now obviously Americans are more accustomed to the thought/general social consensus of Christianity being THE religion, so this doesn't compute for them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2015, 04:42:47 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on November 15, 2015, 04:33:19 PM
Okay. It's like showing rough BDSM porn to a rape victim.
It would be exactly like showing rough BDSM porn to a rape victim if the well-wishers had offered to dress up as terrorists and stage mock attacks to express their sympathy.
Well, apparently you know better what the French need than they do themselves.
I'm not surely Charlie Hebdo is right on the pulse of what the French need.
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2015, 04:56:40 PM
I'm not surely Charlie Hebdo is right on the pulse of what the French need.
More on the pulse than the Americans, I'd wager.
Besides it is an expression sympathy is that something that someone needs? :huh:
Quote from: Tamas on November 15, 2015, 04:49:46 PM
I know the Americans meant well with the whole praying thing so I don't get the outcry BUT you do seem unable to understand the European viewpoint:
In Europe unless you are seriously religious, Christianity is A religion. So it seems obvious that when a religiously motivated massacre happens, you don't necessarily want to mention praying.
Now obviously Americans are more accustomed to the thought/general social consensus of Christianity being THE religion, so this doesn't compute for them.
It doesn't seem at all obvious to me. You have to be a retard to think all religious people are evil. If the Dalai Lama or the Pope showed up in Paris to demonstrate support should people pelt them with rocks or run in terror? That would be psychotic. But that's exactly the kind of reaction these various analogies are suggesting.
I don't know why everyone rushed to associate Sfar (the cartoonist that mentioned the prayers) with Charlie Hebdo, he only worked there for a year a long time ago, and has an established career outside of it.
Quote from: The Larch on November 15, 2015, 05:06:19 PM
I don't know why everyone rushed to associate Sfar (the cartoonist that mentioned the prayers) with Charlie Hebdo, he only worked there for a year a long time ago, and has an established career outside of it.
The news media outlets said he was connected to it. I didn't have a lot of interest in verifying if that was correct. -_-
Quote from: Tamas on November 15, 2015, 04:49:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2015, 04:42:47 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on November 15, 2015, 04:33:19 PM
Okay. It's like showing rough BDSM porn to a rape victim.
It would be exactly like showing rough BDSM porn to a rape victim if the well-wishers had offered to dress up as terrorists and stage mock attacks to express their sympathy.
I know the Americans meant well with the whole praying thing so I don't get the outcry BUT you do seem unable to understand the European viewpoint:
In Europe unless you are seriously religious, Christianity is A religion. So it seems obvious that when a religiously motivated massacre happens, you don't necessarily want to mention praying.
Now obviously Americans are more accustomed to the thought/general social consensus of Christianity being THE religion, so this doesn't compute for them.
But here's the thing - in north america Christianity isn't "the religion". We've always had a strong Jewish presence, and our diversity has increased over time with hindu, muslim, sikh and other religions.
"You're in my prayers" is non-denominational. It doesn't reference any specific religion.
Quote from: mongers on November 15, 2015, 04:40:50 PM
Breaking News: France as started launching what might be regarded as retaliatory airstrikes against IS targets.
edit:
Details here:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/11/15/uk-france-shooting-airstrikes-idUKKCN0T416M20151115 (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/11/15/uk-france-shooting-airstrikes-idUKKCN0T416M20151115)
Quoteorld | Sun Nov 15, 2015 9:06pm GMT
French warplanes strike Islamic State Syria bastion
French fighter jets launched their biggest raids in Syria to date targeting the Islamic State's stronghold in Raqqa just two days after the group claimed coordinated attacks in Paris that killed more than 130 people, the defence ministry said.
"The raid ... including 10 fighter jets, was launched simultaneously from the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. Twenty bombs were dropped," the statement said, adding that the mission had taken place this evening.
The operation, carried out in coordination with U.S. forces, struck a command centre, recruitment centre for jihadists, a munitions depot and a training camp for fighters, it said.
This reminds me of the first reprisal raid after the Beyrouth attacks in 1983. I hope they are not bombing empty barracks this time. Reprisals went on for a year or so, Mitterrand would not quit as quickly as Reagan.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2015, 11:03:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 14, 2015, 10:38:13 PM
Stereotype much?
You don't think Europeans are less religious than Americans? When is the last time you heard a French President say something like "God Bless you and God Bless France" at the end of their speeches to the nation?
Again, stereotype much? No, I don't think that there are any Europeans less religious than I am. I don't believe I have ever heard anyone say something like "God Bless you and God Bless France" at the end of a speech to a nation, but I have no idea why you thought throwing in a non sequitur would make your argument (whatever it is) more persuasive.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 15, 2015, 05:10:24 AM
And Tyr making an analogy is kinda like Martinus making an analogy.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 15, 2015, 08:08:09 AM
Even for Central and Eastern Europe, it's debatable. Czechs are not religious for instance.
It is debatable. However, the degree of religiousity in the US tends to be overstated. Most Americans don't attend church services. Among those that do, the services are increasingly devoid of a lot of religious content (a large percentage of non catholics I know that attend church go to a major mega church that from what I understand has services that are basically motivational speeches, and the main action is the singles social events).
In general, there is a stronger church / state separation in the US than in Europe. In general, there is more religiously oriented discourse from politicians in the US than in Europe. It isn't hard to think the differences are connected: conservative minded voters wanting some official acknowledgement of traditional belief may be satisfied with an official church, nominal power to church officials, holidays, and the maintenance of religious references in things like anthems. Without those in the US, those voters must look to politicians to provide them. (Not to mention the very different histories--with european countries needing to politically neuter churches, and thus vague political references to religion sounding reactionary in the wake of those struggles).
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2015, 05:17:03 PM
"You're in my prayers" is non-denominational. It doesn't reference any specific religion.
It doesn't actually reference religion at all.
Thinking about the crap suicide bombers....not only are we lucky in them sticking to the appointed time but in their core tactics. As suicide bombers they only get one shot. Just imagine how much worse things could be if they didnt stick to their fundie tactics and instead tried a more drawn out campaign
Eh, they wouldn't be strapping on the vests if there was a more surefire method. Gunmen often get caught or killed before they've killed anyone too. Also, they require more training to be effective.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/1116/742211-belgium/
QuoteShots reported in stand-off in Brussels
Armed police have surrounded a building near a canal in the Belgian capital Brussels.
The stand-off is taking place near the Metro of Graaf van Vlaanderen.
Eye-witnesses have said the police are calling on someone inside the building to come out with their hands raised.
The stand-off is taking place on Ransfort street. It is reported shots have been heard.
Local media say a suspect has been detained.
It is unknown if the incident is in anyway connected to the Paris attacks.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/warning-over-brussels-pitstop-radicals-044452607.html
QuoteBelgian Police Raid Brussels Jihadi Hot Spot
Heavily armed Belgian police have raided a new address in a Brussels suburb which has become a focal point for religious extermism and fighters going to Syria.
"A large number of police launched a raid on a building in Rue Delaunoy," state broadcaster RTBF said on its website.
Residents were told to stay away from a street which was cordoned off as balaclava-clad officers stormed the premises.
:: Paris Attacks: A Sky News Tonight Special with Adam Boulton from 7pm
Searches in Molenbeek, which has a substantial Muslim population of mostly Moroccan and Turkish immigrants, have been stepped up by authorities since two of the Paris suspects were identified as having lived in the district.
In the aftermath of the attacks, Belgian police raided several addresses in the district. Seven people have so far been arrested in Belgium in connection with the atrocity.
Monday's fresh raid was carried out as Belgium's Foreign Minister Didier Reynders said authorities would be taking "more action" in the area.
He also urged fellow European countries: "We need to exchange more and more intelligence."
The move came as Belgian national Abdelhamid Abaaoud was named the suspected mastermind of the Paris attacks.
Abaaoud, currently in Syria, reportedly also has links to thwarted attacks on a Paris-bound high-speed train and church.
:: Suspected Mastermind Of Paris Attacks Named
Authorities in Belgium have warned the Molenbeek suburb has become a breeding ground for radical Islamists.
Belgium's Prime Minister Charles Michel, whose coalition government has been fighting an ideological war against Islamists that have recruited more than 350 Belgians to fight in Syria, has described Molenbeek as a "gigantic problem".
A Molenbeek connection keeps coming up in cases of Islamist attacks in Europe going back at least to the 2004 train bombings in Madrid, where one of those jailed for planning them was a Moroccan from the borough.
Mr Michel's words have been echoed by his Interior Minister Jan Jambon, who has declared Molenbeek needs to be "cleansed," not only of militants among Belgium's half-a-million Muslims, but of French radicals using the district as a discreet base from which to lie low and plan armed attacks on their homeland.
A thriving black market in automatic weapons provides potential terrorists access to the means to carry out deadly attacks similar to those that left 129 people dead in Paris at the weekend, it is claimed.
"With 500-1,000 euros you can get a military weapon in half an hour," said Bilal Benyaich, a senior fellow at Brussels think-tank the Itinera Institute, who has studied the spread of radical Islam in Belgium.
"That makes Brussels more like a big US city," in mostly gun-free Europe, he added. "Molenbeek is a pitstop for radicals and criminals of all sorts. It's a place where you can disappear."
With some districts in Molenbeek comprised of a population that is 80% Muslim, and a suspicion of Belgian authorities among many immigrant communities, police have struggled to gather useful intelligence to identify and prevent such militant attacks.
Edwin Bakker, professor at the centre for terrorism and counterterrorism at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, said that in segregated parts of Brussels where the immigrant population don't feel part of the Belgian state, the police have little grip.
"In such a case it's very difficult to get feedback from the community," he said. "That means while the neighbours may have seen something going on, they're not passing it to the police. Then it becomes very tough for intelligence agencies as only relying on them and not local police is not sufficient."
Young Muslims in the district have have spoken of their shock at the Paris attacks and distanced themselves from fanatics.
"Killing a person is a major sin in our religion," one told Belgian media, adding he had "nothing" to do with Islamic State.
You can thank Phillipe Moureaux for the fucked up state of Molenbeek.
(apparently a selfdeclared "porteur des valises" for the FLN.)
what he did in Molenbeek I've seen described recently as the local version of the FLN-ideology.
They have arrested the guy they were looking for, In Brussels.
Quote from: Tamas on November 16, 2015, 06:24:49 AM
They have arrested the guy they were looking for, In Brussels.
It's already been denied. They got someone else. :P
Quote from: Maximus on November 15, 2015, 08:15:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2015, 05:17:03 PM
"You're in my prayers" is non-denominational. It doesn't reference any specific religion.
It doesn't actually reference religion at all.
I think the opposition to prayers is more about objection to manifesting religion/spirituality in public than actual piety. But let's end this debate as it is unproductive.
Quote from: Syt on November 16, 2015, 06:00:49 AM
http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/1116/742211-belgium/
QuoteShots reported in stand-off in Brussels
Armed police have surrounded a building near a canal in the Belgian capital Brussels.
The stand-off is taking place near the Metro of Graaf van Vlaanderen.
Eye-witnesses have said the police are calling on someone inside the building to come out with their hands raised.
The stand-off is taking place on Ransfort street. It is reported shots have been heard.
Local media say a suspect has been detained.
It is unknown if the incident is in anyway connected to the Paris attacks.
This Graaf von Vlaanderen or Comte de Flandre metro station, is known to travelers and backpackers since the Génération Europe youth hostel is not far away, offering a glimpse of that islamist "hotspot" to people dropping by. I was there once or twice, in 2007 for the first time, and I remember that I was not the only one surprised by the islamist "ghetto" vibe.
edit: year added for perspective
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2015, 02:07:04 AM
They never do - it's just not done. The French equivalent is "Vive la France, vive la Republique". :cool:
Well right. It was 'Vive le Roi' even back when the Catholic Church owned half the country.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 15, 2015, 09:58:51 AM
Name of the terrorist having a French passport has been revealed. [spoiler]• Ismaël Omar Mostefaï[/spoiler]
No real surprise, petty suburban delinquent, convicted 8 times, but still no jail time (bleeding heart judges?), yet listed as radical (classé S). :hmm:
He's also of portuguese descent (portuguese mother, algerian father) :bleeding:
We're really everywhere...
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 16, 2015, 04:58:33 AM
Eh, they wouldn't be strapping on the vests if there was a more surefire method. Gunmen often get caught or killed before they've killed anyone too. Also, they require more training to be effective.
Planting.multiple bombs in different places
Quote from: Tyr on November 16, 2015, 11:28:33 AM
Planting.multiple bombs in different places
Sort of like the kamikaze pilots. "We will fill your plane with bombs and then you will fly it into their ships."
"Actually sir, if I'm close enough to fly into the ships, couldn't I just drop the bombs from point blank range? Then I could fly back here, reload, and attack again."
"Hmm, interesting point. But...crash your plane into their ship anyway."
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2015, 05:17:03 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 15, 2015, 04:49:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2015, 04:42:47 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on November 15, 2015, 04:33:19 PM
Okay. It's like showing rough BDSM porn to a rape victim.
It would be exactly like showing rough BDSM porn to a rape victim if the well-wishers had offered to dress up as terrorists and stage mock attacks to express their sympathy.
I know the Americans meant well with the whole praying thing so I don't get the outcry BUT you do seem unable to understand the European viewpoint:
In Europe unless you are seriously religious, Christianity is A religion. So it seems obvious that when a religiously motivated massacre happens, you don't necessarily want to mention praying.
Now obviously Americans are more accustomed to the thought/general social consensus of Christianity being THE religion, so this doesn't compute for them.
But here's the thing - in north america Christianity isn't "the religion". We've always had a strong Jewish presence, and our diversity has increased over time with hindu, muslim, sikh and other religions.
"You're in my prayers" is non-denominational. It doesn't reference any specific religion.
When ever I hear Christians saying that in North American Christianity isn't "the religion" I have to wonder what religion they think is the dominant religion. Just because religious minorities can freely practice their religion doesn't make Christianity any less dominant. Here is a small example, Easter and Christmas is still holidays.
Quote from: grumbler on November 15, 2015, 05:59:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2015, 11:03:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 14, 2015, 10:38:13 PM
Stereotype much?
You don't think Europeans are less religious than Americans? When is the last time you heard a French President say something like "God Bless you and God Bless France" at the end of their speeches to the nation?
Again, stereotype much? No, I don't think that there are any Europeans less religious than I am. I don't believe I have ever heard anyone say something like "God Bless you and God Bless France" at the end of a speech to a nation, but I have no idea why you thought throwing in a non sequitur would make your argument (whatever it is) more persuasive.
Really. A comment is made about Americans in general and you think it is made about you in particular. Now that is a healthy ego. ;)
The reason American President refer to God all the time is because it is a popular sentiment in the US. The reason French Presidents don't is it would be odd and awkward to do so.
Quote from: Tyr on November 16, 2015, 11:28:33 AM
Planting.multiple bombs in different places
Jihadists are cheaper than explosives, so you want to make sure they go off where they'll have an impact.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 16, 2015, 11:43:13 AM
Sort of like the kamikaze pilots. "We will fill your plane with bombs and then you will fly it into their ships."
"Actually sir, if I'm close enough to fly into the ships, couldn't I just drop the bombs from point blank range? Then I could fly back here, reload, and attack again."
"Hmm, interesting point. But...crash your plane into their ship anyway."
:lol:
[Digression] The reason why the Japanese resorted to kamikaze tactics was because the pilots were virtually untrained and couldn't hit at all unless they crashed into the ships. The survival rate for non-kamikaze missions was very low anyway, so the pilots felt it was better to die for something than for nothing. Flying back to reload wasn't likely an option even if you survived to drop a bomb, since AA (VT fusing) and the Hellcat made survival unlikely.
If the Japanese could have dropped their bombs effectively and returned for more, they wouldn't have engaged in Special Attack tactics. [/Digression]
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 16, 2015, 11:57:18 AM
Really. A comment is made about Americans in general and you think it is made about you in particular. Now that is a healthy ego. ;)
A single counter-example disproves a sweeping generalization. One can observe that with a perfectly healthy ego. :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 02:56:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 16, 2015, 11:57:18 AM
Really. A comment is made about Americans in general and you think it is made about you in particular. Now that is a healthy ego. ;)
A single counter-example disproves a sweeping generalization. One can observe that with a perfectly healthy ego. :lol:
While that may be true in some circumstances it is entirely inaccurate for this case. You are very much in the minority in your country on this issue. The generalization regarding the religious beliefs of Americans is accurate. You are making the same mistake BB made. Just because 100% of the people in the US are not Christian does not mean Christianity is not the dominant religion in the US. You objected to a comment that Americans are more religious than Europeans. When talking about those populations the comment is accurate. You are an outlier.
I'm not sure you mean to say outlier.
Quote from: garbon on November 16, 2015, 03:28:13 PM
I'm not sure you mean to say outlier.
Outside the mainstream of American thought on religion. Put another way, if most Americans held the same or less religious beliefs than Europeans your Presidents would not end all their speeches by saying things like, "God bless America".
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 16, 2015, 03:29:59 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 16, 2015, 03:28:13 PM
I'm not sure you mean to say outlier.
Outside the mainstream of American thought on religion. Put another way, if most Americans held the same or less religious beliefs than Europeans your Presidents would not end all their speeches by saying things like, "God bless America".
Our European equivalent has 'God Save the Queen' as its national anthem.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2015, 03:40:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 16, 2015, 03:29:59 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 16, 2015, 03:28:13 PM
I'm not sure you mean to say outlier.
Outside the mainstream of American thought on religion. Put another way, if most Americans held the same or less religious beliefs than Europeans your Presidents would not end all their speeches by saying things like, "God bless America".
Our European equivalent has 'God Save the Queen' as its national anthem.
British. Not continental European. And we stopped saying that back in the 80s at least.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 16, 2015, 03:29:59 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 16, 2015, 03:28:13 PM
I'm not sure you mean to say outlier.
Outside the mainstream of American thought on religion. Put another way, if most Americans held the same or less religious beliefs than Europeans your Presidents would not end all their speeches by saying things like, "God bless America".
I think that's a bit better though wiki says 23%, so nearly a quarter of Americans have no religion. That's certainly not an outlier group. :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 16, 2015, 03:42:16 PM
British. Not continental European. And we stopped saying that back in the 80s at least.
Well my point was this is an English language thing. Continental Europeans do not speak English as their native language.
What do you say instead?
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2015, 03:57:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 16, 2015, 03:42:16 PM
British. Not continental European. And we stopped saying that back in the 80s at least.
Well my point was this is an English language thing. Continental Europeans do not speak English as their native language.
What do you say instead?
If I was religious/a Christian I would say: God bless and I'll pray for you. They don't want the blessings and prayers? They can ignore it.
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 16, 2015, 04:01:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2015, 03:57:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 16, 2015, 03:42:16 PM
British. Not continental European. And we stopped saying that back in the 80s at least.
Well my point was this is an English language thing. Continental Europeans do not speak English as their native language.
What do you say instead?
If I was religious/a Christian I would say: God bless and I'll pray for you. They don't want the blessings and prayers? They can ignore it.
Sure but you are not the head of a country reflecting the majority view of the country. Your president is and does.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 16, 2015, 04:02:40 PM
Sure but you are not the head of a country reflecting the majority view of the country. Your president is and does.
I don't think those terms actually reflect a deep religious sentiment though. I just think that is what we say. Like we don't say 'Long Live the United States' that would be weird. I guess the President could say 'America! Fuck yeah!'
Blair is a good example - his strong religious beliefs were actually kept under wraps during his term in the office, because it would have been a huge detriment among voters.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2015, 04:34:15 PM
I guess the President could say 'America! Fuck yeah!'
Just so long as he does it in tune.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2015, 04:34:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 16, 2015, 04:02:40 PM
Sure but you are not the head of a country reflecting the majority view of the country. Your president is and does.
I don't think those terms actually reflect a deep religious sentiment though. I just think that is what we say. Like we don't say 'Long Live the United States' that would be weird. I guess the President could say 'America! Fuck yeah!'
I agree there is a degree of habit to it. But the US is one of the few nations in the Western world one could say it wasn't awkward to say it. That reflects the cultural norms of your country being strongly influenced by Christianity and continuing to be influenced by that belief.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 16, 2015, 03:26:11 PM
While that may be true in some circumstances it is entirely inaccurate for this case. You are very much in the minority in your country on this issue. The generalization regarding the religious beliefs of Americans is accurate. You are making the same mistake BB made. Just because 100% of the people in the US are not Christian does not mean Christianity is not the dominant religion in the US. You objected to a comment that Americans are more religious than Europeans. When talking about those populations the comment is accurate. You are an outlier.
No, the statement that "Europeans are less religious than Americans" is untrue, as I have proven. QED
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 05:30:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 16, 2015, 03:26:11 PM
While that may be true in some circumstances it is entirely inaccurate for this case. You are very much in the minority in your country on this issue. The generalization regarding the religious beliefs of Americans is accurate. You are making the same mistake BB made. Just because 100% of the people in the US are not Christian does not mean Christianity is not the dominant religion in the US. You objected to a comment that Americans are more religious than Europeans. When talking about those populations the comment is accurate. You are an outlier.
No, the statement that "Europeans are less religious than Americans" is untrue, as I have proven. QED
Maybe to yourself. But I am having a more interesting conversation with others who do not insist that they alone represent Americans.
Not sure how kosher this is, but it purports to be the shield used by French police when they entered the concert hall:
(https://cdn.liveleak.com/80281E/ll_a_s/2015/Nov/16/LiveLeak-dot-com-80c_1447710799-bouclier_1447710958.jpg.resized.jpg?d5e8cc8eccfb6039332f41f6249e92b06c91b4db65f5e99818bdd3914a46dad46a47&ec_rate=230)
Quote
This is the bulletproof shield police used to get into the Bataclan theatre. #Parisattacks
seems to be kosher. the source is iTélé. http://www.itele.fr/france/video/bataclan-27-impacts-sur-le-bouclier-qui-a-protege-la-bri-143761
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2015, 04:55:43 PM
Blair is a good example - his strong religious beliefs were actually kept under wraps during his term in the office, because it would have been a huge detriment among voters.
Well, it is notoriously anti-Catholic country.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 16, 2015, 10:02:10 PM
seems to be kosher. the source is iTélé. http://www.itele.fr/france/video/bataclan-27-impacts-sur-le-bouclier-qui-a-protege-la-bri-143761
Oh thanks for that Oex, the only 'sources' I found were english social media; nice to hear from you. :)
IMHO this religiousness is baked in, in the English language. Even the English bless you when you sneeze ;)
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2015, 10:04:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2015, 04:55:43 PM
Blair is a good example - his strong religious beliefs were actually kept under wraps during his term in the office, because it would have been a huge detriment among voters.
Well, it is notoriously anti-Catholic country.
Not particularly.
I hope you will allow me some levity, but Spain's public broadcaster mixed up Al-Qaeda with the Rebel Alliance:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CT9tDv3W4AAMriU.png)
https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/31F8D8AD951278194563139735552_439bfebcfba.0.2.16672094842674435322.mp4?versionId=TNbWwlzRQpzTydEKpEkUGUvtJNwpZLCr
Almost as good as the Star Trek Seal Team Six logo a few years ago on German TV. :D
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa57.foxnews.com%2Fimages.foxnews.com%2Fcontent%2Ffox-news%2Ftech%2F2011%2F05%2F11%2Fgerman-tv-confuses-star-trek-terrorists-bin-laden%2F_jcr_content%2Fpar%2Ffeatured-media%2Fmedia-1.img.jpg%2F876%2F493%2F1421956201853.jpg&hash=b9260830312985231994c698d25359f243dd056b)
Absolutely incredible story
Video within
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11999580/Paris-terror-Hero-stranger-reveals-how-he-rescued-pregnant-woman-as-she-clung-for-life.html
Quote
Paris terror: Hero stranger reveals how he rescued pregnant woman as she clung for life
Woman is "safe and sound" after being dragged through window after her desperate struggle to hang on ledge was broadcast around the world
By David Chazan, Patrick Sawer, in Paris, and Tom Morgan
8:32PM GMT 16 Nov 2015
She was the desperate young woman whose screams while clinging to an open window became the iconic footage of Paris's night of terror.
"Help, help, I'm pregnant, catch me if I fall," she was heard shouting on blurry video footage, showing her clinging to the upstairs window of the Bataclan venue - where gunmen were at that moment cold-bloodedly shooting dead 89 of her fellow concert goers.
Watching her plight, as others fled in panic through the streets beneath her, people around the world wondered if she had survived after being dragged back into the carnage.
Now it can be revealed that she - and her unborn baby - are alive and well thanks to the heroic intervention of a stranger.
She sent a message of thanks to her rescuer as he described how they had both cheated death.
The woman was just moments from losing her grip when Sébastien, who declined to disclose his surname, heard her cries.
"There were two windows in front of me," he said. "She was dangling from one of them, begging people below for help if she jumped. It was chaos down there as well. I climbed out through the other window and held on to an air vent 15 metres from the ground. I held on for five minutes and then the pregnant woman, who couldn't cling to the window-sill any longer, asked me to help her get back inside."
Amid a torrent of gunfire, Sébastien went back inside and pulled the woman back through the window before the pair were immediately separated.
Sebastian told La Province: "She was begging people down below if they would catch her if she jumped. But it was chaos down there. We were 15 metres above the ground. I don't know where she went afterwards."
They were reunited on Monday with messages of thanks she sent him via a friend.
Quote
Frans /A\ Torreele @__F_A_T__
On a retrouvé l'homme qui a aidé mon amie à se hisser de la fenêtre du Bataclan. La suite de l'histoire leur appartient. Merci. #bataclan
8:25 PM - 16 Nov 2015
The dramatic rescue was videoed by a journalist on the newspaper Le Monde, Daniel Psenny, who lives opposite the Bataclan, and watched four masked militants armed with AK-47s march into the rock concert where more than 1,000 people were watching rock band Eagles of Death Metal perform.
The young woman's friend, Frans Torreele, said both she and her unborn baby are "safe and sound". "She needs to rest and doesn't want to say anything else about what happened for now," Mr Torreele told The Telegraph.
Sébastien told how he went back out and clung from the air vent above the windows after helping the woman inside.
"It wasn't the best hiding-place," he said. "Five minutes later, I felt the barrel of a Kalashnikov against my leg. One of the terrorists said: 'Come down from there! Come inside and lie down on the floor!'"
He described how the gunmen fired at people from the balcony of the Bataclan, which was originally designed as a theatre.
"We heard people screaming as if they were being tortured.
"The terrorists said to us: 'Do you hear the cries, the suffering? It's to make you feel the fear that people have to suffer every day in Syria. It's war! And it's only the beginning. We'll massacre innocents. We want you to repeat that to those around you'."
Speaking to La Provence newspaper in the south of France, Sébastien told how the gunmen were telling hostages to phone French TV channels.
He said: "They wanted to speak to journalists. But we didn't get through to anyone. At one point, they asked me for a light and they wanted to know if money was important to me.
"They took out a wad of 50-euro notes and I had to burn them. They spoke French to each other."
He claimed the terrorists were not equipped to blow up the venue - despite their threats.
Sébastien added: "They ordered us to say they had suicide belts and if the police came in, they would blow everything up. But it was a lie. I saw only Kalashnikovs, one of which was stuck together with black tape, and a bag with ammunition.
"They didn't seem very organised. They spoke to a negotiator on a hostage's mobile. They had only one demand: that the security forces withdraw.
"They threatened to kill one of us every five minutes and to throw the bodies out of the window. The negotiator got them to agree to let firemen in to take out the injured. Then we waited. Those were the longest minutes of my life.
"I went from hope to feeling resigned to death. I closed my eyes so I couldn't see the Kalashnikov pointed at me. The terrorists had put two hostages as human shields near the doors. The Raid (elite French police unit) managed to shoot past them without hitting them.
"Then they smashed the door in with a battering ram and threw a stun grenade. When I saw a second stun grenade land near my feet, I knew it was time to flee.
"I ran, the grenade exploded and the blast propelled me under the battering ram. All the Raid members went over the top. I was trampled but it was the happiest pain of my life. I was protected. I was alive."
Sébastien's account comes after Mr Torreele posted a message on Twitter on Sunday evening to trace her rescuer.
It was retweeted more than 1,800 times before Sébastien's brother responded by email.
https://twitter.com/__F_A_T__/status/666020913297678336?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Mr Torreele added: "She wanted to thank everyone who helped her, especially the man who gave her a hand and helped her climb back up," he said.
He said she was saved by "a series of small gestures, small kindnesses, and at that time of total madness, those tiny gestures accomplished great things. You can hardly imagine how much an outstretched hand, a hand on the shoulder, helped to save people. These people need to thank each other, to hug each other."
Charlie Hebdo front cover this week was made with garbonites in mind:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUAbEAfWIAEtKP5.jpg:large)
"They've got the weapons
Fuck them
We've got champagne !"
Quote from: Zanza on November 14, 2015, 01:59:41 PM
Based on the first name I would guess that the security guard was also a Muslim. It's telling how the lines of conflict in French society really are. I am sure more Muslims are with us than against us.
Well, the PC crowd made of it a very nice story by reading too much into it but we don't know if it's true.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs1.lemde.fr%2Fimage%2F2015%2F11%2F16%2F534x0%2F4811106_6_9c8e_2015-11-16-5075d1c-2760-19by9si_66bd0b31740f152266d126731bf36ff0.png&hash=9c781e146a7f01b1e30f4db4453473763e6ea06b)
Even lemonde.fr fact-checkers, centre-left at best, are not that convinced and advise caution.
QuoteCette internaute a sans doute repris l'information dans le seul journal qui a mentionné Zouheir, le Wall Street Journal, quotidien financier très sérieux. Mais elle a lu très vite : le quotidien cite le témoignage d'un agent de sécurité prénommé Zouheir, qui explique qu'il se trouvait dans le tunnel d'entrée dans le stade et qu'il a entendu, de la bouche de ses collègues, qu'un homme rejeté par la sécurité à l'entrée (le match avait alors commencé depuis quinze minutes), se serait ensuite fait sauter.
Le Zouheir du Wall Street Journal n'a donc pas empêché l'homme d'entrer, ce sont d'autres agents qui l'ont fait. Dont certains étaient peut-être musulmans, mais nous n'en savons rien pour le moment.
En outre, cette version donnée par le journal américain n'est pas confirmée par les autorités françaises, précise Le Parisien. L'Equipe assure d'ailleurs que les deux kamikazes seraient arrivés après le début du match, sans billet qui leur aurait permis d'entrer
Executive Summary
The well-meaning web surfer read too much into the WSJ report. The WSJ states that Zouheir was in the tunnel leading to the pitch and heard from a colleague that a man had beeb rejected by the security, using his suicide vest shortly afterwards.
So the Zouheir described by the WSJ did not prevent the man from entering, other stewards did it. Maybe some of them were muslim, but we don't know anything about it yet.
The WSJ version is not confirmed by French authorities, according to le Parisien. L'Équipe, daily sports newspaper, further states that the two suicide bombers were late and had no ticket to enter.
I love how it has both been completely ignored and yet reported.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 17, 2015, 07:28:20 AM
Charlie Hebdo front cover this week was made with garbonites in mind:
"They've got the weapons
Fuck them
We've got champagne !"
Garbonites only have sparkling wine. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2015, 09:29:58 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 17, 2015, 07:28:20 AM
Charlie Hebdo front cover this week was made with garbonites in mind:
"They've got the weapons
Fuck them
We've got champagne !"
Garbonites only have sparkling wine. ;)
Actually we call everything champagne, so we have both. :)
Sort of how I don't put stock in Sainsbury's "Greek Style Salad Cheese." :thumbsdown:
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2015, 09:24:11 AM
I love how it has both been completely ignored and yet reported.
In todays parlance "ignored" means "not viral".
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 17, 2015, 10:36:42 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2015, 09:24:11 AM
I love how it has both been completely ignored and yet reported.
In todays parlance "ignored" means "not viral".
22,000 retweets and 13,000 likes = Nobody cares
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 09:32:14 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2015, 09:29:58 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 17, 2015, 07:28:20 AM
Charlie Hebdo front cover this week was made with garbonites in mind:
"They've got the weapons
Fuck them
We've got champagne !"
Garbonites only have sparkling wine. ;)
Actually we call everything champagne, so we have both. :)
QED
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2015, 05:05:37 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 15, 2015, 04:49:46 PM
I know the Americans meant well with the whole praying thing so I don't get the outcry BUT you do seem unable to understand the European viewpoint:
In Europe unless you are seriously religious, Christianity is A religion. So it seems obvious that when a religiously motivated massacre happens, you don't necessarily want to mention praying.
Now obviously Americans are more accustomed to the thought/general social consensus of Christianity being THE religion, so this doesn't compute for them.
It doesn't seem at all obvious to me. You have to be a retard to think all religious people are evil. If the Dalai Lama or the Pope showed up in Paris to demonstrate support should people pelt them with rocks or run in terror? That would be psychotic. But that's exactly the kind of reaction these various analogies are suggesting.
Well, I don't know about the Pope, but here's what the Dalai Lama had to say about praying for Paris:
QuoteWe cannot solve this problem only through prayers. I am a Buddhist and I believe in praying. But humans have created this problem, and now we are asking God to solve it. It is illogical. God would say, solve it yourself because you created it in the first place.
We need a systematic approach to foster humanistic values, of oneness and harmony. If we start doing it now, there is hope that this century will be different from the previous one. It is in everybody's interest. So let us work for peace within our families and society, and not expect help from God, Buddha or the governments.
:cool:
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2015, 04:09:55 PM
I am a Buddhist and I believe in praying.
This is like raping someone who has just been raped!
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2015, 10:38:02 AM
22,000 retweets and 13,000 likes = Nobody cares
When the tweet was first made it had not been retweeted or liked.
Quite possibly, the tweet was about the lack of coverage - in the media or on social media - up until the point in time it was made, and thus the tweet failed to take into account what would happen in the future.
Quote from: Archy on November 17, 2015, 01:49:14 AM
IMHO this religiousness is baked in, in the English language. Even the English bless you when you sneeze ;)
:yes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2015, 04:12:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2015, 04:09:55 PM
I am a Buddhist and I believe in praying.
This is like raping someone who has just been raped!
Wait has the Dalai Lama set up a straw man? Who said prayers will solve this? :huh:
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2015, 04:18:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2015, 10:38:02 AM
22,000 retweets and 13,000 likes = Nobody cares
When the tweet was first made it had not been retweeted or liked.
Quite possibly, the tweet was about the lack of coverage - in the media or on social media - up until the point in time it was made, and thus the tweet failed to take into account what would happen in the future.
Ok first of all the attack just occurred. I do not even know the names of any of the first responders who were involved in this thing at all. It is way too soon to make sweeping judgments on all of western civilization and its media and its treatment of this man. Further their only source for this story appears to be the Wall Street Journal, a pretty major newspaper. They claim that nobody cares but they know damn well lots of people care a great deal and would eagerly celebrate a first responder who acted courageously as they claim. That is why they tweeted this in the first place. The false story they invented for outrage fodder was that nobody cared because he was a Muslim and every media outlet hates Muslims and was trying to cover it up. Completely ridiculous.
Quote from: Tyr on November 17, 2015, 02:32:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2015, 10:04:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2015, 04:55:43 PM
Blair is a good example - his strong religious beliefs were actually kept under wraps during his term in the office, because it would have been a huge detriment among voters.
Well, it is notoriously anti-Catholic country.
Not particularly.
Yeah, I mean it's not like the British starved out a million Catholic Irish or had a holiday were they burned the Pope in effigy. Or maybe you just agree with people like Dawkins who say it's the "second most evil religion" so you don't see it as Anti-Catholicism.
Mart's a Buddhist!? :o
:D
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2015, 04:42:36 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 17, 2015, 02:32:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2015, 10:04:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2015, 04:55:43 PM
Blair is a good example - his strong religious beliefs were actually kept under wraps during his term in the office, because it would have been a huge detriment among voters.
Well, it is notoriously anti-Catholic country.
Not particularly.
Yeah, I mean it's not like the British starved out a million Catholic Irish or had a holiday were they burned the Pope in effigy. Or maybe you just agree with people like Dawkins who say it's the "second most evil religion" so you don't see it as Anti-Catholicism.
Careful, you're close to pulling a Viper.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2015, 04:32:22 PM
Ok first of all the attack just occurred. I do not even know the names of any of the first responders who were involved in this thing at all. It is way too soon to make sweeping judgments on all of western civilization and its media and its treatment of this man. Further their only source for this story appears to be the Wall Street Journal, a pretty major newspaper. They claim that nobody cares but they know damn well lots of people care a great deal and would eagerly celebrate a first responder who acted courageously as they claim. That is why they tweeted this in the first place. The false story they invented for outrage fodder was that nobody cared because he was a Muslim and every media outlet hates Muslims and was trying to cover it up. Completely ridiculous.
Off all the things to get all worked up about, you pick this?
What is up with everyone telling everyone else if they are worked up, or angry, or hostile, all of the time lately? What ever happened to mild disdain?
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 05:31:13 PM
What is up with everyone telling everyone else if they are worked up, or angry, or hostile, all of the time lately? What ever happened to mild disdain?
Mild distain is *your* schtick. :contract:
Personally, I'm worked up, angry and hostile that you do it!
:P
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2015, 04:09:55 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2015, 05:05:37 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 15, 2015, 04:49:46 PM
I know the Americans meant well with the whole praying thing so I don't get the outcry BUT you do seem unable to understand the European viewpoint:
In Europe unless you are seriously religious, Christianity is A religion. So it seems obvious that when a religiously motivated massacre happens, you don't necessarily want to mention praying.
Now obviously Americans are more accustomed to the thought/general social consensus of Christianity being THE religion, so this doesn't compute for them.
It doesn't seem at all obvious to me. You have to be a retard to think all religious people are evil. If the Dalai Lama or the Pope showed up in Paris to demonstrate support should people pelt them with rocks or run in terror? That would be psychotic. But that's exactly the kind of reaction these various analogies are suggesting.
Well, I don't know about the Pope, but here's what the Dalai Lama had to say about praying for Paris:
QuoteWe cannot solve this problem only through prayers. I am a Buddhist and I believe in praying. But humans have created this problem, and now we are asking God to solve it. It is illogical. God would say, solve it yourself because you created it in the first place.
We need a systematic approach to foster humanistic values, of oneness and harmony. If we start doing it now, there is hope that this century will be different from the previous one. It is in everybody's interest. So let us work for peace within our families and society, and not expect help from God, Buddha or the governments.
:cool:
If this is in response to the American kerfuffle, it is pretty tone deaf on the part of the Dalai Lama.
When Americans say something like "you are in our prayers" or "we are praying for you" in response to a tragedy, they do not mean that they are literally asking God to come down from heaven to solve your problems - any more than someone saying "bless you" after a sneeze literally thinks that you require a blessing because you sneezed.
All it means, basically, is that "you have our sympathies" as expressed by someone who takes religious idiom for granted.
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 04:59:16 PM
Careful, you're close to pulling a Viper.
Not even close. This is just Tyr's normal nonsense when talking about religions. Like how nice it is that the indigenous beliefs of the Japanese, Buddhism, is persevered. A great deal of Britain's identity is based around opposition to Catholics. First as rebellion by a murderous tyrant, then as a part of Protestantism, and finally as an element of modern secularism. In modern Britain it comes from both left and right and is deeply ingrained in the British character. It's not as bad as was during the Troubles but it is very telling that the Prime Minister had to hide his religion to be elected.
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 05:31:13 PM
What is up with everyone telling everyone else if they are worked up, or angry, or hostile, all of the time lately? What ever happened to mild disdain?
Do you think Valmy's statement is best described as showing "mild disdain"? I think "worked up" is more accurate. Even if we leave it at "picking out as being worth noting" it still strikes me as a somewhat odd choice to focus your attention on.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2015, 06:00:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 04:59:16 PM
Careful, you're close to pulling a Viper.
Not even close. This is just Tyr's normal nonsense when talking about religions. Like how nice it is that the indigenous beliefs of the Japanese, Buddhism, is persevered. A great deal of Britain's identity is based around opposition to Catholics. First as rebellion by a murderous tyrant, then as a part of Protestantism, and finally as an element of modern secularism. In modern Britain it comes from both left and right and is deeply ingrained in the British character. It's not as bad as was during the Troubles but it is very telling that the Prime Minister had to hide his religion to be elected.
Raz, you're talking out of your arse.
Watched an impressive interview with Romain Ranouil, who lives above the La Belle Equipe restaurant and is a waiter in the nextdoor bar/restaurant, very eloquent testimony of what confronted him when he came downstairs.
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2015, 05:48:29 PM
When Americans say something like "you are in our prayers" or "we are praying for you" in response to a tragedy, they do not mean that they are literally asking God to come down from heaven to solve your problems - any more than someone saying "bless you" after a sneeze literally thinks that you require a blessing because you sneezed.
All it means, basically, is that "you have our sympathies" as expressed by someone who takes religious idiom for granted.
I really don't think one and two are really comparable. I know if I say "I'm praying for you" due to some tragedy, I will literally pray for them. I don't think I am unusual in that.
Quote from: mongers on November 17, 2015, 06:36:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2015, 06:00:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 04:59:16 PM
Careful, you're close to pulling a Viper.
Not even close. This is just Tyr's normal nonsense when talking about religions. Like how nice it is that the indigenous beliefs of the Japanese, Buddhism, is persevered. A great deal of Britain's identity is based around opposition to Catholics. First as rebellion by a murderous tyrant, then as a part of Protestantism, and finally as an element of modern secularism. In modern Britain it comes from both left and right and is deeply ingrained in the British character. It's not as bad as was during the Troubles but it is very telling that the Prime Minister had to hide his religion to be elected.
Raz, you're talking out of your arse.
Is that where his persecution complex resides?
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2015, 05:25:18 PM
Off all the things to get all worked up about, you pick this?
I have been stating my disdain for this kind of rabble rousing for years so is it a surprise I am not happy about it? So yes one of my largest pet peeves in the world irritates me.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 17, 2015, 06:43:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2015, 05:48:29 PM
When Americans say something like "you are in our prayers" or "we are praying for you" in response to a tragedy, they do not mean that they are literally asking God to come down from heaven to solve your problems - any more than someone saying "bless you" after a sneeze literally thinks that you require a blessing because you sneezed.
All it means, basically, is that "you have our sympathies" as expressed by someone who takes religious idiom for granted.
I really don't think one and two are really comparable. I know if I say "I'm praying for you" due to some tragedy, I will literally pray for them. I don't think I am unusual in that.
I do. Very few people have a regular prayer practice. I do but it is fairly structured and I don't, as a general principle, list out things by name.
Major operation in St-Denis (Paris suburb) with a shootout. One officer injured, apparently.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34853657 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34853657)
French link with more details:
http://www.lapresse.ca/international/dossiers/attaques-a-paris/201511/17/01-4922055-fusillade-a-saint-denis-lors-dune-operation-policiere.php (http://www.lapresse.ca/international/dossiers/attaques-a-paris/201511/17/01-4922055-fusillade-a-saint-denis-lors-dune-operation-policiere.php)
- major shootout ongoing since 22h30 Montreal hour (4h30 Paris time)
- 10km to the north of Paris
- armed men escaping through the roof
- general alert went out to triple police force in the area
https://twitter.com/hashtag/SaintDenis?src=hash (https://twitter.com/hashtag/SaintDenis?src=hash)
edit:
2 dead, can't access my link for more info, so fuck it for tonight.
Tranlsated with google
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lapresse.ca%2Finternational%2Fdossiers%2Fattaques-a-paris%2F201511%2F17%2F01-4922055-operation-policiere-a-saint-denis-deux-morts.php&edit-text=&act=url (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lapresse.ca%2Finternational%2Fdossiers%2Fattaques-a-paris%2F201511%2F17%2F01-4922055-operation-policiere-a-saint-denis-deux-morts.php&edit-text=&act=url)
QuoteTwo men targeted by the French SWAT forces were killed early Wednesday morning, in Saint-Denis, north of Paris, during a major police operation, reports Le Monde.
A third man could also have been killed. This operation is in full swing since half past one ET would be linked to the manhunt for the perpetrators of attacks in Paris, several French media reported.
The French media reported in the evening on Tuesday that two armed men had barricaded themselves in an apartment instead of the Republic, two kilometers from the Stade de France. It is not known if they were among the victims. At least one policeman was injured in the shooting.
The French elite police unit exchange gunfire since 4:30 [22h30, Montreal time] with armed men in the area of the Place Jean Jaurès, about ten kilometers from the center of the capital.
A general alert law enforcement was launched to triple the police force, as iTV. The police reinforcements arrive massively at the moment.
According to the channel France Info, the police operation could be searched gone wrong. It could also be a police operation could be the surviving perpetrators and their accomplices or persons targeted
On Twitter, netizens have aired on numerous videos where you can hear the exchange of gunfire.
Since last Friday attacks that killed 129 victims, France is trying by all means to the collar of the perpetrators of the attack on the run. There would be at least one, possibly two.
More details to come.
So, apparently, all European league football games this week are starting with a minute of silence for the victims.
In two games so far supporters of Turkey and Bosnia-Hercegovina, respectively, ignored that by whistling and shouting "Allahu Akbar". garbon will tell us if this is more or less classy than Charlie Hebdo...
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 17, 2015, 06:43:26 PM
I really don't think one and two are really comparable. I know if I say "I'm praying for you" due to some tragedy, I will literally pray for them. I don't think I am unusual in that.
I think it generally means that one means to pray for you at that particular time. Whether they actually remember to do so...
Quote from: mongers on November 17, 2015, 06:36:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2015, 06:00:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 04:59:16 PM
Careful, you're close to pulling a Viper.
Not even close. This is just Tyr's normal nonsense when talking about religions. Like how nice it is that the indigenous beliefs of the Japanese, Buddhism, is persevered. A great deal of Britain's identity is based around opposition to Catholics. First as rebellion by a murderous tyrant, then as a part of Protestantism, and finally as an element of modern secularism. In modern Britain it comes from both left and right and is deeply ingrained in the British character. It's not as bad as was during the Troubles but it is very telling that the Prime Minister had to hide his religion to be elected.
Raz, you're talking out of your arse.
Oh? Would you like examples from the Left or the Right?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 01:13:18 AM
Quote from: mongers on November 17, 2015, 06:36:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2015, 06:00:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 04:59:16 PM
Careful, you're close to pulling a Viper.
Not even close. This is just Tyr's normal nonsense when talking about religions. Like how nice it is that the indigenous beliefs of the Japanese, Buddhism, is persevered. A great deal of Britain's identity is based around opposition to Catholics. First as rebellion by a murderous tyrant, then as a part of Protestantism, and finally as an element of modern secularism. In modern Britain it comes from both left and right and is deeply ingrained in the British character. It's not as bad as was during the Troubles but it is very telling that the Prime Minister had to hide his religion to be elected.
Raz, you're talking out of your arse.
Oh? Would you like examples from the Left or the Right?
Wtf you have two arses??
Too little, too late Raz.
A woman is dead in Paris after she exploded her bomb vest when police raided her apartment. :o
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 12:57:57 AM
So, apparently, all European league football games this week are starting with a minute of silence for the victims.
In two games so far supporters of Turkey and Bosnia-Hercegovina, respectively, ignored that by whistling and shouting "Allahu Akbar". garbon will tell us if this is more or less classy than Charlie Hebdo...
This has been standard practice by Turkish supporters, but not for Bosnians.
Albanians, despite being 2/3 muslim (in theory) don't do that.
3 terrorists dead so far, some policemen injured, they have allegedly cornered the last surviving scumbag.
Worst of all, a police dog has reportedly been killed during the raid :(
Quote from: Liep on November 18, 2015, 04:08:26 AM
A woman is dead in Paris after she exploded her bomb vest when police raided her apartment. :o
This is actually in a shopping area in Saint-Denis, in the notorious Seine Denis département, more like a city centre, not a high-rise rough social housing zone, but the assault takes place in a squat. :lol: Hurray for laxism.
Seen on Twitter
Montjoie Saint-Denis, Allahu Akbar! Synthesis attempt.
The boss of the RAID (French Swat) is reported to be wounded.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 12:57:57 AM
So, apparently, all European league football games this week are starting with a minute of silence for the victims.
In two games so far supporters of Turkey and Bosnia-Hercegovina, respectively, ignored that by whistling and shouting "Allahu Akbar". garbon will tell us if this is more or less classy than Charlie Hebdo...
Incidentally, I wonder where the games took place. Because if it was within the EU, and presumably there were the police present, this should have caused the police to halt the game and forcibly remove the offenders and have them transported immediately to their country of origin, with a "stadium ban".
Europe needs to grow balls.
Edit: Apparently this took place in Istambul. So we should first reconquer the city, and *then* remove the offenders. :cool:
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 04:50:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 12:57:57 AM
So, apparently, all European league football games this week are starting with a minute of silence for the victims.
In two games so far supporters of Turkey and Bosnia-Hercegovina, respectively, ignored that by whistling and shouting "Allahu Akbar". garbon will tell us if this is more or less classy than Charlie Hebdo...
Incidentally, I wonder where the games took place. Because if it was within the EU, and presumably there were the police present, this should have caused the police to halt the game and forcibly remove the offenders and have them transported immediately to their country of origin, with a "stadium ban".
Europe needs to grow balls.
Edit: Apparently this took place in Istambul. So we should first reconquer the city, and *then* remove the offenders. :cool:
Wait did they do anything violent? Are you advocating that people should be deported when they say something incredibly distasteful?
If they are foreign (i.e. non-local resident) football hooligans interrupting games with something distasteful, yes, they should definitely be deported with a re-entry ban. This has been done in the past when it comes to racist slogans and banners, too - in fact, even football clubs were penalised for their supporters doing something like this.
Wow, well I'm glad I'm from the land of the free. I may not like that speech but I don't think shouting "Allahu Akbar" rises to the level of meriting a deportation.
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2015, 05:31:26 AM
Wow, well I'm glad I'm from the land of the free. I may not like that speech but I don't think shouting "Allahu Akbar" rises to the level of meriting a deportation.
Nice spin. :lol:
Anyway, it's no different than Westboro Baptist Church being denied an entry into the UK because of the offensive stuff they are going to say.
I don't think freedom of speech should extend to any form of expression (irrespective of form and contex) by non-citizen non-residents visiting the country. :huh:
You don't think it's a problem to limit speech that is merely offensive?
Quote from: Tamas on November 18, 2015, 04:23:01 AM
Worst of all, a police dog has reportedly been killed during the raid :(
:cry:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUFclMJXIAAhIiP.jpg)
Quote from: Liep on November 18, 2015, 05:40:17 AM
You don't think it's a problem to limit speech that is merely offensive?
With respect to non-resident foreigners? No, I don't think so.
Freedom of speech is not a human right, it is a civil right, and while it should not be restricted for citizens and lawful residents, the state should be free to limit it for visitors. That's no different than the right to vote, for example.
These are public events, people are not free to shout whatever they feel like. It is fairly routine to fine European football clubs if their fans misbehave :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22513780
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/mar/27/dynamo-kyiv-fined-fans-racist-abuse-everton-players
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/jun/19/euro-2012-croatia-fined-racism
Just the top 3 search results there.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 18, 2015, 04:20:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 12:57:57 AM
So, apparently, all European league football games this week are starting with a minute of silence for the victims.
In two games so far supporters of Turkey and Bosnia-Hercegovina, respectively, ignored that by whistling and shouting "Allahu Akbar". garbon will tell us if this is more or less classy than Charlie Hebdo...
This has been standard practice by Turkish supporters, but not for Bosnians.
Albanians, despite being 2/3 muslim (in theory) don't do that.
they might as well be shouting 'Sieg Heil' as far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 05:38:11 AM
Anyway, it's no different than Westboro Baptist Church being denied an entry into the UK because of the offensive stuff they are going to say.
I don't think freedom of speech should extend to any form of expression (irrespective of form and contex) by non-citizen non-residents visiting the country. :huh:
I prefer idiots come and say idiotic things in person. Makes it easier for people to see how stupid they are. Like when WBC came to New York and they managed to get a measly 3 of them to arrive / there were more police surrounding them than their actual supporters.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 18, 2015, 05:46:20 AM
These are public events, people are not free to shout whatever they feel like. It is fairly routine to fine European football clubs if their fans misbehave :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22513780
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/mar/27/dynamo-kyiv-fined-fans-racist-abuse-everton-players
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/jun/19/euro-2012-croatia-fined-racism
Just the top 3 search results there.
Surely there is a difference though between that and deportation? I'm not saying people should be able to say whatever they like, whenever they like with no consequences - just that deportation seems a bit strong for the case Marti brought up.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 05:32:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2015, 05:31:26 AM
Wow, well I'm glad I'm from the land of the free. I may not like that speech but I don't think shouting "Allahu Akbar" rises to the level of meriting a deportation.
Nice spin. :lol:
I wasn't aiming for spin. Here's an amended version.
QuoteWow, well I'm glad I'm from the land of the free. I may not like that speech but I don't think whistling and shouting "Allahu Akbar" during a moment of silence for people killed by Islamic terrorists rises to the level of meriting a deportation.
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2015, 06:40:15 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 18, 2015, 05:46:20 AM
These are public events, people are not free to shout whatever they feel like. It is fairly routine to fine European football clubs if their fans misbehave :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22513780
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/mar/27/dynamo-kyiv-fined-fans-racist-abuse-everton-players
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/jun/19/euro-2012-croatia-fined-racism
Just the top 3 search results there.
Surely there is a difference though between that and deportation? I'm not saying people should be able to say whatever they like, whenever they like with no consequences - just that deportation seems a bit strong for the case Marti brought up.
I agree with you. What I am saying is that there is a procedure for bad behaviour at football matches which should be applied in these instances, just as it has been applied in the past to similar cases.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 18, 2015, 05:46:20 AM
These are public events, people are not free to shout whatever they feel like. It is fairly routine to fine European football clubs if their fans misbehave :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22513780
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/mar/27/dynamo-kyiv-fined-fans-racist-abuse-everton-players
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/jun/19/euro-2012-croatia-fined-racism
Just the top 3 search results there.
Yeah Marty though is not calling for UEFA fines, but rather to pick them out of the crowd on the spot, put them on a bus, and dump them on the other side of the border. Because they said something aholish.
I wonder if he was this quick to punish non-conformist expressions or acts if he himself had a lifestyle that wasn't widely approved by the society he lives in. :hmm:
Well, I am a citizen and a resident so not sure how that's comparable, Tamas.
But in the spirit of compromise, I will concede this to you - any foreigners coming from a Muslim country, where I could go and be openly gay and atheist, and express my views in public with impunity should be free to come to Europe to shout Allahu Akbar at football games. Deal?
I will reiterate - freedom of speech and expression are not universal human rights, they are civil/political rights. They are meant for participants in the public life of the polity, allowing them to exchange ideas. Someone who is not a member of the polity can have these rights restricted as the polity sees fit.
Moreover, limiting the right of expressing views that directly attack the fundamental principles of the polity (such as, for example, expressing totalitarian or fundamentalist views in a polity built around the principles of pluralism) is not just the right, but the duty of the polity. One of the most misguided ideas of certain portions of modern left is that one should tolerate intolerance.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 18, 2015, 06:27:32 AM
they might as well be shouting 'Sieg Heil' as far as I'm concerned.
*Godwin proximity alert sounds*
Godwin's law doesn't apply if an ideology is worse than nazism. Islamism is.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:09:24 AM
I will reiterate - freedom of speech and expression are not universal human rights, they are civil/political rights. They are meant for participants in the public life of the polity, allowing them to exchange ideas. Someone who is not a member of the polity can have these rights restricted as the polity sees fit.
Moreover, limiting the right of expressing views that directly attack the fundamental principles of the polity (such as, for example, expressing totalitarian or fundamentalist views in a polity built around the principles of pluralism) is not just the right, but the duty of the polity. One of the most misguided ideas of certain portions of modern left is that one should tolerate intolerance.
I'm sorta wondering why you think you get to establish which rights are human rights and which are civil rights. Your Eastern European authoritarian worldviews are not really compatible with Western values. Maybe you should sit this one out and learn a little bit about what the West values and how it sees individual rights before you start spouting here about what is and isn't a civil or human right and what those rights are "meant" to do.
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2015, 07:21:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:09:24 AM
I will reiterate - freedom of speech and expression are not universal human rights, they are civil/political rights. They are meant for participants in the public life of the polity, allowing them to exchange ideas. Someone who is not a member of the polity can have these rights restricted as the polity sees fit.
Moreover, limiting the right of expressing views that directly attack the fundamental principles of the polity (such as, for example, expressing totalitarian or fundamentalist views in a polity built around the principles of pluralism) is not just the right, but the duty of the polity. One of the most misguided ideas of certain portions of modern left is that one should tolerate intolerance.
I'm sorta wondering why you think you get to establish which rights are human rights and which are civil rights. Your Eastern European authoritarian worldviews are not really compatible with Western values. Maybe you should sit this one out and learn a little bit about what the West values and how it sees individual rights before you start spouting here about what is and isn't a civil or human right and what those rights are "meant" to do.
Ah, typical grumbler, only capable of spouting ad homs.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:21:36 AM
Godwin's law doesn't apply if an ideology is worse than nazism. Islamism is.
Well, if you think I am wrong, that strengthens my case.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:22:31 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2015, 07:21:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:09:24 AM
I will reiterate - freedom of speech and expression are not universal human rights, they are civil/political rights. They are meant for participants in the public life of the polity, allowing them to exchange ideas. Someone who is not a member of the polity can have these rights restricted as the polity sees fit.
Moreover, limiting the right of expressing views that directly attack the fundamental principles of the polity (such as, for example, expressing totalitarian or fundamentalist views in a polity built around the principles of pluralism) is not just the right, but the duty of the polity. One of the most misguided ideas of certain portions of modern left is that one should tolerate intolerance.
I'm sorta wondering why you think you get to establish which rights are human rights and which are civil rights. Your Eastern European authoritarian worldviews are not really compatible with Western values. Maybe you should sit this one out and learn a little bit about what the West values and how it sees individual rights before you start spouting here about what is and isn't a civil or human right and what those rights are "meant" to do.
Ah, typical grumbler, only capable of spouting ad homs.
Ad hom. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The irony, of course, is that your response is itself an ad hom, while mine was not.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:21:36 AM
Godwin's law doesn't apply if an ideology is worse than nazism. Islamism is.
Indeed, both want to kill Jews and homosexuals, but at least Nazis let you eat pork.
So two terrorists dead, seven caught. One dead police dog.
As for the Turkey-Greece game, it was in Turkey, so dumping on the other side of the border would not work. Game was held in the first country mentioned, as per rules.
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2015, 07:23:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:22:31 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2015, 07:21:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:09:24 AM
I will reiterate - freedom of speech and expression are not universal human rights, they are civil/political rights. They are meant for participants in the public life of the polity, allowing them to exchange ideas. Someone who is not a member of the polity can have these rights restricted as the polity sees fit.
Moreover, limiting the right of expressing views that directly attack the fundamental principles of the polity (such as, for example, expressing totalitarian or fundamentalist views in a polity built around the principles of pluralism) is not just the right, but the duty of the polity. One of the most misguided ideas of certain portions of modern left is that one should tolerate intolerance.
I'm sorta wondering why you think you get to establish which rights are human rights and which are civil rights. Your Eastern European authoritarian worldviews are not really compatible with Western values. Maybe you should sit this one out and learn a little bit about what the West values and how it sees individual rights before you start spouting here about what is and isn't a civil or human right and what those rights are "meant" to do.
Ah, typical grumbler, only capable of spouting ad homs.
Ad hom. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The irony, of course, is that your response is itself an ad hom, while mine was not.
Really? :lol: Your post was nothing but an ad hom - it included nothing but insults against my character, ethnicity and culture of origin.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 18, 2015, 05:46:20 AM
These are public events, people are not free to shout whatever they feel like. It is fairly routine to fine European football clubs if their fans misbehave :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22513780
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/mar/27/dynamo-kyiv-fined-fans-racist-abuse-everton-players
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/jun/19/euro-2012-croatia-fined-racism
Just the top 3 search results there.
Football games are not public events. The rules of the proprietor or the event organizer apply.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:28:34 AM
Really? :lol: Your post was nothing but an ad hom - it included nothing but insults against my character, ethnicity and culture of origin.
Really? :lol: You have that much trouble with comprehending English? Re-read what i wrote and see if it applies to what you said, or who you are. in other words, could I logically have said the same to someone else posting the same nonsense you did?
The answer, of course, is yes. Therefor, my post isn't an ad hom.
I hope you have learned something today. English can be tricky, especially when it is in Latin.
Quote from: Zanza on November 18, 2015, 07:34:48 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 18, 2015, 05:46:20 AM
These are public events, people are not free to shout whatever they feel like. It is fairly routine to fine European football clubs if their fans misbehave :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22513780
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/mar/27/dynamo-kyiv-fined-fans-racist-abuse-everton-players
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/jun/19/euro-2012-croatia-fined-racism
Just the top 3 search results there.
Football games are not public events. The rules of the proprietor or the event organizer apply.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:09:24 AM
I will reiterate - freedom of speech and expression are not universal human rights, they are civil/political rights. They are meant for participants in the public life of the polity, allowing them to exchange ideas. Someone who is not a member of the polity can have these rights restricted as the polity sees fit.
Not in the European Union.
Quote from: European Charter of Human RightsArticle 11
Freedom of expression and information
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:09:24 AM
I will reiterate - freedom of speech and expression are not universal human rights, they are civil/political rights. They are meant for participants in the public life of the polity, allowing them to exchange ideas. Someone who is not a member of the polity can have these rights restricted as the polity sees fit.
Moreover, limiting the right of expressing views that directly attack the fundamental principles of the polity (such as, for example, expressing totalitarian or fundamentalist views in a polity built around the principles of pluralism) is not just the right, but the duty of the polity. One of the most misguided ideas of certain portions of modern left is that one should tolerate intolerance.
WTF? While I can understand why they would, I will not support authoritarian regimes that want to punish non-citizens who seek to reform their societies to be more open and liberal.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 18, 2015, 07:39:03 AM
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Maybe "public" doesn't mean what I think it means in this context due to me not being a native speaker. Public to me is the public space, i.e. on the street like a demonstration or so. Private means it is within a privately owned premise, i.e. a football stadium. So a football game would be a private event.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2015, 07:24:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:21:36 AM
Godwin's law doesn't apply if an ideology is worse than nazism. Islamism is.
Indeed, both want to kill Jews and homosexuals, but at least Nazis let you eat pork.
Nazis also have a better fashion sense when it comes to uniforms.
Quote from: Zanza on November 18, 2015, 07:45:57 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 18, 2015, 07:39:03 AM
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Maybe "public" doesn't mean what I think it means in this context due to me not being a native speaker. Public to me is the public space, i.e. on the street like a demonstration or so. Private means it is within a privately owned premise, i.e. a football stadium. So a football game would be a private event.
That's not how public is understood in law. In fact most public events take place in private venues.
Quote from: Zanza on November 18, 2015, 07:45:57 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 18, 2015, 07:39:03 AM
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Maybe "public" doesn't mean what I think it means in this context due to me not being a native speaker. Public to me is the public space, i.e. on the street like a demonstration or so. Private means it is within a privately owned premise, i.e. a football stadium. So a football game would be a private event.
Yes, i was wondering if the German equivalent had a more restrictive usage.
The definition given here is how I have understood the term :
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-event/
I would say that generally any event where admission is open to the general public (even if you need a ticket to enter) is a public event. Private events would be events by invitation only.
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2015, 07:36:09 AM
Really? :lol: You have that much trouble with comprehending English? Re-read what i wrote and see if it applies to what you said, or who you are. in other words, could I logically have said the same to someone else posting the same nonsense you did?
I suspect you wouldn't have used the term "Eastern European authoritarian worldviews" if you had been talking to someone who wasn't an Eastern European.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:52:20 AM
I would say that generally any event where admission is open to the general public (even if you need a ticket to enter) is a public event. Private events would be events by invitation only.
With regards to limitations of freedom of expression, that definition is not helpful though.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:28:34 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2015, 07:23:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:22:31 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2015, 07:21:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:09:24 AM
I will reiterate - freedom of speech and expression are not universal human rights, they are civil/political rights. They are meant for participants in the public life of the polity, allowing them to exchange ideas. Someone who is not a member of the polity can have these rights restricted as the polity sees fit.
Moreover, limiting the right of expressing views that directly attack the fundamental principles of the polity (such as, for example, expressing totalitarian or fundamentalist views in a polity built around the principles of pluralism) is not just the right, but the duty of the polity. One of the most misguided ideas of certain portions of modern left is that one should tolerate intolerance.
I'm sorta wondering why you think you get to establish which rights are human rights and which are civil rights. Your Eastern European authoritarian worldviews are not really compatible with Western values. Maybe you should sit this one out and learn a little bit about what the West values and how it sees individual rights before you start spouting here about what is and isn't a civil or human right and what those rights are "meant" to do.
Ah, typical grumbler, only capable of spouting ad homs.
Ad hom. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The irony, of course, is that your response is itself an ad hom, while mine was not.
Really? :lol: Your post was nothing but an ad hom - it included nothing but insults against my character, ethnicity and culture of origin.
I think he is covering for the fact he missed the distinction between human rights and political rights :whistle:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 18, 2015, 07:51:52 AM
Quote from: Zanza on November 18, 2015, 07:45:57 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 18, 2015, 07:39:03 AM
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Maybe "public" doesn't mean what I think it means in this context due to me not being a native speaker. Public to me is the public space, i.e. on the street like a demonstration or so. Private means it is within a privately owned premise, i.e. a football stadium. So a football game would be a private event.
Yes, i was wondering if the German equivalent had a more restrictive usage.
The definition given here is how I have understood the term :
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-event/
Yeah, the football game is a bad example in the Common law tradition because it is a match which is generally open to the public in the sense that anyone in the public can buy a ticket to attend. A private event is one that is not generally open to the public and one must have some form of special status to attend like being a member or being specially invited.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 09:16:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:28:34 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2015, 07:23:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:22:31 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2015, 07:21:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:09:24 AM
I will reiterate - freedom of speech and expression are not universal human rights, they are civil/political rights. They are meant for participants in the public life of the polity, allowing them to exchange ideas. Someone who is not a member of the polity can have these rights restricted as the polity sees fit.
Moreover, limiting the right of expressing views that directly attack the fundamental principles of the polity (such as, for example, expressing totalitarian or fundamentalist views in a polity built around the principles of pluralism) is not just the right, but the duty of the polity. One of the most misguided ideas of certain portions of modern left is that one should tolerate intolerance.
I'm sorta wondering why you think you get to establish which rights are human rights and which are civil rights. Your Eastern European authoritarian worldviews are not really compatible with Western values. Maybe you should sit this one out and learn a little bit about what the West values and how it sees individual rights before you start spouting here about what is and isn't a civil or human right and what those rights are "meant" to do.
Ah, typical grumbler, only capable of spouting ad homs.
Ad hom. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The irony, of course, is that your response is itself an ad hom, while mine was not.
Really? :lol: Your post was nothing but an ad hom - it included nothing but insults against my character, ethnicity and culture of origin.
I think he is covering for the fact he missed the distinction between human rights and political rights :whistle:
Is "he" grumbler or I? :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 09:58:29 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 09:16:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:28:34 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2015, 07:23:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:22:31 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2015, 07:21:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:09:24 AM
I will reiterate - freedom of speech and expression are not universal human rights, they are civil/political rights. They are meant for participants in the public life of the polity, allowing them to exchange ideas. Someone who is not a member of the polity can have these rights restricted as the polity sees fit.
Moreover, limiting the right of expressing views that directly attack the fundamental principles of the polity (such as, for example, expressing totalitarian or fundamentalist views in a polity built around the principles of pluralism) is not just the right, but the duty of the polity. One of the most misguided ideas of certain portions of modern left is that one should tolerate intolerance.
I'm sorta wondering why you think you get to establish which rights are human rights and which are civil rights. Your Eastern European authoritarian worldviews are not really compatible with Western values. Maybe you should sit this one out and learn a little bit about what the West values and how it sees individual rights before you start spouting here about what is and isn't a civil or human right and what those rights are "meant" to do.
Ah, typical grumbler, only capable of spouting ad homs.
Ad hom. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The irony, of course, is that your response is itself an ad hom, while mine was not.
Really? :lol: Your post was nothing but an ad hom - it included nothing but insults against my character, ethnicity and culture of origin.
I think he is covering for the fact he missed the distinction between human rights and political rights :whistle:
Is "he" grumbler or I? :hmm:
Grumbles
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 17, 2015, 06:43:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2015, 05:48:29 PM
When Americans say something like "you are in our prayers" or "we are praying for you" in response to a tragedy, they do not mean that they are literally asking God to come down from heaven to solve your problems - any more than someone saying "bless you" after a sneeze literally thinks that you require a blessing because you sneezed.
All it means, basically, is that "you have our sympathies" as expressed by someone who takes religious idiom for granted.
I really don't think one and two are really comparable. I know if I say "I'm praying for you" due to some tragedy, I will literally pray for them. I don't think I am unusual in that.
Are you literally asking God to solve their problems? And do you expect him to do so?
If so, I think you are rather unusual in that respect. Most Americans I know are willing to use the terminology, but have no such expectations.
Yeah when people say 'I will keep you in my prayers' I know they are just being polite.
My grandmother, who really did pray to grant me divine assistance, would pray first and then let me know later on what she had asked for. But even some Euros had that Grandmother.
Now euros, if a southerner says "bless your heart", it's a polite way to tell you to fuck off.
#y'all
Latest news about the Saint-Denis police operation.
Quote
French police conducted a pre-dawn raid on an apartment in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis on Wednesday following a tip-off that suspected Paris attacks mastermind Abdelhamid Abaaoud might be at the location, according to chief prosecutor François Molins.
http://www.france24.com/en/20151117-live-france-pounds-raqqa-investigation-europe-belgium (http://www.france24.com/en/20151117-live-france-pounds-raqqa-investigation-europe-belgium)
So the "Belgian" Abdelhamid Abaaoud was not there, according to the last reports.
Seems it was another cell planning attacks in La Défense Business district, home also of major shopping centre, or another shopping centre in Aubervilliers to the N.E of Paris, just outside the "périphérique extérieur" ring road.
QuoteFrench investigators said Tuesday that they were looking for a second suspect in the attacks after video footage confirmed that there were three men in a car used during the shootings at bars and restaurants in the city.
Still two hunted terrorists.
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2015, 10:06:07 AM
Are you literally asking God to solve their problems? And do you expect him to do so?
If so, I think you are rather unusual in that respect. Most Americans I know are willing to use the terminology, but have no such expectations.
Sometimes I'm specific, sometimes a more general "look out for so and so". You can't have expectations of God, all you can do is hope.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2015, 10:28:49 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2015, 10:06:07 AM
Are you literally asking God to solve their problems? And do you expect him to do so?
If so, I think you are rather unusual in that respect. Most Americans I know are willing to use the terminology, but have no such expectations.
Sometimes I'm specific, sometimes a more general "look out for so and so". You can't have expectations of God, all you can do is hope.
On what basis do you think God chooses those who will get divine aid and those that can just suffer.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 10:57:30 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2015, 10:28:49 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2015, 10:06:07 AM
Are you literally asking God to solve their problems? And do you expect him to do so?
If so, I think you are rather unusual in that respect. Most Americans I know are willing to use the terminology, but have no such expectations.
Sometimes I'm specific, sometimes a more general "look out for so and so". You can't have expectations of God, all you can do is hope.
On what basis do you think God chooses those who will get divine aid and those that can just suffer.
By if enough people send up their pray power of course.
I don't claim to be able to understand his plan.
Wow Tim you are old school.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 11:01:02 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 10:57:30 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2015, 10:28:49 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2015, 10:06:07 AM
Are you literally asking God to solve their problems? And do you expect him to do so?
If so, I think you are rather unusual in that respect. Most Americans I know are willing to use the terminology, but have no such expectations.
Sometimes I'm specific, sometimes a more general "look out for so and so". You can't have expectations of God, all you can do is hope.
On what basis do you think God chooses those who will get divine aid and those that can just suffer.
By if enough people send up their pray power of course.
There is a progress bar that gets filled by the various prayers on the given topic, and filling it unlocks the achievement.
Quote from: Tamas on November 18, 2015, 11:03:38 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 11:01:02 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 10:57:30 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2015, 10:28:49 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2015, 10:06:07 AM
Are you literally asking God to solve their problems? And do you expect him to do so?
If so, I think you are rather unusual in that respect. Most Americans I know are willing to use the terminology, but have no such expectations.
Sometimes I'm specific, sometimes a more general "look out for so and so". You can't have expectations of God, all you can do is hope.
On what basis do you think God chooses those who will get divine aid and those that can just suffer.
By if enough people send up their pray power of course.
There is a progress bar that gets filled by the various prayers on the given topic, and filling it unlocks the achievement.
So if Godly power is granted does it take more prayer to get to the next ding?
Quote from: Tamas on November 18, 2015, 11:03:38 AM
There is a progress bar that gets filled by the various prayers on the given topic, and filling it unlocks the achievement.
Ding! Arsenal will make that penalty kick now.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 11:02:16 AM
Wow Tim you are old school.
Well, someone has to be
that grandparent in the future. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2015, 11:05:11 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 11:02:16 AM
Wow Tim you are old school.
Well, someone has to be that grandparent in the future. ;)
Good point. But Tim has to have kids for that to happen.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2015, 11:01:35 AM
I don't claim to be able to understand his plan.
BTW this is the weakest point in the act of praying. Twist it how you want, it means you think you are able to influence omnipotent God to change his mind.
I mean I KNOW in reality its a psychological thing to feel less out of control with what's happening in your life, but I mean the ideology put around it.
Quote from: Tamas on November 18, 2015, 11:03:38 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 11:01:02 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 10:57:30 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2015, 10:28:49 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2015, 10:06:07 AM
Are you literally asking God to solve their problems? And do you expect him to do so?
If so, I think you are rather unusual in that respect. Most Americans I know are willing to use the terminology, but have no such expectations.
Sometimes I'm specific, sometimes a more general "look out for so and so". You can't have expectations of God, all you can do is hope.
On what basis do you think God chooses those who will get divine aid and those that can just suffer.
By if enough people send up their pray power of course.
There is a progress bar that gets filled by the various prayers on the given topic, and filling it unlocks the achievement.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Tamas on November 18, 2015, 11:08:02 AM
Twist it how you want, it means you think you are able to influence omnipotent God to change his mind.
I don't think that.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 11:18:11 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 18, 2015, 11:08:02 AM
Twist it how you want, it means you think you are able to influence omnipotent God to change his mind.
I don't think that.
yes you do.
Quote from: Tamas on November 18, 2015, 11:23:32 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 11:18:11 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 18, 2015, 11:08:02 AM
Twist it how you want, it means you think you are able to influence omnipotent God to change his mind.
I don't think that.
yes you do.
:lol:
This line of discussion has a short future ...
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 11:05:42 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2015, 11:05:11 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 11:02:16 AM
Wow Tim you are old school.
Well, someone has to be that grandparent in the future. ;)
Good point. But Tim has to have kids for that to happen.
Well, Tim, what are you waiting for? Get reproducing. ;)
Quote from: Tamas on November 18, 2015, 11:08:02 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2015, 11:01:35 AM
I don't claim to be able to understand his plan.
BTW this is the weakest point in the act of praying. Twist it how you want, it means you think you are able to influence omnipotent God to change his mind.
I mean I KNOW in reality its a psychological thing to feel less out of control with what's happening in your life, but I mean the ideology put around it.
That's why I prefer casting spells. :ph34r:
Quote from: Tamas on November 18, 2015, 11:23:32 AM
yes you do.
I pray to focus on what is important and clear my mind of all the shit. The only mind being changed is mine. God is always the same as they say.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 11:38:52 AM
That's why I prefer casting spells. :ph34r:
My mana pool is too low.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 11:43:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 11:38:52 AM
That's why I prefer casting spells. :ph34r:
My mana pool is too low.
I noticed it helps when you drink a lot before. :cheers:
Quote from: Tamas on November 18, 2015, 11:08:02 AM
BTW this is the weakest point in the act of praying. Twist it how you want, it means you think you are able to influence omnipotent God to change his mind.
I mean I KNOW in reality its a psychological thing to feel less out of control with what's happening in your life, but I mean the ideology put around it.
People believe what they want to believe.
So long as they leave us out of their lifestyle, I'm ok with it. Doesn't matter what I think of the subject.
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2015, 11:56:42 AM
People believe what they want to believe.
So long as they leave us out of their lifestyle, I'm ok with it. Doesn't matter what I think of the subject.
It doesn't really matter what any of us think on any subject. Yet we still jabber on about things around here.
Quote from: Tamas on November 18, 2015, 11:08:02 AM
BTW this is the weakest point in the act of praying. Twist it how you want, it means you think you are able to influence omnipotent God to change his mind.
Well, if you believe in free will, it should follow that God will sometimes treat you differently depending on what choices you have made.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2015, 12:14:53 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 18, 2015, 11:08:02 AM
BTW this is the weakest point in the act of praying. Twist it how you want, it means you think you are able to influence omnipotent God to change his mind.
Well, if you believe in free will, it should follow that God will sometimes treat you differently depending on what choices you have made.
If there is such a thing as free will then in what circumstances would God ever intervene?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 12:36:22 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2015, 12:14:53 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 18, 2015, 11:08:02 AM
BTW this is the weakest point in the act of praying. Twist it how you want, it means you think you are able to influence omnipotent God to change his mind.
Well, if you believe in free will, it should follow that God will sometimes treat you differently depending on what choices you have made.
If there is such a thing as free will then in what circumstances would God ever intervene?
When God wanted to? I guess I don't understand the deep theological question at hand.
So the guy who rented his squat to the terrorists killed or apprehended this morning did it only to do a favour to somebody, through friends, since he did not know those he rented to. Claims he would have not rented it to terrorists if he knew they were. :hmm:
Later on, it emerged that the man who rented the place to terrorists had killed his best friend who tried to restrain it some years ago in a dispute about a cell phone possibly stolen by somebody else. Surrendered to the police, convicted to 8 years, only did 6 since he was released early for good behaviour :hmm:
http://www.bfmtv.com/mediaplayer/video/il-a-prete-son-appartement-aux-terroristes-je-ne-savais-pas-698618.html (http://www.bfmtv.com/mediaplayer/video/il-a-prete-son-appartement-aux-terroristes-je-ne-savais-pas-698618.html)
French link, no subtitles sorry, with a video of the guy answering the journo's questions.
Another "local" from Saint-Denis speaking about the assault in some bad French and trying to keep the niqab at all times. News channel claimed it was to protect her. It's not like they could not have blurred her :lmfao:
http://bcove.me/4p361doy (http://bcove.me/4p361doy)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2015, 08:04:58 AM
I suspect you wouldn't have used the term "Eastern European authoritarian worldviews" if you had been talking to someone who wasn't an Eastern European.
:huh: there are tens of millions of Eastern Europeans. To discuss "Eastern European authoritarian worldviews" isn't to single out any one of them (and, in fact, it doesn't even apply to many of them). So, how is noting that Martinus appears to share a "Eastern European authoritarian worldview" an "argument to the man?"
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 09:58:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 09:58:29 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 09:16:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:28:34 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2015, 07:23:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:22:31 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2015, 07:21:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 07:09:24 AM
I will reiterate - freedom of speech and expression are not universal human rights, they are civil/political rights. They are meant for participants in the public life of the polity, allowing them to exchange ideas. Someone who is not a member of the polity can have these rights restricted as the polity sees fit.
Moreover, limiting the right of expressing views that directly attack the fundamental principles of the polity (such as, for example, expressing totalitarian or fundamentalist views in a polity built around the principles of pluralism) is not just the right, but the duty of the polity. One of the most misguided ideas of certain portions of modern left is that one should tolerate intolerance.
I'm sorta wondering why you think you get to establish which rights are human rights and which are civil rights. Your Eastern European authoritarian worldviews are not really compatible with Western values. Maybe you should sit this one out and learn a little bit about what the West values and how it sees individual rights before you start spouting here about what is and isn't a civil or human right and what those rights are "meant" to do.
Ah, typical grumbler, only capable of spouting ad homs.
Ad hom. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The irony, of course, is that your response is itself an ad hom, while mine was not.
Really? :lol: Your post was nothing but an ad hom - it included nothing but insults against my character, ethnicity and culture of origin.
I think he is covering for the fact he missed the distinction between human rights and political rights :whistle:
Is "he" grumbler or I? :hmm:
Grumbles
I think that you miss the distinction in western civilization between human rights and political rights. Check out the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It will clarify the difference between human rights (what the Charter calls "Fundamental Freedoms") and political rights ("Democratic Rights" in the Charter).
If you ever want to practice law in Canada, you should probably know the difference. :whistle:
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2015, 12:51:47 PM
:huh: there are tens of millions of Eastern Europeans. To discuss "Eastern European authoritarian worldviews" isn't to single out any one of them (and, in fact, it doesn't even apply to many of them). So, how is noting that Martinus appears to share a "Eastern European authoritarian worldview" an "argument to the man?"
I didn't say it was. I was just nitpicking the bit about how you would have said the same thing to anyone. :homestar:
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 12:57:57 AM
So, apparently, all European league football games this week are starting with a minute of silence for the victims.
In two games so far supporters of Turkey and Bosnia-Hercegovina, respectively, ignored that by whistling and shouting "Allahu Akbar". garbon will tell us if this is more or less classy than Charlie Hebdo...
So apparently, when asking someone who speaks turkish (danish professor) it was clarified that its normal in turkey to sing and shout to honour the dead and that they sang "Sehitler ölmez, vatan bölünmez" which is a right wing chant for martyrs or something.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2015, 12:58:28 PM
I didn't say it was. I was just nitpicking the bit about how you would have said the same thing to anyone. :homestar:
Ah. All good then.
Ugh. Where did you hear that garbage from Marty?
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 12:45:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 12:36:22 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2015, 12:14:53 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 18, 2015, 11:08:02 AM
BTW this is the weakest point in the act of praying. Twist it how you want, it means you think you are able to influence omnipotent God to change his mind.
Well, if you believe in free will, it should follow that God will sometimes treat you differently depending on what choices you have made.
If there is such a thing as free will then in what circumstances would God ever intervene?
When God wanted to? I guess I don't understand the deep theological question at hand.
If there is free will then God would never intervene because then he would be interfering with free will. example, someone prays for good grades and God sends an angel to them to tell them about the questions that will be on the test? God rewards the person who prays rather than allowing the person who spent that time studying to do better than the person who effectively cheated by deciding to pray rather than study?
What will happen when that same person prays to become US president. Will God interfere with the free will of all the voters who think that person is nutters and install them as president?
The point is that the belief that God answers prayers ignores the impact that answering the prayers has on everyone else. It is a very individualistic view of the word.
Could the byzantine debate about the nature of God and its will go somewhere else, courtesy of the mods and/or the Holy Ghost? It's tiring.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 01:29:07 PM
If there is free will then God would never intervene because then he would be interfering with free will. example, someone prays for good grades and God sends an angel to them to tell them about the questions that will be on the test? God rewards the person who prays rather than allowing the person who spent that time studying to do better than the person who effectively cheated by deciding to pray rather than study?
What will happen when that same person prays to become US president. Will God interfere with the free will of all the voters who think that person is nutters and install them as president?
The point is that the belief that God answers prayers ignores the impact that answering the prayers has on everyone else. It is a very individualistic view of the word.
I believe in prayer.
Now to me God isn't some kind of wish-granting genie so I never pray for something trivial like answers on a test or lottery numbers. I mostly stick with prayers of thanks, or for the health and safety of others. I suspect those are the kinds of prayers God is most receptive to answering. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 01:29:07 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 12:45:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 12:36:22 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2015, 12:14:53 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 18, 2015, 11:08:02 AM
BTW this is the weakest point in the act of praying. Twist it how you want, it means you think you are able to influence omnipotent God to change his mind.
Well, if you believe in free will, it should follow that God will sometimes treat you differently depending on what choices you have made.
If there is such a thing as free will then in what circumstances would God ever intervene?
When God wanted to? I guess I don't understand the deep theological question at hand.
If there is free will then God would never intervene because then he would be interfering with free will. example, someone prays for good grades and God sends an angel to them to tell them about the questions that will be on the test? God rewards the person who prays rather than allowing the person who spent that time studying to do better than the person who effectively cheated by deciding to pray rather than study?
What will happen when that same person prays to become US president. Will God interfere with the free will of all the voters who think that person is nutters and install them as president?
The point is that the belief that God answers prayers ignores the impact that answering the prayers has on everyone else. It is a very individualistic view of the word.
In Judaism, with the exception of the Kabbalists (some of whom view prayer as a sort of magic), traditionally the purpose of prayer was not to influence God in any way, but to influence the person making the prayer - basically, to have the proper appreciation of the divine.
Most Jewish prayers though take the form of elaborately praising God - as with so much in Judaism, the traditional explanation (derived from the great medieval Jewish rationalists like Maimonides) probably developed as a rationalization of a much more primitive supplication ceremony, together with sacrifices and the like.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 18, 2015, 01:37:48 PM
Could the byzantine debate about the nature of God and its will go somewhere else, courtesy of the mods and/or the Holy Ghost? It's tiring.
Put it in the form of a prayer. The mods are at least as capricious and non-acting as any deity. :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 01:29:07 PM
If there is free will then God would never intervene because then he would be interfering with free will. example, someone prays for good grades and God sends an angel to them to tell them about the questions that will be on the test? God rewards the person who prays rather than allowing the person who spent that time studying to do better than the person who effectively cheated by deciding to pray rather than study?
What will happen when that same person prays to become US president. Will God interfere with the free will of all the voters who think that person is nutters and install them as president?
The point is that the belief that God answers prayers ignores the impact that answering the prayers has on everyone else. It is a very individualistic view of the word.
If you believe that God answers prayers and you believe that God is all knowing then you would believe that God takes all these things into consideration. I don't think anybody believes that if you pray God just gives you want you want.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 18, 2015, 01:37:48 PM
Could the byzantine debate about the nature of God and its will go somewhere else, courtesy of the mods and/or the Holy Ghost? It's tiring.
I will pray for this thread brother Duque.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 12:36:22 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2015, 12:14:53 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 18, 2015, 11:08:02 AM
BTW this is the weakest point in the act of praying. Twist it how you want, it means you think you are able to influence omnipotent God to change his mind.
Well, if you believe in free will, it should follow that God will sometimes treat you differently depending on what choices you have made.
If there is such a thing as free will then in what circumstances would God ever intervene?
Query: Do you actually want to know, or are trying to make a point?
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2015, 01:38:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 01:29:07 PM
If there is free will then God would never intervene because then he would be interfering with free will. example, someone prays for good grades and God sends an angel to them to tell them about the questions that will be on the test? God rewards the person who prays rather than allowing the person who spent that time studying to do better than the person who effectively cheated by deciding to pray rather than study?
What will happen when that same person prays to become US president. Will God interfere with the free will of all the voters who think that person is nutters and install them as president?
The point is that the belief that God answers prayers ignores the impact that answering the prayers has on everyone else. It is a very individualistic view of the word.
I believe in prayer.
Now to me God isn't some kind of wish-granting genie so I never pray for something trivial like answers on a test or lottery numbers. I mostly stick with prayers of thanks, or for the health and safety of others. I suspect those are the kinds of prayers God is most receptive to answering. :)
I have no problem with you giving thanks to your God. That at least seems logical to me if one holds that there is free will. But the moment you start using language like your God "answers" a prayer then that implies some from of intervention in daily affairs that puts the lie to free will. If you are right then life is a rigged game and all one needs to do is pray. Its worse then predestination because if one beliefs that prayers are answered then the game rigging varies depending on how much God favours one group over the other. If you are right God has a hell of a problem on Friday nights in Texas trying to decide which players should get injured and which teams should win.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 02:15:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 12:36:22 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2015, 12:14:53 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 18, 2015, 11:08:02 AM
BTW this is the weakest point in the act of praying. Twist it how you want, it means you think you are able to influence omnipotent God to change his mind.
Well, if you believe in free will, it should follow that God will sometimes treat you differently depending on what choices you have made.
If there is such a thing as free will then in what circumstances would God ever intervene?
Query: Do you actually want to know, or are trying to make a point?
If you have an answer I would be happy to hear it. Put another way, if there was an answer that made sense I would be much more likely to become a Christian. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 02:45:01 PM
I have no problem with you giving thanks to your God. That at least seems logical to me if one holds that there is free will. But the moment you start using language like your God "answers" a prayer then that implies some from of intervention in daily affairs that puts the lie to free will. If you are right then life is a rigged game and all one needs to do is pray. Its worse then predestination because if one beliefs that prayers are answered then the game rigging varies depending on how much God favours one group over the other. If you are right God has a hell of a problem on Friday nights in Texas trying to decide which players should get injured and which teams should win.
I guess I don't follow. If you believe that prayers are answered than you would also believe that God can easily swing all this being all powerful and all knowing. Also trying to impose logic on religion is ridiculous. It is not a scientific theorem. It is essentially irrational.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 02:52:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 02:45:01 PM
I have no problem with you giving thanks to your God. That at least seems logical to me if one holds that there is free will. But the moment you start using language like your God "answers" a prayer then that implies some from of intervention in daily affairs that puts the lie to free will. If you are right then life is a rigged game and all one needs to do is pray. Its worse then predestination because if one beliefs that prayers are answered then the game rigging varies depending on how much God favours one group over the other. If you are right God has a hell of a problem on Friday nights in Texas trying to decide which players should get injured and which teams should win.
I guess I don't follow. If you believe that prayers are answered than you would also believe that God can easily swing all this being all powerful and all knowing.
And being all powerful and all knowing God could also not be all loving (as the New Testament teaches).
You should check out Erhman's book about just this issue called "God's Problem" iirc.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 02:46:19 PM
If you have an answer I would be happy to hear it. Put another way, if there was an answer that made sense I would be much more likely to become a Christian. :)
Even if there was an answer that made sense it would have nothing to do with why people become Christians. People do not become religious because they are looking for a way to game life and gain some kind of edge by wielding their prayer weapons. Well ok probably some do but that is kind of missing the point.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 01:04:11 PM
Ugh. Where did you hear that garbage from Marty?
Wha?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 02:46:19 PM
If you have an answer I would be happy to hear it. Put another way, if there was an answer that made sense I would be much more likely to become a Christian. :)
The answer really depends on what sect of Christianity is. Look for yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_determinism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_determinism)
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 01:29:07 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 12:45:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 12:36:22 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2015, 12:14:53 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 18, 2015, 11:08:02 AM
BTW this is the weakest point in the act of praying. Twist it how you want, it means you think you are able to influence omnipotent God to change his mind.
Well, if you believe in free will, it should follow that God will sometimes treat you differently depending on what choices you have made.
If there is such a thing as free will then in what circumstances would God ever intervene?
When God wanted to? I guess I don't understand the deep theological question at hand.
If there is free will then God would never intervene because then he would be interfering with free will. example, someone prays for good grades and God sends an angel to them to tell them about the questions that will be on the test? God rewards the person who prays rather than allowing the person who spent that time studying to do better than the person who effectively cheated by deciding to pray rather than study?
What will happen when that same person prays to become US president. Will God interfere with the free will of all the voters who think that person is nutters and install them as president?
The point is that the belief that God answers prayers ignores the impact that answering the prayers has on everyone else. It is a very individualistic view of the word.
I would say that "prayer" (and other similar techniques, like meditation) are not meant to cause a change in the outside world as much as in our perception of it. So "praying for good grades" would be essentially about putting yourself in a focused state of mind allowing you to analyse and answer the questions better. You would still need to know the subject, of course (hence the "God helps those who help themselves" saying).
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 02:54:28 PM
And being all powerful and all knowing God could also not be all loving (as the New Testament teaches).
You should check out Erhman's book about just this issue called "God's Problem" iirc.
I am well aware of this problem. It is an unsolvable paradox for those who turn to religion to make make sense of why things happen in the world. But I am not one of those people so it does not bother me much.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 02:57:35 PM
I would say that "prayer" (and other similar techniques, like meditation) are not meant to cause a change in the outside world as much as in our perception of it. So "praying for good grades" would be essentially about putting yourself in a focused state of mind allowing you to analyse and answer the questions better. You would still need to know the subject, of course (hence the "God helps those who help themselves" saying).
:yes:
At least that is roughly the role it plays in my life and why I do it.
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2015, 01:38:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 01:29:07 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 12:45:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 12:36:22 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2015, 12:14:53 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 18, 2015, 11:08:02 AM
BTW this is the weakest point in the act of praying. Twist it how you want, it means you think you are able to influence omnipotent God to change his mind.
Well, if you believe in free will, it should follow that God will sometimes treat you differently depending on what choices you have made.
If there is such a thing as free will then in what circumstances would God ever intervene?
When God wanted to? I guess I don't understand the deep theological question at hand.
If there is free will then God would never intervene because then he would be interfering with free will. example, someone prays for good grades and God sends an angel to them to tell them about the questions that will be on the test? God rewards the person who prays rather than allowing the person who spent that time studying to do better than the person who effectively cheated by deciding to pray rather than study?
What will happen when that same person prays to become US president. Will God interfere with the free will of all the voters who think that person is nutters and install them as president?
The point is that the belief that God answers prayers ignores the impact that answering the prayers has on everyone else. It is a very individualistic view of the word.
In Judaism, with the exception of the Kabbalists (some of whom view prayer as a sort of magic), traditionally the purpose of prayer was not to influence God in any way, but to influence the person making the prayer - basically, to have the proper appreciation of the divine.
Most Jewish prayers though take the form of elaborately praising God - as with so much in Judaism, the traditional explanation (derived from the great medieval Jewish rationalists like Maimonides) probably developed as a rationalization of a much more primitive supplication ceremony, together with sacrifices and the like.
Even the Kabbalists (and Qabalists) are divided on the effects of "magic" - Dion Fortune thought it just causes changes in the magic worker. Crowley thought it changes the outside world - ultimately it doesn't really matter, if you consider how much of the outside world is just our perception of it.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 02:54:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 01:04:11 PM
Ugh. Where did you hear that garbage from Marty?
Wha?
About the Turks chanting 'Allahu Ackbar'. Liep makes it sound like they were chanting in support of Paris not Daesh.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 02:45:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2015, 01:38:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 01:29:07 PM
If there is free will then God would never intervene because then he would be interfering with free will. example, someone prays for good grades and God sends an angel to them to tell them about the questions that will be on the test? God rewards the person who prays rather than allowing the person who spent that time studying to do better than the person who effectively cheated by deciding to pray rather than study?
What will happen when that same person prays to become US president. Will God interfere with the free will of all the voters who think that person is nutters and install them as president?
The point is that the belief that God answers prayers ignores the impact that answering the prayers has on everyone else. It is a very individualistic view of the word.
I believe in prayer.
Now to me God isn't some kind of wish-granting genie so I never pray for something trivial like answers on a test or lottery numbers. I mostly stick with prayers of thanks, or for the health and safety of others. I suspect those are the kinds of prayers God is most receptive to answering. :)
I have no problem with you giving thanks to your God. That at least seems logical to me if one holds that there is free will. But the moment you start using language like your God "answers" a prayer then that implies some from of intervention in daily affairs that puts the lie to free will. If you are right then life is a rigged game and all one needs to do is pray. Its worse then predestination because if one beliefs that prayers are answered then the game rigging varies depending on how much God favours one group over the other. If you are right God has a hell of a problem on Friday nights in Texas trying to decide which players should get injured and which teams should win.
I think God can also "answer" your prayer by making you realise what you are asking for is not what you really want/need but just a whim. Essentially, prayer is a form of self-therapy. And I am not even claiming there is noone out there who actually answers those - but whether it is a "God" or your super ego/some other part of yourself ("your soul") is really a moot point. The point is those techniques work.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 02:57:35 PM
I would say that "prayer" (and other similar techniques, like meditation) are not meant to cause a change in the outside world as much as in our perception of it. So "praying for good grades" would be essentially about putting yourself in a focused state of mind allowing you to analyse and answer the questions better. You would still need to know the subject, of course (hence the "God helps those who help themselves" saying).
To each their own, but many/most Christians are praying for a change in the world.
One example - when my sister in law was pregnant with twins, the doctors were saying all sorts of terrible things were going to happen to them, they had very little chance of surviving. I would pray that those babies would be healthy - and so did other family members. And when they were born precisely zero of the things the doctors were worried about happened. :)
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2015, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 02:57:35 PM
I would say that "prayer" (and other similar techniques, like meditation) are not meant to cause a change in the outside world as much as in our perception of it. So "praying for good grades" would be essentially about putting yourself in a focused state of mind allowing you to analyse and answer the questions better. You would still need to know the subject, of course (hence the "God helps those who help themselves" saying).
To each their own, but many/most Christians are praying for a change in the world.
One example - when my sister in law was pregnant with twins, the doctors were saying all sorts of terrible things were going to happen to them, they had very little chance of surviving. I would pray that those babies would be healthy - and so did other family members. And when they were born precisely zero of the things the doctors were worried about happened. :)
Free will was violated :(
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2015, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 02:57:35 PM
I would say that "prayer" (and other similar techniques, like meditation) are not meant to cause a change in the outside world as much as in our perception of it. So "praying for good grades" would be essentially about putting yourself in a focused state of mind allowing you to analyse and answer the questions better. You would still need to know the subject, of course (hence the "God helps those who help themselves" saying).
To each their own, but many/most Christians are praying for a change in the world.
One example - when my sister in law was pregnant with twins, the doctors were saying all sorts of terrible things were going to happen to them, they had very little chance of surviving. I would pray that those babies would be healthy - and so did other family members. And when they were born precisely zero of the things the doctors were worried about happened. :)
But then it could have also been because knowledge that all these people are praying for her well being put your sister in law in a state of mind which reduced her stress and her body did not suffer any "malfunction" which would result in all these bad things happening.
But as I said, the point is moot - reality is after all 99% of our perception, so whether you are changing the world or it is just in your head doesn't matter (as someone once said "It's all in your head - you just don't realise how big your head is"). What matters is, it works - and belief (whatever it is) is crucial in making it work. :)
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 03:09:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2015, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 02:57:35 PM
I would say that "prayer" (and other similar techniques, like meditation) are not meant to cause a change in the outside world as much as in our perception of it. So "praying for good grades" would be essentially about putting yourself in a focused state of mind allowing you to analyse and answer the questions better. You would still need to know the subject, of course (hence the "God helps those who help themselves" saying).
To each their own, but many/most Christians are praying for a change in the world.
One example - when my sister in law was pregnant with twins, the doctors were saying all sorts of terrible things were going to happen to them, they had very little chance of surviving. I would pray that those babies would be healthy - and so did other family members. And when they were born precisely zero of the things the doctors were worried about happened. :)
Free will was violated :(
Who was the free will on how they are born? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2015, 03:10:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 03:09:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2015, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 02:57:35 PM
I would say that "prayer" (and other similar techniques, like meditation) are not meant to cause a change in the outside world as much as in our perception of it. So "praying for good grades" would be essentially about putting yourself in a focused state of mind allowing you to analyse and answer the questions better. You would still need to know the subject, of course (hence the "God helps those who help themselves" saying).
To each their own, but many/most Christians are praying for a change in the world.
One example - when my sister in law was pregnant with twins, the doctors were saying all sorts of terrible things were going to happen to them, they had very little chance of surviving. I would pray that those babies would be healthy - and so did other family members. And when they were born precisely zero of the things the doctors were worried about happened. :)
Free will was violated :(
Who was the free will on how they are born? :unsure:
Dalai Lama and Jesus. Duh. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 03:00:41 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 02:54:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 01:04:11 PM
Ugh. Where did you hear that garbage from Marty?
Wha?
About the Turks chanting 'Allahu Ackbar'. Liep makes it sound like they were chanting in support of Paris not Daesh.
Fireblade and Daily Mail. :hmm:
Police say 5,000 rounds were fired in this mornings seige/raid, no indication if that's just the police or if it includes the terrorists. Substantial damage to the 3rd floor flat.
French media say it's the police special forces.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 03:14:13 PM
Fireblade and Daily Mail. :hmm:
Ah. Well that explains it.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 18, 2015, 03:16:37 PM
French media say it's the police special forces.
I'd guess that the terrorists must have fired a fair few too, lucky only one bystander/non-police person was injured, could have been a lot worse.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 03:18:22 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 03:14:13 PM
Fireblade and Daily Mail. :hmm:
Ah. Well that explains it.
No, Liep should check again. The silence minute was booed, that's not support to the victims.
http://sport24.lefigaro.fr/le-scan-sport/buzz/2015/11/17/27002-20151117ARTFIG00407-attentats-a-paris-une-minute-de-silence-sous-une-pluie-de-sifflets-avant-turquie-grece.php (http://sport24.lefigaro.fr/le-scan-sport/buzz/2015/11/17/27002-20151117ARTFIG00407-attentats-a-paris-une-minute-de-silence-sous-une-pluie-de-sifflets-avant-turquie-grece.php)
Link includes a video
Same happened during the Ireland-Bosnia game, but less dramatic with fewer numbers.
http://sport24.lefigaro.fr/le-scan-sport/2015/11/17/27001-20151117ARTFIG00060-attentats-de-paris-une-minute-de-silence-non-respectee-avant-irlande-bosnie.php (http://sport24.lefigaro.fr/le-scan-sport/2015/11/17/27001-20151117ARTFIG00060-attentats-de-paris-une-minute-de-silence-non-respectee-avant-irlande-bosnie.php)
Now, contrast that with the England-France game in Wembley where English fans even sung the Marseillaise, something some French players do not (Benzema the
maître chanteur black-mailer in French :D) or ministers (Taubira).
Why don't they sing? Are they monarchists? :mad:
What were they chanting?
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 03:36:36 PM
Why don't they sing? Are they monarchists? :mad:
What were they chanting?
How can you not sing La Marseillaise. It's the best anthem and we have two Languish polls to prove it! :mad:
The Marseillaise is a symbol of nationalist oppression, of the Right. :tinfoil:
Taubira used to be in favour of Guyane independence, she's a sell out but she kept some old habits. As for Benzema, it's identity politics, he feels more Algerian, but the French squad pays better.
Ribéry probably can't read the Marseillaise, much less sing it, since the French level required is too high. :lol:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 18, 2015, 03:43:47 PM
Ribéry probably can't read the Marseillaise, much less sing it, since the French level required is too high. :lol:
Ne sois pas si snob. :glare:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 03:56:11 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 18, 2015, 03:43:47 PM
Ribéry probably can't read the Marseillaise, much less sing it, since the French level required is too high. :lol:
Ne sois pas si snob. :glare:
Je t'emmerde ! :)
This one is in the "even dumber than Syt's family connections" series but in French for the francophiles or francophones
(https://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/11224376_10153112368932312_8074784562413939928_n.jpg?oh=377a9c5bac60e49c6abcb6fde6a1e5bf&oe=56FA1D74)
[spoiler]Originally, this is meant to be somewhat humorous, cf. "la Chatte qui bulle"but I got it from somebody who believes all and any of it. Not my family, of course.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 03:28:22 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 18, 2015, 12:48:13 PM
So the guy who rented his squat
How do you rent a squat?
Easy, cash goes from hand to hand. If you're friends with the "owner" it can be free.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 18, 2015, 04:08:36 PM
This one is in the "even dumber than Syt's family connections" series but in French for the francophiles or francophones
(https://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/11224376_10153112368932312_8074784562413939928_n.jpg?oh=377a9c5bac60e49c6abcb6fde6a1e5bf&oe=56FA1D74)
[spoiler]Originally, this is meant to be somewhat humorous, cf. "la Chatte qui bulle"but I got it from somebody who believes all and any of it. Not my family, of course.[/spoiler]
America being 100% evil and responsible for everything was kind of new and fresh and funny in the 1960s but it is a little tiresome now.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 02:54:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 02:46:19 PM
If you have an answer I would be happy to hear it. Put another way, if there was an answer that made sense I would be much more likely to become a Christian. :)
Even if there was an answer that made sense it would have nothing to do with why people become Christians. People do not become religious because they are looking for a way to game life and gain some kind of edge by wielding their prayer weapons. Well ok probably some do but that is kind of missing the point.
Ok, but I wasn't talking about other people was I ;)
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 02:54:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 02:46:19 PM
If you have an answer I would be happy to hear it. Put another way, if there was an answer that made sense I would be much more likely to become a Christian. :)
The answer really depends on what sect of Christianity is. Look for yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_determinism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_determinism)
Ah, so the answer is, it depends. Not very compelling.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 04:40:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 02:54:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 02:46:19 PM
If you have an answer I would be happy to hear it. Put another way, if there was an answer that made sense I would be much more likely to become a Christian. :)
Even if there was an answer that made sense it would have nothing to do with why people become Christians. People do not become religious because they are looking for a way to game life and gain some kind of edge by wielding their prayer weapons. Well ok probably some do but that is kind of missing the point.
Ok, but I wasn't talking about other people was I ;)
Well, if you are looking for a way to game life and gain some kind of edge out of religion, Scientology may be your answer ... only you have to have started it. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 04:40:42 PM
Ok, but I wasn't talking about other people was I ;)
True. I was saying even if we could somehow produce one I wouldn't recommend you become a Christian based on that :P
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2015, 04:42:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 04:40:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 02:54:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 02:46:19 PM
If you have an answer I would be happy to hear it. Put another way, if there was an answer that made sense I would be much more likely to become a Christian. :)
Even if there was an answer that made sense it would have nothing to do with why people become Christians. People do not become religious because they are looking for a way to game life and gain some kind of edge by wielding their prayer weapons. Well ok probably some do but that is kind of missing the point.
Ok, but I wasn't talking about other people was I ;)
Well, if you are looking for a way to game life and gain some kind of edge out of religion, Scientology may be your answer ... only you have to have started it. ;)
True. But that wasn't my question.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 04:43:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 04:40:42 PM
Ok, but I wasn't talking about other people was I ;)
True. I was saying even if we could somehow produce one I wouldn't recommend you become a Christian based on that :P
I don't know. I think the biggest flaw is the thought that there is an all loving God that somehow takes care of things. If you can reconcile that notion with what we see in the world then you have an answer to a riddle I have not been able to solve.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 04:45:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 04:43:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 04:40:42 PM
Ok, but I wasn't talking about other people was I ;)
True. I was saying even if we could somehow produce one I wouldn't recommend you become a Christian based on that :P
I don't know. I think the biggest flaw is the thought that there is an all loving God that somehow takes care of things. If you can reconcile that notion with what we see in the world then you have an answer to a riddle I have not been able to solve.
All that has to give is the notion that God is particularly loving. :D
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 04:37:22 PM
America being 100% evil and responsible for everything was kind of new and fresh and funny in the 1960s but it is a little tiresome now.
You're just missing the end, the "logical" end. "Méthode adaptée en Français (sic) i.e the French had it coming since they are doing like the Americans.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 04:45:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 04:43:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 04:40:42 PM
Ok, but I wasn't talking about other people was I ;)
True. I was saying even if we could somehow produce one I wouldn't recommend you become a Christian based on that :P
I don't know. I think the biggest flaw is the thought that there is an all loving God that somehow takes care of things. If you can reconcile that notion with what we see in the world then you have an answer to a riddle I have not been able to solve.
What if God works on an individual level? So if you do good, it means you are in touch with God and he/she/it is working through you. If you do evil, it means you are out of touch with God.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 04:53:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 04:45:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 04:43:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 04:40:42 PM
Ok, but I wasn't talking about other people was I ;)
True. I was saying even if we could somehow produce one I wouldn't recommend you become a Christian based on that :P
I don't know. I think the biggest flaw is the thought that there is an all loving God that somehow takes care of things. If you can reconcile that notion with what we see in the world then you have an answer to a riddle I have not been able to solve.
What if God works on an individual level? So if you do good, it means you are in touch with God and he/she/it is working through you. If you do evil, it means you are out of touch with God.
Then God should get rid of evil.
God cant - God cant affect those who are out of touch with God - hence evil is out of God's reach. God can only affect "good".
God's omnipotency is localised. ;)
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 18, 2015, 04:47:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 04:37:22 PM
America being 100% evil and responsible for everything was kind of new and fresh and funny in the 1960s but it is a little tiresome now.
You're just missing the end, the "logical" end. "Méthode adaptée en Français (sic) i.e the French had it coming since they are doing like the Americans.
Ah I thought it said the method had been finally adapted, thus Hollande was reacting like Amurikkka in reaction to the attack in Paris rather than France was already being Hitler-like.
I think there is nothing more glorious than the pissed off French republic.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 05:02:54 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 18, 2015, 04:47:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 04:37:22 PM
America being 100% evil and responsible for everything was kind of new and fresh and funny in the 1960s but it is a little tiresome now.
You're just missing the end, the "logical" end. "Méthode adaptée en Français (sic) i.e the French had it coming since they are doing like the Americans.
Ah I thought it said the method had been finally adapted, thus Hollande was reacting like Amurikkka in reaction to the attack in Paris rather than France was already being Hitler-like.
Well, now that you put it in those terms, I see what you mean. The comparison to Amurikkka is indeed intended. While France being Hitler-like is a bit too soon but it is somewhat implied, indeed.
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2015, 03:10:21 PM
Who was the free will on how they are born? :unsure:
Their parents... or did you think that free will only applies to you?
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2015, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 04:45:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 04:43:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 04:40:42 PM
Ok, but I wasn't talking about other people was I ;)
True. I was saying even if we could somehow produce one I wouldn't recommend you become a Christian based on that :P
I don't know. I think the biggest flaw is the thought that there is an all loving God that somehow takes care of things. If you can reconcile that notion with what we see in the world then you have an answer to a riddle I have not been able to solve.
All that has to give is the notion that God is particularly loving. :D
Exactly - that is God's Problem. To steal a line from Ehrman.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 05:05:10 PM
I think there is nothing more glorious than the pissed off French republic.
I liked the line Oliver used about that.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 05:23:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2015, 03:10:21 PM
Who was the free will on how they are born? :unsure:
Their parents... or did you think that free will only applies to you?
Sorry the 'they' was with regards to the not yet born. And no, other than choosing not to have the children, I don't think the parents had much say in what BB is talking about.
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2015, 06:08:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 05:23:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2015, 03:10:21 PM
Who was the free will on how they are born? :unsure:
Their parents... or did you think that free will only applies to you?
Sorry the 'they' was with regards to the not yet born. And no, other than choosing not to have the children, I don't think the parents had much say in what BB is talking about.
The answer remains the same. The parents made the choice of their own free will, they just don't
understand the consequences of those actions. Consequences to an action can be almost impossible to predict, but that doesn't mean you aren't caused by someone's free will. Most of the time bad things that happen to you are due to the choices of others, even if they didn't intend to hurt you. Simply because you (or another person) lack a perfect knowledge of events doesn't mean God has it in for you.
It means that [ if god then freewill>good ]
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 07:39:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2015, 06:08:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 05:23:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2015, 03:10:21 PM
Who was the free will on how they are born? :unsure:
Their parents... or did you think that free will only applies to you?
Sorry the 'they' was with regards to the not yet born. And no, other than choosing not to have the children, I don't think the parents had much say in what BB is talking about.
The answer remains the same. The parents made the choice of their own free will, they just don't understand the consequences of those actions. Consequences to an action can be almost impossible to predict, but that doesn't mean you aren't caused by someone's free will. Most of the time bad things that happen to you are due to the choices of others, even if they didn't intend to hurt you. Simply because you (or another person) lack a perfect knowledge of events doesn't mean God has it in for you.
Except, in a world where it isn't God who determined it, the parents' free will was simply was whether the babies were born or not. The absence of the expected condition wasn't due to their decision.
The Paris prosecutor thinks this was a separate cell of terrorists to those who mounted Fridays attack. So the most wanted man from that attack is still at large and it's unclear if the the Belgian 'mastermind' has died in this siege, some american sources think so.
In Marseilles a couple of IS-praising idiots attacked a Jewish teacher, while somebody in the same city cut a veiled Muslim woman while she was leaving the metro, swearing at her religion.
I think the terrorists must be feeling like this now:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBAZ3gLD.gif&hash=999261ea77efb9f489b3df182abc212063f6bc43)
Quote from: Tamas on November 19, 2015, 05:10:18 AM
In Marseilles a couple of IS-praising idiots attacked a Jewish teacher, while somebody in the same city cut a veiled Muslim woman while she was leaving the metro, swearing at her religion.
Business as usual in Marseille, sadly.
ahhh
Quote from: mongers on November 18, 2015, 08:27:07 PM
The Paris prosecutor thinks this was a separate cell of terrorists to those who mounted Fridays attack. So the most wanted man from that attack is still at large and it's unclear if the the Belgian 'mastermind' has died in this siege, some american sources think so.
It's still unclear.
He was not among the 8 people apprehended .
Washington Post announced his death quoting two official European sources. Death circumstances are not clear, killed during the shooting, the explosion of the female terrorist or if he committed suicide.
French ambassador in India also mentioned informations that would suggest the mastermind committed suicide.
RTL radio (private mainstream radio) also supports this version, quoting a former DGSE official (French external security agency abroad), himself citing three sources, two in France and one in Belgium.
QuoteHier soir, le procureur de Paris a annoncé qu'il ne figure pas parmi les huit personnes interpellées. Son sort n'est pas certain pour autant: de nombreux médias étrangers ont annoncé sa mort dans l'assaut. Le Washington Post l'affirme, citant deux sources européennes officielles de deux pays différents. D'après le quotidien américain, les conditions de cette mort ne seraient pas claires et les sources ignoreraient s'il a été tué dans la fusillade, dans l'explosion de la femme kamikaze ou s'il se serait suicidé.
L'ambassadeur de France en Inde a, de son côté, également évoqué la mort du commanditaire présumé dans une interview à la chaîne NDTV. "J'ai des informations qui nous laissent penser qu'il s'est suicidé. Je ne possède aucun document particulier le mentionnant mais c'est la première information que nous avons reçu", a expliqué François Richier.
Ce matin, RTL reprend également cette information, citant un ancien agent de renseignement à la DGSE. Ce dernier s'appuie, selon la radio, sur trois sources différentes, deux en France et une en Belgique, dans les milieux sécuritaires.
Lors de sa prise de parole, le procureur a fait état d'"au moins deux morts" parmi les occupants de l'appartement, dont un "corps criblé d'impacts" et non-identifiable visuellement. L'autre personne décédée est la femme ayant actionné son gilet d'explosifs.
PS: The mastermind Abdelhamid Abaaoud has been formally identified among the corpses in Saint-Denis, following the assault, according to the Paris prosecutor.
The ringleader's remains have been identified.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34867615
State of Emergency extended and strengthened till February after a near-unanimous vote at the Assemblée Nationale : 551 votes for only 6 against.
Union Nationale for now.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 19, 2015, 08:46:08 AM
State of Emergency extended and strengthened till February after a near-unanimous vote at the Assemblée Nationale : 551 votes for only 6 against.
Union Nationale for now.
I thought you said l'union sacrée had already broken down? I can call it l'union sacrée can't I? Because that would make me happy.
Dans la guerre qui s'engage, la France sera héroïquement défendue par tous ses fils, dont rien ne brisera devant l'ennemi l'union sacrée -_-
Quote from: Valmy on November 19, 2015, 08:48:53 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 19, 2015, 08:46:08 AM
State of Emergency extended and strengthened till February after a near-unanimous vote at the Assemblée Nationale : 551 votes for only 6 against.
Union Nationale for now.
I thought you said l'union sacrée had already broken down? I can call it l'union sacrée can't I? Because that would make me happy.
Dans la guerre qui s'engage, la France sera héroïquement défendue par tous ses fils, dont rien ne brisera devant l'ennemi l'union sacrée -_-
Of course you can call it l'Union sacrée, bit of a WWI vibe though.
I was indeed pessimistic, but the debates prior to the vote were not very engaging.
http://www.lesechos.fr/politique-societe/politique/021486328974-lunion-nationale-sest-fracassee-1176001.php (http://www.lesechos.fr/politique-societe/politique/021486328974-lunion-nationale-sest-fracassee-1176001.php)
Videos feeds included in the link to give an idea of the ambient during the debate
The ones who voted against are 3 Greens and 3 Socialist "frondeurs" (Valls=Mazarin Flanby=Louis XIV ?)
edit: votes edited
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2015, 08:17:01 PM
Except, in a world where it isn't God who determined it, the parents' free will was simply was whether the babies were born or not. The absence of the expected condition wasn't due to their decision.
No, the parents chose to have a child, but they didn't understand all possible results of it. Free will is about the choice, not the final outcome which you may or may be able to predict. Unless you believe that genetic defects are actually due to things like magic.
Little noticed was France using for the first time a little known clause adopted in the last EU treaty. Practical effects remain to be seen, given the sorry state of most militaries in the continent. Besides the UK, on the way out of the EU, which itself is not in a great shape militarily speaking, but not overstretched like the French armed forces. As for Germany... :rolleyes:
Italy is busy in the Med with the illegals, Poland has a border with Russia (peaceful for now) and the Ukraine question is not solved. Spain? Economic crisis is not over, yet. And so on...
The other, smaller countries, won't be able to assist in a significant way, even if they wanted to.
As for going through NATO, with allies such as Erdogan's islamist Turkey, there's no ideal solution.
QuoteFrance invokes EU's article 42.7, but what does it mean?
The mutual defence clause is in play for the first time, but there are limits to what member states must do to help
France admits it is struggling to cope with foreign military commitments and the need for extra security at home.
Ian Traynor in Brussels
France has taken the European Union into uncharted territory by obliging the other 27 member states to come to its defence following the terrorist atrocities in Paris.
Invoking article 42.7, a never used clause of the EU treaty triggering mutual defence among the 28 member states, Paris admitted it was struggling to cope with its foreign military commitments while beefing up security at home in the wake of the attacks, and asked the rest of Europe to come to its assistance.
The request was supported unanimously in what Jean-Yves Le Drian, the French defence minister, described as an emotional and highly charged meeting of EU defence ministers in Brussels.
As a result of the train attacks in Spain in 2004, the EU inserted mutual defence measures into the Lisbon treaty similar to the Nato alliance's article five, which obliges all member countries to come to the defence of one of their number if attacked.
As the EU does not have an army, the French will now conduct a set of bilateral negotiations with other EU states on what kind of military help might be available.
Article 42.7 stipulates that "if a member state is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other member states shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations charter".
However, the article adds: "This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states."
The latter sentence means that the neutrality of countries such as Ireland, Austria, and Sweden cannot be impugned, while the emphasis on help from "member states" means that the defence arrangements are agreed between national governments in the EU without the involvement of the institutions in Brussels such as the European commission or the European parliament. This leaves France free to strike deals with other governments without any interference from Brussels.
By contrast, article 222 of the treaty, eschewed in this instance by the French, says that "the union and its member states shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a member state is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster. The union shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the member states."
This would hand a major role to the European commission, which Paris has opted to avoid.
The British government said it stood ready to assist the French. The German defence minister, Ursula von der Leyen, said that the French invocation of the mutual defence clause meant only that there was "a basis for consultation".
A priority is likely to be an attempt at greater sharing of intelligence among EU states to try to counter terrorism, amid growing evidence that failure to act on intelligence by the French and Belgian security services may have contributed to the Paris attacks.
"We need greater intelligence sharing," said an ambassador to the EU.
The issue is likely to come up on Friday at an emergency meeting in Brussels of EU interior ministers.
Reinforcing the external borders of the EU is another area where the pledges might be applied, with increasing talk of military elements being added to police operations on the EU's frontiers.
But Paris also appeared to be asking its EU partners for some relief from its foreign military commitments, including participation in UN missions in Africa and Lebanon as well as its involvement in the bombing campaign against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.
Le Drian admitted that France was overstretched. "France can't do everything. It can't act alone," he said. "Every country said, I am going to help you. That can take different forms. There are many types of assistance possible, whether in the Middle Eastern arena or elsewhere.
[/b]"How is this going to work?" said Le Drian. "It may be by cooperating with French interventions in Syria, in Iraq, it may be in support of France in other operations."[/b]
Attending the EU defence meeting, the Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, said Paris had not tabled any parallel request to trigger article five.
"It's a political act, a political message," said Federica Mogherini, the EU's foreign and security policy coordinator. Each member state would contribute to helping France in line with their capabilities and foreign policies, she added. The details would be developed in a set of bilateral talks between national governments and France.
"The prime minister has been clear that we will do whatever we can to help the French government at this time, and that we need to work together to defeat these terrorists," said a UK government spokesman.
"We have been in constant contact with the French authorities since Friday. This is about a French request for bilateral assistance from other EU member states. We understand and support the French decision, and we stand ready to consider any French request for assistance."
EU positions on Syria were shifting as a result of the Paris attacks, senior diplomats said. Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain are now said to support concentrating military efforts on eradicating Isis and being less insistent for the time being on bringing down the Syrian regime.
France, which has consistently taken the most hawkish line on the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, was not diluting its position, the diplomats said, while tiny Luxembourg, currently chairing the EU, takes the toughest line of all, arguing that Assad should be deposed by military means.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/17/france-invokes-eu-article-427-what-does-it-mean (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/17/france-invokes-eu-article-427-what-does-it-mean)
France just gained some more commitments in Mali. :(
Quote from: Maladict on November 20, 2015, 04:46:05 AM
France just gained some more commitments in Mali. :(
It's not like more were needed...
QuoteGunmen attacked the iconic Radisson hotel in the Malian capital of Bamako on Friday. The attackers are believed to have taken hostages, according to a security sources.
Automatic weapons fire could be heard from outside the luxury 190-room hotel, where security forces have set up a security cordon, according to witnesses.
"A hostage-taking or attempted hostage-taking is in progress," said FRANCE 24 correspondent Serge Daniel, reporting from Bamako. Daniel said that security forces had established a security perimeter around the hotel and that the hotel was "completely sealed off".
The identity of the attackers and their motives are not yet known.
"It's all happening on the seventh floor, jihadists are firing in the corridor," a security source told AFP.
Witnesses told FRANCE 24's Daniel that the attackers arrived at the hotel in a car with diplomatic license plates.
The US Embassy in Bamako issued a statement on Twitter stating that it was aware of an, "ongoing active shooter operation at the Radisson Hotel". Another message said, "The U.S. Embassy staff has been asked to shelter in place. All U.S. citizens should shelter in place. "
http://www.france24.com/en/20151120-mali-bamako-hotel-gunfire-attack-terrorism-radisson (http://www.france24.com/en/20151120-mali-bamako-hotel-gunfire-attack-terrorism-radisson)
Wars were so much simpler when there were frontlines and opposing nations.
Quote from: Syt on November 20, 2015, 04:53:14 AM
Wars were so much simpler when there were frontlines and opposing nations.
Simpler maybe, but also somewhat deadlier.
Malian security forces launched an assault on the hotel. At least, three people dead. Details are sketchy. 8O hostages freed, according to French TV.
Another horrid attack, this time in Mali. These attacks seem more frequent now with the rise of ISIS as various splinter groups become emboldened by ISIS' longevity and join up and try to stage their own horror show in support.
This morning, our Foreign Minister offered to relieve France in Mali. After the attacks, the offer has been quickly withdrawn :rolleyes:
It was a terrible idea to begin with (Spain in Mali?), but that's a chicken shit move.
Germany has 200 soldiers down there to train Mali troops (parliamentary mandate is for up to 350), though the foreign minister has assured that Germany is still willing to expand its mission there to free up French forces.
Do we need a Terror Megathread?
Anyhoo, all day there's been rumours of terrorist attacks on our busiest train station. Police dismissed it as scaremongering. Now there's tonnes of police there and they closed the station. :hmm:
Quote from: celedhring on November 20, 2015, 02:18:04 PM
This morning, our Foreign Minister offered to relieve France in Mali. After the attacks, the offer has been quickly withdrawn :rolleyes:
It was a terrible idea to begin with (Spain in Mali?), but that's a chicken shit move.
A very Spanish move though.
Quote from: Syt on November 20, 2015, 02:21:36 PM
Germany has 200 soldiers down there to train Mali troops (parliamentary mandate is for up to 350), though the foreign minister has assured that Germany is still willing to expand its mission there to free up French forces.
The US also has troops training Malian special forces troops, from what I heard on a news cast. Also that US SF troops were assisting Malian troops in securing the attack area.
Quote from: KRonn on November 20, 2015, 02:26:35 PM
Quote from: Syt on November 20, 2015, 02:21:36 PM
Germany has 200 soldiers down there to train Mali troops (parliamentary mandate is for up to 350), though the foreign minister has assured that Germany is still willing to expand its mission there to free up French forces.
The US also has troops training Malian special forces troops, from what I heard on a news cast. Also that US SF troops were assisting Malian troops in securing the attack area.
Some French special forces arrived there later on.
According to the Figaro.fr, around 20 people killed, probably even 27, among them an American. Local terrorist actors claimed responsibility such as Al-Murabitun, Belmokhtar's group, the one who did the hostage taking in the oil station in Southern Algeria IIRC, plus AQIM (Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb i.e Algerian terrorists rebranded). A US gvt source claims that Al-Qaida was also implicated.
Belgium warns of 'serious and imminent threat' to Brussels (http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/20/world/paris-attacks/)
QuoteBelgium has placed Brussels at the highest terror alert level, citing a "serious and imminent threat that requires taking specific security measures as well as specific recommendations for the population."
The announcement by the Crisis Centre of the Belgian Interior Ministry is advising the public to avoid places where large groups gather -- such as concerts, sporting events, airports and train stations -- and comply with security checks. The rest of the nation will maintain its current terror level.
If people take the terror alert seriously, Brussels will be "shut down tomorrow," CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank said.
"It suggests they have something specific and credible at the intelligence front pointing them in the direction that there may be a terrorist plot in the works," he said. "It also suggests they don't have a handle on it, that they don't know where these plotters are or where they're coming from."
The increase in alert level for Brussels comes as authorities investigating last week's terror attacks in Paris conduct raids in Belgium as they work to identify and take down the network of terrorists behind the carnage.
Salah Abdeslam, 26, is the subject of an international search warrant. He was last seen driving toward the Belgian border when police stopped and questioned him a few hours after the attacks, not knowing that he was allegedly involved. His whereabouts are unknown.
ISIS has claimed responsibility for the Paris attacks.
I find it dumbfounding that the Europeans continue to cut and starve their militaries while the Middle East blows up and Russia flexes its muscles. Is this some kind of weird suicide pact?
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2015, 11:03:25 PM
I find it dumbfounding that the Europeans continue to cut and starve their militaries while the Middle East blows up and Russia flexes its muscles. Is this some kind of weird suicide pact?
"Those goddamn warmongering Yanks will take care of it".
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2015, 11:03:25 PM
I find it dumbfounding that the Europeans continue to cut and starve their militaries while the Middle East blows up and Russia flexes its muscles. Is this some kind of weird suicide pact?
That's a bit of an oversimplification. The European countries that border Russia are definitely pulling their weight (as much as they can) and the UK and France both seem to take their military commitments seriously.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2015, 12:59:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2015, 11:03:25 PM
I find it dumbfounding that the Europeans continue to cut and starve their militaries while the Middle East blows up and Russia flexes its muscles. Is this some kind of weird suicide pact?
"Those goddamn warmongering Yanks will take care of it".
Not really. Countries that have no military power comparable to their economic potential are quite safe.
The worst what the US public could do is to stop fulfilling its treaty commitments to Poland because Belgium is not spending enough on its army.
Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2015, 02:46:33 AM
That's a bit of an oversimplification. The European countries that border Russia are definitely pulling their weight (as much as they can) and the UK and France both seem to take their military commitments seriously.
The Baltics are a joke from what I've read.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2015, 02:48:02 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2015, 02:46:33 AM
That's a bit of an oversimplification. The European countries that border Russia are definitely pulling their weight (as much as they can) and the UK and France both seem to take their military commitments seriously.
The Baltics are a joke from what I've read.
Yeah but then their economies are a joke too. It's like Rhode Island having an army.
Yes, Rhode Island has a bigger economy than any one of the Baltic states.
Britain has sent a small number of troops to the Baltics to provide "training" and whatnot. Or, to put it another way, if the Russians invade the Baltics then they will probably have to kill a few British soldiers to do so.......a deterrent of sorts. I believe the French and Americans have also posted small numbers of troops in the area.
But what's their population, about 2 million per?
Equipment is expensive but grunts can be cheap, and IIRC the entire Lithuanian army consists of one battalion. That's something like 600 men.
Doesn't look as bad as that according to wiki :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_Armed_Forces
They have reintroduced conscription it seems.
It seems Brussels is completely shut down today. I wonder when this stops being sustainable and what we will do then.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 21, 2015, 04:25:44 AM
Doesn't look as bad as that according to wiki :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_Armed_Forces
They have reintroduced conscription it seems.
Seems I was thinking of Latvia. According to Wiki there are 971 troops in the Latvian Land Forces.
But Latvia is not even a proper country. :P
The terrorists are winning Brussels is a city under hostage. No metros, schools today. Shopping centers closed and a lot of evenements were canceled. And because of this my earlier bus didn't show without earlier warning. :mad: :(
Quote from: Archy on November 23, 2015, 01:30:12 AM
The terrorists are winning Brussels is a city under hostage. No metros, schools today. Shopping centers closed and a lot of evenements were canceled. And because of this my earlier bus didn't show without earlier warning. :mad: :(
As I asked before, I wonder if the West is going to adapt to this new reality of living under the constant threat of terror or whether (assuming that things will continue going in the same direction) it eventually gets to a breaking point when the West comes to a conclusion that wiping out all followers of Islam from the face of the Earth is preferable to the alternative.
I am not actually advocating this or looking forward to this - I am just wondering.
Quote from: Martinus on November 23, 2015, 01:34:26 AM
Quote from: Archy on November 23, 2015, 01:30:12 AM
The terrorists are winning Brussels is a city under hostage. No metros, schools today. Shopping centers closed and a lot of evenements were canceled. And because of this my earlier bus didn't show without earlier warning. :mad: :(
As I asked before, I wonder if the West is going to adapt to this new reality of living under the constant threat of terror or whether (assuming that things will continue going in the same direction) it eventually gets to a breaking point when the West comes to a conclusion that wiping out all followers of Islam from the face of the Earth is preferable to the alternative.
I am not actually advocating this or looking forward to this - I am just wondering.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2015, 02:47:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2015, 12:59:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2015, 11:03:25 PM
I find it dumbfounding that the Europeans continue to cut and starve their militaries while the Middle East blows up and Russia flexes its muscles. Is this some kind of weird suicide pact?
"Those goddamn warmongering Yanks will take care of it".
Not really. Countries that have no military power comparable to their economic potential are quite safe.
The worst what the US public could do is to stop fulfilling its treaty commitments to Poland because Belgium is not spending enough on its army.
Yes, really. The NATO guideline for military spending is a minimum of 2% of GDP. Of the 28 member states only five meet that this year. US, UK, Greece, Estonia and Poland. Last year it was four, Poland joined the club just this year. From here it looks like a lot like Europe's strategy is to cut spending and let the Americans work it out.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2015, 04:14:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2015, 02:47:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2015, 12:59:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2015, 11:03:25 PM
I find it dumbfounding that the Europeans continue to cut and starve their militaries while the Middle East blows up and Russia flexes its muscles. Is this some kind of weird suicide pact?
"Those goddamn warmongering Yanks will take care of it".
Not really. Countries that have no military power comparable to their economic potential are quite safe.
The worst what the US public could do is to stop fulfilling its treaty commitments to Poland because Belgium is not spending enough on its army.
Yes, really. The NATO guideline for military spending is a minimum of 2% of GDP. Of the 28 member states only five meet that this year. US, UK, Greece, Estonia and Poland. Last year it was four, Poland joined the club just this year. From here it looks like a lot like Europe's strategy is to cut spending and let the Americans work it out.
Yes. All the while scoring cheap popularity points with their voters on being critical to US "warmongering" of course.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2015, 04:14:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2015, 02:47:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2015, 12:59:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2015, 11:03:25 PM
I find it dumbfounding that the Europeans continue to cut and starve their militaries while the Middle East blows up and Russia flexes its muscles. Is this some kind of weird suicide pact?
"Those goddamn warmongering Yanks will take care of it".
Not really. Countries that have no military power comparable to their economic potential are quite safe.
The worst what the US public could do is to stop fulfilling its treaty commitments to Poland because Belgium is not spending enough on its army.
Yes, really. The NATO guideline for military spending is a minimum of 2% of GDP. Of the 28 member states only five meet that this year. US, UK, Greece, Estonia and Poland. Last year it was four, Poland joined the club just this year. From here it looks like a lot like Europe's strategy is to cut spending and let the Americans work it out.
Seems you forgot France in your list. Even before the extra spending linked to the recent events: 2.2 %, more or less like the UK.
PS: conflicting reports from NATO and the World bank. :hmm:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 23, 2015, 05:39:52 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2015, 04:14:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2015, 02:47:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2015, 12:59:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2015, 11:03:25 PM
I find it dumbfounding that the Europeans continue to cut and starve their militaries while the Middle East blows up and Russia flexes its muscles. Is this some kind of weird suicide pact?
"Those goddamn warmongering Yanks will take care of it".
Not really. Countries that have no military power comparable to their economic potential are quite safe.
The worst what the US public could do is to stop fulfilling its treaty commitments to Poland because Belgium is not spending enough on its army.
Yes, really. The NATO guideline for military spending is a minimum of 2% of GDP. Of the 28 member states only five meet that this year. US, UK, Greece, Estonia and Poland. Last year it was four, Poland joined the club just this year. From here it looks like a lot like Europe's strategy is to cut spending and let the Americans work it out.
Seems you forgot France in your list. Even before the extra spending linked to the recent events: 2.2 %, more or less like the UK.
PS: conflicting reports from NATO and the World bank. :hmm:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-for-rise-in-defence-spending-by-alliance-members-1434978193
Nope, I didn't forget it.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2015, 11:09:49 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 23, 2015, 05:39:52 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2015, 04:14:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2015, 02:47:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2015, 12:59:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2015, 11:03:25 PM
I find it dumbfounding that the Europeans continue to cut and starve their militaries while the Middle East blows up and Russia flexes its muscles. Is this some kind of weird suicide pact?
"Those goddamn warmongering Yanks will take care of it".
Not really. Countries that have no military power comparable to their economic potential are quite safe.
The worst what the US public could do is to stop fulfilling its treaty commitments to Poland because Belgium is not spending enough on its army.
Yes, really. The NATO guideline for military spending is a minimum of 2% of GDP. Of the 28 member states only five meet that this year. US, UK, Greece, Estonia and Poland. Last year it was four, Poland joined the club just this year. From here it looks like a lot like Europe's strategy is to cut spending and let the Americans work it out.
Seems you forgot France in your list. Even before the extra spending linked to the recent events: 2.2 %, more or less like the UK.
PS: conflicting reports from NATO and the World bank. :hmm:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-for-rise-in-defence-spending-by-alliance-members-1434978193
Nope, I didn't forget it.
Then you should you have looked at other sources.
WSJ link requires subscription for me now.
I got other figures from the World Bank as I mentioned in the edit at the end of my post.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS)
2011 2012 2013 2014
France 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2
Besides, France has one of the only militaries in the EU with power projection capabilities. Other example being the UK. That has to count for something as well. Not to mention the nuclear bomb.
I'm sure the Turkish Army has projection capacities as well but they have got their hands full now thanks to Erdogan.
WSJ source was NATO. I did find another source, the International institute for strategic studies, but that put's France at below the acknowledged goal. CIA put it at 1.8 in 2012. I think there is also a problem that very significant portion (28%) of the funding goes to the Gendarmes rather then conventional military forces.
I have time off coming up, and was thinking this would be a great time for a cheap ticket to Europe, but it seems not. :(
Quote from: Archy on November 23, 2015, 01:30:12 AM
The terrorists are winning Brussels is a city under hostage. No metros, schools today. Shopping centers closed and a lot of evenements were canceled. And because of this my earlier bus didn't show without earlier warning. :mad: :(
We're also seeing this reported quite heavily in US media.
Quote from: KRonn on November 23, 2015, 02:54:55 PM
Quote from: Archy on November 23, 2015, 01:30:12 AM
The terrorists are winning Brussels is a city under hostage. No metros, schools today. Shopping centers closed and a lot of evenements were canceled. And because of this my earlier bus didn't show without earlier warning. :mad: :(
We're also seeing this reported quite heavily in US media.
Brussels will not have been safer in years.
Anyways: the first warnings that things were going wrong in Molembeek date from 2005! With repeats in 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2011. None of this is actually surprising for those not blinded by po-co.
According to Lesoir.be, Salam Abdeslam, the last wanted terrorist suspect, was last seen in Liège by Belgian security forces but they could not get it. Last info says he was driving a BMW on the motorway to Germany. Liège is close to Aachen/Aix-la-Chapelle.
QuoteAbdeslam repéré près de Liège
Selon nos informations, les unités spéciales et le peloton antibanditisme ont également concentré leurs efforts sur Liège et ses environs. Salah Abdeslam aurait été formellement repéré par le peloton antibanditisme chaussée de Tongres à Rocourt vers 19 h 30 à bord d'une BMW de type 3 ou 5. Il aurait toutefois réussi à s'enfuir en empruntant l'E40 en direction de l'Allemagne.
Cette piste liégeoise serait à lier à une autre perquisition menée à Dampremy à proximité de Charleroi, vers 20 h 45. Un homme a été intercepté lors de cette perquisition.
http://www.lesoir.be/1050642/article/actualite/regions/bruxelles/2015-11-22/abdeslam-est-toujours-en-fuite-l-operation-antiterroriste-n-est-pas-encor (http://www.lesoir.be/1050642/article/actualite/regions/bruxelles/2015-11-22/abdeslam-est-toujours-en-fuite-l-operation-antiterroriste-n-est-pas-encor)
An explosive belt was also found in a rubbish bin in Montrouge, near Paris, possibly linked to Abdeslam.
Developing hostage situation and gunfire in Northern France, not clear if it's related to the events in Paris or a domestic/armed robbery etc.
Quote'Hostage situation' in northern French town of Roubaix
24 November 2015
From the section
Europe
Reports say that a group of armed men may have taken hostages in the northern French town of Roubaix.
There are conflicting initial reports on local media on where exactly in the town the incident is taking place.
Local media said the incident took place at around 19:00 local time (18:00 GMT).
Witnesses reported gunshots being fired. Media reports say the neighbourhood has been closed off by police.
It is not yet clear if the incident is related to the ongoing security situation in France following the 13 November attacks in Paris.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34917226 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34917226)
Yeah it could just be an ordinary armed hostage situation. Guess we will wait and see.
Iirc, isn't Roubaix also one of those town run into the ground by the socialists, filled with load and loads of arabs. There have at least been more than enough franco-arab robber-groups crossing the border to steal and plunder in Flanders over the past few decades.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34917226
it had nothing to do with terrorism or arabs.
Quote from: viper37 on November 25, 2015, 09:31:40 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34917226
it had nothing to do with terrorism or arabs.
Common criminality really can warm one's heart in these troubled times.
Quote from: viper37 on November 25, 2015, 09:31:40 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34917226
it had nothing to do with terrorism or arabs.
ZOMG STOP DENYING THE BASIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE PROBLEM!!!!!
Oh wait.
You mean it really had nothing to do with arabs or Muslims or anything?
Oh.
Uhhhh....never mind then.
Quote from: viper37 on November 25, 2015, 09:31:40 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34917226
it had nothing to do with terrorism or arabs.
When will the moderate bank robbers stand up and put a stop to these things?
This does hightlight one of the things IS doesn't do, other than the biggest 'bank raid' when they took over Mosul with it's Iraq federal bank/s, IS doesn't seem short of money and hasn't had to rely on bank raids in Europe to finance their operations, unlike traditional groups like the IRA, Barder-Minoff, INLA etc.
Ah, Roubaix (part of the Greater Lille)... :D
An early islamist cell started by robbing banks to finance jihad, precisely in Roubaix, around 1996, after fighting in Bosnia.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_de_Roubaix (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_de_Roubaix)
The hostage situation took place in one of the somewhat bourgeois areas of Roubaix, an enclave if you will. :P
Roubaix is an old mono-industrial city (textile) notorious for its painful economic reconversion, huge immigration and criminality. Twin cities : Bradistan Bradford, Verviers (islamist cell neutralised early this year).
http://www.damninteresting.com/the-baader-meinhof-phenomenon/ (http://www.damninteresting.com/the-baader-meinhof-phenomenon/)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 25, 2015, 07:57:33 PM
http://www.damninteresting.com/the-baader-meinhof-phenomenon/ (http://www.damninteresting.com/the-baader-meinhof-phenomenon/)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Freactiongif.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FGIF%2F2014%2F08%2FGIF-what-George-C.-Scott-Dr.-Strangelove-GIF.gif&hash=a57725c16593166910be5c9bd793f322c291bdbc)
Ensslin and Meinhof were hot, though. :perv:
Mike Duncan (of the History of Rome and Revolutions podcasts) smacks Niall Ferguson's nonsense. On Reuters, no less. :)
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/20/what-the-paris-attacks-and-the-fall-of-rome-have-in-common-nothing/
QuoteIn the aftermath of the horrific attacks in Paris, politicians and commentators appear engaged in a dangerous contest to surpass each other in doomsday predictions. On Monday, eminent Harvard historian Niall Ferguson wrote an op-ed for the Boston Globe that seemed designed to beat them all: the events of last Friday are equivalent to the sack of Rome and we stand on the precipice of nothing less than the collapse of Western Civilization.
Ferguson begins with a graphic passage from Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire describing the sack of Rome in 410 by the Goths:
QuoteIn the hour of savage license, when every passion was inflamed, and every restraint was removed . . . a cruel slaughter was made of the Romans; and . . . the streets of the city were filled with dead bodies . . . Whenever the Barbarians were provoked by opposition, they extended the promiscuous massacre to the feeble, the innocent, and the helpless . . .
Ferguson then asks:
Quote"Now, does that not describe the scenes we witnessed in Paris on Friday night?"
The answer is: No, it does not.
In fact, there are very few similarities between the two incidents. At about 9:30 PM on Friday a handful of Islamic militants unleashed a blast of murderous violence in northeast Paris. For a few nightmarish hours they controlled the Bataclan Theater and methodically murdered innocent civilians in cold blood. At about midnight French security forces raided the theatre. All the terrorists were killed. Order was restored. It was a shocking and awful crisis that lasted just over three hours, leaving 129 dead and hundreds wounded.
The sack of Rome in 410 saw an army of 40,000 Goths plunder the Eternal City totally unopposed. It had been more than a century since Rome had been the political capital of the Empire and it had no military or police force capable of resisting the intruders. The inhabitants of Rome were utterly helpless. When the Goths finished systematically looting every private home and public building, they loaded up their carts and left. Though the city itself still stood, it had been completely stripped of its moveable wealth. It was the first time Rome had been sacked in 800 years and was a watershed moment in the collapse of the Roman Empire.
I do not want to minimize the horror of the Paris attack, but what happened there does not equal the sack of Rome. The people of Paris still stand. The Louvre still stands. The shops of the Champs-Élysées did not lose a single piece of inventory. The banks still have all their money.
Beyond the specific differences between the two incidents, the analogy does not hold on wider level either. A detailed accounting of the history of Late Antiquity is unfortunately too complicated to be treated in full here, but the crucial thing to understand is that on the eve of the sack of Rome, the Romans and the Goths dealt with each other as near equals. They had been campaigning against each other off and on for 30 years and always seemed to wind up in a stalemate. The same group of Goths who sacked Rome had dealt Rome one of its greatest defeats as generation earlier: killing the Emperor Valens and two-thirds of the imperial army at the Battle of Adrianople. By the early 400s the two sides were wary of attacking each other because they were so evenly matched.
That's vastly different from the power dynamic the West faces today. The truth is that the situation is so asymmetrical that Islamic State and their ilk are forced to attack civilians and "soft targets," a tool always used by a very weak opponent to attack a very strong one. The wars of the late 300s and early 400s, on the other hand, were between near equal powers. The Goths did not send a few guys into Italy to set fire to Rome and murder whomever they happened to come across before inevitably succumbing to superior imperial might. They marched an entire army into Rome and looted the city at will.
As for comparing the larger breakdown of the Western Empire to contemporary geopolitics, here is a small sampling of what the Western Empire faced in the summer of 410: The central political authority was stretched thin and collapsing. A horde of Vandals had crossed the Rhine and now roamed Gaul at will — they would soon migrate across the Pyrenees and simply annex the Iberian peninsula. The imperial legions in Britannia and Gaul had revolted and were controlled by an ambitious general who no longer recognized the authority of the Western Emperor. The Eastern Empire had its own problems and could lend little support to their cousins in the West. The environment was so precarious that the Western capital had already been moved from Milan to Ravenna — protected as it was by a morass of impenetrable swamps.
When you look at the EU today — and the West generally — the Western Empire in 410 makes a lousy historical analogy. Francois Hollande hasn't moved the French capital to a châteaux in the Alps because it is too dangerous to remain in Paris. No autonomous, well-armed Muslim army controls Provence. A completely different foreign army has not annexed Brittany. Lyon hasn't revolted and declared independence from Paris.
It is one thing to be concerned about Western complacency, but to argue that a small and efficiently crushed attack is just like when Rome fell is dangerous. Raising the stakes to the level of civilization annihilation invites an irrationally disproportionate response that is all but guaranteed to make the situation worse.
Duncan appears to be arguing against a strawman.
Eagles of Death Metal have just released their first interview since the night of the attacks. It's a 26 minutes clip, with their first hand experience. Quite bone chilling at times.
http://www.vice.com/read/eagles-of-death-metal-discuss-paris-terror-attacks (http://www.vice.com/read/eagles-of-death-metal-discuss-paris-terror-attacks)
Quote from: The Larch on November 25, 2015, 08:40:02 PM
Eagles of Death Metal have just released their first interview since the night of the attacks. It's a 26 minutes clip, with their first hand experience. Quite bone chilling at times.
http://www.vice.com/read/eagles-of-death-metal-discuss-paris-terror-attacks (http://www.vice.com/read/eagles-of-death-metal-discuss-paris-terror-attacks)
They said they're hoping to be the first act to play when the venue reopens, which is commendable.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 25, 2015, 08:20:05 PM
Duncan appears to be arguing against a strawman.
Niall Ferguson is know for preposterous positions. Such as that Europe is on the verge of falling under the sway of Musselmen. There are times he I want to agree with him, but he always go to far, into self parody.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2015, 09:07:34 PM
Niall Ferguson is know for preposterous positions. Such as that Europe is on the verge of falling under the sway of Musselmen. There are times he I want to agree with him, but he always go to far, into self parody.
He is not known for preposterous positions to me.
Quote from: Drakken on November 25, 2015, 08:06:07 PM
Ensslin and Meinhof were hot, though. :perv:
:huh:
Meinhof looked like the Michelin Man and Ensslin looked like Robocop. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 25, 2015, 09:09:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2015, 09:07:34 PM
Niall Ferguson is know for preposterous positions. Such as that Europe is on the verge of falling under the sway of Musselmen. There are times he I want to agree with him, but he always go to far, into self parody.
He is not known for preposterous positions to me.
Do you think Europe is on the verge of becoming EUrabia? That Britain was the cause of WWI?
Are those verbatim quotes?
Not sure abou fault, but he did say that Britain entering WW1 was the biggest error in modern history: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/britain-first-world-war-biggest-error-niall-ferguson
Quote from: Syt on November 26, 2015, 03:09:51 AM
Not sure abou fault, but he did say that Britain entering WW1 was the biggest error in modern history: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/britain-first-world-war-biggest-error-niall-ferguson
That's what I figured. Not even close.
I believe the EUrabia comment comes from Ferguson's quote that 'a youthful Muslim society to the south and east of the Mediterranean is poised to colonize—the term is not too strong—a sene-scent Europe.'
Quote from: Syt on November 26, 2015, 03:09:51 AM
Not sure abou fault, but he did say that Britain entering WW1 was the biggest error in modern history: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/britain-first-world-war-biggest-error-niall-ferguson
I'd tend to agree
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2015, 03:06:36 AM
Are those verbatim quotes?
No. Do you require verbatim quotes? They are really arguments, not quotes.
Well it won't do much good to give you page numbers but here's a blurb for his own damn book
http://www.amazon.com/The-Pity-Of-War-Explaining/dp/0465057128
QuoteIn The Pity of War, Niall Ferguson makes a simple and provocative argument: that the human atrocity known as the Great War was entirely England's fault. Britain, according to Ferguson, entered into war based on naïve assumptions of German aims—and England's entry into the war transformed a Continental conflict into a world war, which they then badly mishandled, necessitating American involvement. The war was not inevitable, Ferguson argues, but rather the result of the mistaken decisions of individuals who would later claim to have been in the grip of huge impersonal forces.That the war was wicked, horrific, inhuman,is memorialized in part by the poetry of men like Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon, but also by cold statistics. More British soldiers were killed in the first day of the Battle of the Somme than Americans in the Vietnam War; indeed, the total British fatalities in that single battle—some 420,000—exceeds the entire American fatalities for both World Wars. And yet, as Ferguson writes, while the war itself was a disastrous folly, the great majority of men who fought it did so with enthusiasm. Ferguson vividly brings back to life this terrifying period, not through dry citation of chronological chapter and verse but through a series of brilliant chapters focusing on key ways in which we now view the First World War.For anyone wanting to understand why wars are fought, why men are willing to fight them, and why the world is as it is today, there is no sharper nor more stimulating guide than Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War.
QuoteMore British soldiers were killed in the first day of the Battle of the Somme than Americans in the Vietnam War; indeed, the total British fatalities in that single battle—some 420,000—exceeds the entire American fatalities for both World Wars.
Shocking. Just shocking.
Quote from: The Brain on November 26, 2015, 12:06:37 PM
QuoteMore British soldiers were killed in the first day of the Battle of the Somme than Americans in the Vietnam War; indeed, the total British fatalities in that single battle—some 420,000—exceeds the entire American fatalities for both World Wars.
Shocking. Just shocking.
And inaccurate too.
420 000 is the total loss for the British from July 1st to november.
Quote from: Tamas on November 26, 2015, 04:39:41 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 26, 2015, 03:09:51 AM
Not sure abou fault, but he did say that Britain entering WW1 was the biggest error in modern history: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/britain-first-world-war-biggest-error-niall-ferguson
I'd tend to agree
I will remember that if Britain ever gets invaded. Honoring ones treaty obligations to your allies is the biggest error one can make it seems.
Fuck you modern Europeans.
420,000 casualties not fatalities.
Quote from: viper37 on November 26, 2015, 01:37:08 PM
420 000 is the total loss for the British from July 1st to november.
Yeah less than 100,000 were killed.
Quote from: viper37 on November 26, 2015, 01:37:08 PM
420 000 is the total loss for the British from July 1st to november.
I was referencing to the first part, something like 55,500 died in Vietnam, off the top of my head 55,000-60,000 British casualties on July 1st, of whom about 15,000-17,000 were killed/missing, for some reason 16,781 or 15,781 sticks in my mind*.
So I'd guess someone, somewhere confused casualties with fatalities.
* No doubt wiki will have much more accurate figures.
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2015, 01:45:24 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 26, 2015, 04:39:41 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 26, 2015, 03:09:51 AM
Not sure abou fault, but he did say that Britain entering WW1 was the biggest error in modern history: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/britain-first-world-war-biggest-error-niall-ferguson
I'd tend to agree
I will remember that if Britain ever gets invaded. Honoring ones treaty obligations to your allies is the biggest error one can make it seems.
Fuck you modern Europeans.
Speaking of helping your allies; the French defence minister has directly asked Britain to help France in Syria :
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/26/france-appeals-britain-join-syrian-war-against-isis-french-defence-minister-le-drian
They are debating whether to attack ISIS in Syria in Parliament right now.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 26, 2015, 01:47:07 PM
420,000 casualties not fatalities.
ah, I thought this was high, I got confused between the 2 words :)
I stand corrected Raz.
Done with poise and grace. We have a lot to learn from you. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2015, 01:45:24 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 26, 2015, 04:39:41 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 26, 2015, 03:09:51 AM
Not sure abou fault, but he did say that Britain entering WW1 was the biggest error in modern history: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/britain-first-world-war-biggest-error-niall-ferguson
I'd tend to agree
I will remember that if Britain ever gets invaded. Honoring ones treaty obligations to your allies is the biggest error one can make it seems.
Fuck you modern Europeans.
Did the UK actually have any treaty obligation to defend France in 1914? If they did, it got missed in any histories I've read--and I've read a lot.
Quote from: dps on November 26, 2015, 10:10:17 PM
Did the UK actually have any treaty obligation to defend France in 1914? If they did, it got missed in any histories I've read--and I've read a lot.
They had treaty obligations to defend Belgium.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2015, 10:11:13 PM
Quote from: dps on November 26, 2015, 10:10:17 PM
Did the UK actually have any treaty obligation to defend France in 1914? If they did, it got missed in any histories I've read--and I've read a lot.
They had treaty obligations to defend Belgium.
D'oh.
I knew that. Don't know why I was concentrating on the French.
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2015, 01:45:24 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 26, 2015, 04:39:41 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 26, 2015, 03:09:51 AM
Not sure abou fault, but he did say that Britain entering WW1 was the biggest error in modern history: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/britain-first-world-war-biggest-error-niall-ferguson
I'd tend to agree
I will remember that if Britain ever gets invaded. Honoring ones treaty obligations to your allies is the biggest error one can make it seems.
Fuck you modern Europeans.
:secret: Not all modern Europeans are afflicted with the Trianon syndrome.
Quote from: viper37 on November 26, 2015, 03:37:17 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 26, 2015, 01:47:07 PM
420,000 casualties not fatalities.
ah, I thought this was high, I got confused between the 2 words :)
What is more worrying is that it appears that Ferguson, a "historian", also made that mistake in print...........or simply didn't care about the distinction. Mind you he has very little credibility in my eyes, he is a media personality rather than a historian now.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2015, 10:11:13 PM
Quote from: dps on November 26, 2015, 10:10:17 PM
Did the UK actually have any treaty obligation to defend France in 1914? If they did, it got missed in any histories I've read--and I've read a lot.
They had treaty obligations to defend Belgium.
Which were very useful for getting mass support from the populace when we went to war to help France :bowler:
(and ourselves of course, why the Kaiser thought that building a huge fleet wouldn't offend is one of life's mysteries)
Well I admire his honesty as nearly as much as he and his teammates courage:
Quote
Paris attacks: First policeman into Bataclan speaks of horror
15 December 2015
The first police officer to arrive at the Bataclan has described the "indescribable moment of fear" he felt on entering the scene of the massacre.
The officer told French media how he and a colleague came face-to-face with one of three gunmen launching an attack, and shot him dead.
Ninety concert-goers were killed at the Bataclan concert hall, where Eagles of Death Metal were playing.
Dozens more people died in co-ordinated attacks across Paris on 13 November.
The policeman, a department head at the Paris anti-crime brigade (BAC), told FranceInfo radio (in French) that he and his colleague had been responding to reports of an explosion at the Stade de France when they were redirected.
They were ordered to go to the 10th and 11th arrondissements of Paris following news of shootings. On the way, they found panicked concert-goers fleeing the Bataclan and quickly decided to go inside.
"What surprised us immediately was the extremely bright light that blinded us," said the officer, whose identity has been protected for security reasons.
"The bewildering silence... and then hundreds of bodies one on top of the other."
....
Full article with video here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35101945 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35101945)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2015, 10:11:13 PM
Quote from: dps on November 26, 2015, 10:10:17 PM
Did the UK actually have any treaty obligation to defend France in 1914? If they did, it got missed in any histories I've read--and I've read a lot.
They had treaty obligations to defend Belgium.
Technically so did Austria.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 27, 2015, 02:33:07 AM
What is more worrying is that it appears that Ferguson, a "historian", also made that mistake in print...........or simply didn't care about the distinction. Mind you he has very little credibility in my eyes, he is a media personality rather than a historian now.
I'm afraid you are correct. Ferguson tends to ignore the history that doesn't support his current hobby-horse (like the fact that Britain was, indeed, at war with Napoleon, a fact he ignores to try to make the argument that Britain not going to war in 1914 would have mirrored Britain's decision not to go to war against Napoleon).
There is an argument to be made for Britain to stay out of the war, but his argument isn't it.
#Ferguson #BlackLivesMatter
According to La Libre Belgique website, Salah Abdeslam, one of the terrorists still on the run, was known to be in Molenbeek by the Belgian police two days after the attacks, but could not be arrested due to a 1967 Belgian law preventing search operations between 23 and 5, unless
in flagrante delicto or for a fire. :hmm:
http://www.lalibre.be/actu/belgique/salah-abdeslam-localise-a-molenbeek-apres-les-attentats-mais-la-police-n-a-pas-pu-intervenir-567129603570ed38949a4d9c (http://www.lalibre.be/actu/belgique/salah-abdeslam-localise-a-molenbeek-apres-les-attentats-mais-la-police-n-a-pas-pu-intervenir-567129603570ed38949a4d9c)
QuoteSalah Abdeslam localisé à Molenbeek après les attentats, mais la police n'a pas pu intervenir
RÉDACTION EN LIGNE Publié le mercredi 16 décembre 2015 à 10h06 - Mis à jour le mercredi 16 décembre 2015 à 11h29
Share on printShare on emailMore Sharing Services
Jambon: "On s'attendait à un attentat avant minuit le dimanche 22 novembre"
Le coup de fil de Salah Abdeslam a mené à une 5e arrestation en Belgique
Les frères Abdeslam avaient été signalés auprès d'Interpol
BELGIQUE L'ennemi public numéro 1 suite aux attaques de Paris, Salah Abdeslam, a failli être arrêté 2 jours après les attentats selon Koen Geens. Le ministre de la Justice CD&V a fait cette déclaration surprenante lors de son interview à VTM qui sera diffusée ce mercredi soir.
Selon Het Laatste Nieuws, Koen Geens révèle que Salah Abdeslam " se trouvait vraisemblablement dans une habitation de Molenbeek 2 jours après les attentats de Paris". Les services de renseignements l'avaient localisé dans la nuit du dimanche 15 au 16 novembre.
Voici pourquoi la police n'est pas intervenue
Le Code pénal belge n'autorise pas les perquisitions entre 23h et 5h du matin, sauf en cas de flagrant délit ou d'incendie. Le terrorisme n'est (pas encore du moins) considéré comme étant une exception à cette règle. La police ne serait intervenue qu'en fin d'après-midi, après avoir obtenu un mandat de perquisition.
L'interview choc du ministre de la Justice sera diffusée ce mercredi soir dans l'émission Faroek de VTM.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 27, 2015, 02:35:20 AM
Which were very useful for getting mass support from the populace when we went to war to help France :bowler:
(and ourselves of course, why the Kaiser thought that building a huge fleet wouldn't offend is one of life's mysteries)
Eh the leadership was hardly united in going to war. But once Belgium got invaded Britain pretty much had no choice in the matter.
Two more guys arrested suspected being members of the same cell. This time in Austria, in a refugee camp.
Breaking news:
Salah Abdeslam, one of the terrorists involved in the Paris attacks, has been apprehended in Brussels. In Molenbeek of course, where he must have had the help of the fifth column so eagerly imported over the past few decades. The new searches came after his fighterprints were found during the action in Vorst (another part of Brussel) earlier this week (Duque de Bragança posted an article about that iirc)
http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/News/1.2604740 (english)
http://www.tijd.be/politiek_economie/belgie_algemeen/Terrorist_Abdeslam_is_opgepakt_in_Molenbeek.9745665-4002.art (dutch)
"So eagerly imported". You sound like Breivik.
You didn't import them out of the goodness of your heart, you know...
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 18, 2016, 12:30:32 PM
You didn't import them out of the goodness of your heart, you know...
That's a better reason than "our pension plan only works as a Ponzi scheme".
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 18, 2016, 12:30:32 PM
You didn't import them out of the goodness of your heart, you know...
I'm so fed up with the argument that the left imports immigrants to get more votes and that Labour is in cahoots with muslims.
There is no actual evidence of this happening, but a nice fantasy for the idiots voting rightwing parties in Mitteleuropa.
Well, it's either to get more votes or pure ethnomasochism.
Thanks for proving my point. ;)
Quote from: Norgy on March 18, 2016, 12:23:39 PM
"So eagerly imported". You sound like Breivik.
and you sound in denial.
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2016, 01:19:08 PM
Well, it's either to get more votes or pure ethnomasochism.
LOL CUCKS
But seriously:
Les Trentes Glorieuese, the
Wirtschaftswunder, whatever the Belgian, Dutch, and Scandinavian equivalents were -- does this board's historical recall stop at the fall of Stalingrad? What the fuck do you think all "these people" came for?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 18, 2016, 12:58:31 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 18, 2016, 12:30:32 PM
You didn't import them out of the goodness of your heart, you know...
That's a better reason than "our pension plan only works as a Ponzi scheme".
:unsure: Not sure I grasp your point here.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 18, 2016, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 18, 2016, 12:23:39 PM
"So eagerly imported". You sound like Breivik.
and you sound in denial.
No, I am actually rather up-to-date and read more than headlines. I see refugees becoming useful and contributing citizens every day. Just don't let them rot in one part of a city and make it a ghetto. Because, yes, that happens.
You probably have a different experience than me with them, but saying this was some kind of leftist plan is just nourishing latent fascism.
It would also be wise to look at how our public health system would work without immigration.
There's no sound in denial.
Well, I said my piece, i'll leave the floor and bid you an elegant goodbye in this thread with a subtle middle finger raised.
Quote from: Norgy on March 18, 2016, 03:18:18 PM
Well, I said my piece, i'll leave the floor and bid you an elegant goodbye in this thread with a subtle middle finger raised.
:yes: Better you should spend your time starting an Israel-Palestine thread, Norge.
Quote from: Norgy on March 18, 2016, 01:03:50 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 18, 2016, 12:30:32 PM
You didn't import them out of the goodness of your heart, you know...
I'm so fed up with the argument that the left imports immigrants to get more votes and that Labour is in cahoots with muslims.
There is no actual evidence of this happening, but a nice fantasy for the idiots voting rightwing parties in Mitteleuropa.
Self-proclaimed lefti(s)ts should remember Engels and Marx about the use of foreign labour for wage deflation. Reserve army and all that. A whole chapter about it on the Condition of the Working Class in England by Engels. Back then, the Irish.
The left used to be against mass immigration. Still remember Georges Marchais, French communist party secretary general, wanting an end to all immigration in the early '80s. Unlike socialists and lots of the right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG2BA9SxClM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG2BA9SxClM)
Now, with the champagne left, it's all different.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 19, 2016, 08:16:23 AM
Self-proclaimed leftits should remember Engels and Marx about the use of foreign labour for wage deflation. Reserve army and all that. A whole chapter about it on the Condition of the Working Class in England by Engels. Back then, the Irish.
The left used to be against mass immigration. Still remember Georges Marchais, French communist party secretary general, wanting an end to all immigration in the early '80s. Unlike socialists and lots of the right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG2BA9SxClM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG2BA9SxClM)
Now, with the champagne left, it's all different.
The REAL left (the one that cares about the Working Class) is, and always has been, against uncontrolled migration that only hurts the workers (both the domestic and the migrants, who have to compete with even newer arrivals). The Russian Communist Party, for example, has strict demands to stop muslim immigration.
(recently it even had to remove one image from its site, for being too offensive to muslims : http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russian-communist-party-removes-controversial-anti-immigration-drawing-from-website/561507.html )
It's the pseudo-left (rich bourgeois that really don't care about the People nor the Workers) that want that. It's a movement that is actually a way for rich, decadent, deviant imperialists to pose themselves as "leftists" while in fact defending anti-worker policies. They are mostly used to dupe young bourgeois kids, the dumb who think they are voting for "moderate left" and the foolish gutmensch, who like to believe they are doing the People a favour by following those liars.
The divide can best be seen in the NATO vs former East Bloc countries: while in western areas there is almost no desire to confront what is clearly an attempt to replace the population with cheap labour, with no regard for culture or social peace, in former Socialist nations of the EU the rejection of these economic migrants is total, as it should be in any sane country - just see the examples of Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia.
And it's not a left or right issue therel,either - in these countries the refusal to accept any the influx of muslims is defended by both left-wing and right-wing governments, since it's obvious to anyone what this means in the long run. And the same can be seen on a smaller scale in Germany - the opposition to the migration is clear in the East, and very subdued in the West.
This clearly shows that these attitudes, defended as they are by the pseudo-left, are rooted in the ideology that has been created in the Western world for the last decades, and is far from being the norm worldwide. No rational person in the non-western world can think of what what the western europeans are defending as logical or even acceptable.
The World Socialist website explains how this 'pseudo-left' can be identified better than I can:
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/07/30/pers-j30.html
* The pseudo-left denotes political parties, organizations and theoretical/ideological tendencies which utilize populist slogans and democratic phrases to promote the socioeconomic interests of privileged and affluent strata of the middle class. Examples of such parties and tendencies include Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, Die Linke in Germany, and numerous offshoots of ex-Trotskyist (i.e., Pabloite) and state capitalist organizations such as the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste (NPA) in France, the NSSP in Sri Lanka and the International Socialist Organization in the United States. This list could include the remnants and descendants of the "Occupy" movements influenced by anarchist and post-anarchist tendencies. Given the wide variety of petty-bourgeois pseudo-left organizations throughout the world, this is by no means a comprehensive list.
* The pseudo-left is anti-Marxist. It rejects historical materialism, embracing instead various forms of subjective idealism and philosophical irrationalism associated with existentialism, the Frankfurt School and contemporary postmodernism.
* The pseudo-left is anti-socialist, opposes class struggle, and denies the central role of the working class and the necessity of revolution in the progressive transformation of society. It counterposes supra-class populism to the independent political organization and mass mobilization of the working class against the capitalist system. The economic program of the pseudo-left is, in its essentials, pro-capitalist and nationalistic.
* The pseudo-left promotes "identity politics," fixating on issues related to nationality, ethnicity, race, gender and sexuality in order to acquire greater influence in corporations, the colleges and universities, the higher-paying professions, the trade unions and in government and state institutions, to effect a more favorable distribution of wealth among the richest 10 percent of the population. The pseudo-left seeks greater access to, rather than the destruction of, social privilege.
* In the imperialist centers of North America, Western Europe and Australasia, the pseudo-left is generally pro-imperialist, and utilizes the slogans of "human rights" to legitimize, and even directly support, neo-colonialist military operations.
who cares what engels/marx thought?
Damn, Martim, every time I am beginning to lean conservative, you make such a great argument for me to embrace the pseudo-left.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 19, 2016, 04:56:17 PM
who cares what engels/marx thought?
Self-proclaimed left tits.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 19, 2016, 08:16:23 AM
Quote from: Norgy on March 18, 2016, 01:03:50 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 18, 2016, 12:30:32 PM
You didn't import them out of the goodness of your heart, you know...
I'm so fed up with the argument that the left imports immigrants to get more votes and that Labour is in cahoots with muslims.
There is no actual evidence of this happening, but a nice fantasy for the idiots voting rightwing parties in Mitteleuropa.
Self-proclaimed lefti(s)ts should remember Engels and Marx about the use of foreign labour for wage deflation. Reserve army and all that. A whole chapter about it on the Condition of the Working Class in England by Engels. Back then, the Irish.
The left used to be against mass immigration. Still remember Georges Marchais, French communist party secretary general, wanting an end to all immigration in the early '80s. Unlike socialists and lots of the right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG2BA9SxClM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG2BA9SxClM)
Now, with the champagne left, it's all different.
I don't know the last 40 years of French history nearly as well as I do American. But my sense is that what you continually deride as the "champagne left" (Hollande, Royal et cie, I assume you mean) has been virtually indistinguishable in their essence from the "champagne right" (Sarkozy et son amis) since Mitterrand times at least, because both prioritize neoliberal economics over anything resembling the national interest.
The only difference has been in which strains of rhetoric they prefer -- most notable when crises emerge, like "racaille" versus "tolerance" -- and on issues that are culturally important but socioeconomically marginal (gay marriage, "law and order") and some that were sheer spectacle (the veil).
So putting this down to the "left" is dishonest, beyond the fact that being "right" in France is like being "liberal" in America, i.e. something for politicians to avoid and find other words for... I'm forgetting this great term, that I think came into use around 1900, which describes the way all French parties have drifted to calling themselves "socialist" or "liberal" whatever their policy line...
Quote from: LaCroix on March 19, 2016, 04:56:17 PM
who cares what engels/marx thought?
Fuck if I know.
I care. :weep: But I'm a leftit.
Never anticipated saying this, but: great post, Martim. :unsure: :)
Europe is the new Byzantine Empire holding the Mohammedians away from the civilized West. In 2015 we witnessed their Manzikert. It's only a matter of time before the nation states of Europe fall and America is all that is left of their legacy.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 19, 2016, 06:30:43 PM
I don't know the last 40 years of French history nearly as well as I do American. But my sense is that what you continually deride as the "champagne left" (Hollande, Royal et cie, I assume you mean) has been virtually indistinguishable in their essence from the "champagne right" (Sarkozy et son amis) since Mitterrand times at least, because both prioritize neoliberal economics over anything resembling the national interest.
They both prioritize neoliberal economics because the alternatives are all shit. You raise taxes too high and business goes elsewhere. You hand out too much free money and people stop working. You raise wages too high and competitors eat your lunch. You run deficits too long and people stop lending you money. You nationalize industry and capital flees.
The National interest has a strong Socialist component.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 19, 2016, 06:30:43 PM
I don't know the last 40 years of French history nearly as well as I do American. But my sense is that what you continually deride as the "champagne left" (Hollande, Royal et cie, I assume you mean) has been virtually indistinguishable in their essence from the "champagne right" (Sarkozy et son amis) since Mitterrand times at least, because both prioritize neoliberal economics over anything resembling the national interest.
The only difference has been in which strains of rhetoric they prefer -- most notable when crises emerge, like "racaille" versus "tolerance" -- and on issues that are culturally important but socioeconomically marginal (gay marriage, "law and order") and some that were sheer spectacle (the veil).
So putting this down to the "left" is dishonest, beyond the fact that being "right" in France is like being "liberal" in America, i.e. something for politicians to avoid and find other words for... I'm forgetting this great term, that I think came into use around 1900, which describes the way all French parties have drifted to calling themselves "socialist" or "liberal" whatever their policy line...
Saying the champagne left is the same as champagne right (Sarko et ses amis please were called Rolex right I believe) is the province of the Le Pen family, and a bit of a caricature. Immigration and assimilation are major issues, unlike homo marriage sorry, thanks in no small part to the '68ers and their self-hatred which precisely hinders assimilation. Something the old communist party did not do. After all, the PCF saved De Gaulle's regime, by following Moscow orders. You could say though the centre-left and centre-right agree on most things regarding Europe, however.
Sometimes the French right tried to reverse things, family regrouping for instance: Chirac's idea, Barre tried to reverse it but Chirac's party was not supporting the centre and right government at the time, since he was no longer prime minister. A law passed by the right to prevent illiterates from gaining French citizenship through birthright was also overturned by the left and so on. Add in race to the bottom for PC reasons, economic downturn and you get banlieues.
So the last 40 years have seen a decline can't argue with that. That's actually the thesis of the best-selling book by famous rightist Zemmour, Le suicide français. Interesting read, lots of info and context given, but sometimes Zemmour gets lyrical, on minor points though.
This the one who reminded the left that the Communist party used to be as anti-immigration as the Le Pen family.
As for "right something for politicians to avoid", IMO yes but the real taboo word is conservative (conservateur). The French right wing never uses it.
What's that French word that describes the national tendency for parties to over-describe as left/liberal, though? It's something like "gauchisme" but obviously not that; I think somebody kind of famous described politics in the Third Republic this way... it's bothering me. :hmm:
GC's grand theory of the political economy of migration:
Migration to the West is similar to the process of urbanization but on a larger scale. Mechanization and cheap food imports (due to 1st World agricultural subsidies) have made traditional subsistence farming untenable, alienating populations from the land. They first went to the teeming cities of the 3rd World, but there are few opportunities there. When the civil wars in the Middle East created a group of people desperate to reach Europe, a new industry arose to facilitate their migration, which then provided the surplus population outside of the conflict zones with an opportunity to go along for the ride. It's basically a repeat of the enclosure movement that created the industrial proletariat in England in the 18th century. Except, this time, Germany, France, Sweden, etc. are London, Manchester, and Birmingham, and the jobs are in the low-wage service industry rather than manufacturing. 1st World elites are happy to import low-skilled workers, since they dive down wages, making lattes cheaper. Now that it's really gotten going, it isn't going to end.
From a utilitarian perspective, it's a net good, since the gain to the millions of migrants is greater than the loss to the working class in Europe. And you can't fault the migrants--if I were born in Jordan or something, I'd pretend to be a 17 year old Syrian orphan who lost his passport, too. The alternative of promoting equitable development throughout the world probably isn't politically attainable, either. But at the same time, I can't blame some Europeans for refusing to take their lumps, especially given the smugness of the elites, who like to pretend that the whole thing is a humanitarian project.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 19, 2016, 07:35:53 PM
What's that French word that describes the national tendency for parties to over-describe as left/liberal, though? It's something like "gauchisme" but obviously not that; I think somebody kind of famous described politics in the Third Republic this way... it's bothering me. :hmm:
Sinistrisme. The left is sinister.
[spoiler]In Latin.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 19, 2016, 06:42:48 PM
Never anticipated saying this, but: great post, Martim. :unsure: :)
I never anticipated that you were that far gone. Martim is describing the neofascist faux-left as the good guys, and you seem to be swallowing it.
Marx and Engels are like Adam Smith - revered by one side for embracing the erroneous economics of their time, and disdained by the other side, when the proper view of them is to put them on the shelf with Montesquieu and Freud and say "they did as much as they could given the limits of their knowledge, but let's not pretend that they are still part of the modern world."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2016, 07:04:54 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 19, 2016, 06:30:43 PM
I don't know the last 40 years of French history nearly as well as I do American. But my sense is that what you continually deride as the "champagne left" (Hollande, Royal et cie, I assume you mean) has been virtually indistinguishable in their essence from the "champagne right" (Sarkozy et son amis) since Mitterrand times at least, because both prioritize neoliberal economics over anything resembling the national interest.
They both prioritize neoliberal economics because the alternatives are all shit. You raise taxes too high and business goes elsewhere. You hand out too much free money and people stop working. You raise wages too high and competitors eat your lunch. You run deficits too long and people stop lending you money. You nationalize industry and capital flees.
And if you pay people instead of using slaves, you'll never make a profit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2016, 07:04:54 PM
They both prioritize neoliberal economics because the alternatives are all shit. You raise taxes too high and business goes elsewhere. You hand out too much free money and people stop working. You raise wages too high and competitors eat your lunch. You run deficits too long and people stop lending you money. You nationalize industry and capital flees.
Yep yep.
Everybody is appalled by neoliberalism until they get in power...
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2016, 10:07:14 PM
And if you pay people instead of using slaves, you'll never make a profit.
Thanks for the heads up.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2016, 10:07:14 PM
And if you pay people instead of using slaves, you'll never make a profit.
Actually, paying people wages is more profitable, 'cause you don't have the large up-front capital investment in wage laborers you have to put into slaves.
Great comments on that Marchais video you posted, Duque. :lol:
Quotece n'est plus le même parti .Comparer le PCF de MARCHAIS avec le PCF de la salope BUFFET c'est comme comparer le FN de LE PEN père avec le FN d'aujourd'hui infesté par la francmaçonnerie et la pédérasterie sodomite ,celui de sa fille macquée à un juif....
Quote from: grumbler on March 19, 2016, 09:41:42 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 19, 2016, 06:42:48 PM
Never anticipated saying this, but: great post, Martim. :unsure: :)
I never anticipated that you were that far gone. Martim is describing the neofascist faux-left as the good guys, and you seem to be swallowing it.
Describe for me what is neoliberal or faux-left about his post or what he quotes.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 01:52:25 AM
Great comments on that Marchais video you posted, Duque. :lol:
Quotece n'est plus le même parti .Comparer le PCF de MARCHAIS avec le PCF de la salope BUFFET c'est comme comparer le FN de LE PEN père avec le FN d'aujourd'hui infesté par la francmaçonnerie et la pédérasterie sodomite ,celui de sa fille macquée à un juif....
De rien.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 01:52:25 AM
Great comments on that Marchais video you posted, Duque. :lol:
Quotece n'est plus le même parti .Comparer le PCF de MARCHAIS avec le PCF de la salope BUFFET c'est comme comparer le FN de LE PEN père avec le FN d'aujourd'hui infesté par la francmaçonnerie et la pédérasterie sodomite ,celui de sa fille macquée à un juif....
Needs a sic after "macquée" and "pédérasterie sodomite" (somewhat redundant). Yes, for some extreme-right lunatics the FN has gone mainstream. :P
What the hell does "macquée" mean, anyways? I'm gathering it's crude slang meaning "mated with" or "taken (sexually) by" since I'm only seeing it on Francophone how-to-get-the-ladies à la Legbiter boards.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 03:18:31 AM
What the hell does "macquée" mean, anyways? I'm gathering it's crude slang meaning "mated with" or "taken (sexually) by" since I'm only seeing it on Francophone how-to-get-the-ladies à la Legbiter boards.
What self-respecting Frenchman would take advice on that subject from an Icelander? :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 20, 2016, 03:21:44 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 03:18:31 AM
What the hell does "macquée" mean, anyways? I'm gathering it's crude slang meaning "mated with" or "taken (sexually) by" since I'm only seeing it on Francophone how-to-get-the-ladies à la Legbiter boards.
What self-respecting Frenchman would take advice on that subject from an Icelander? :hmm:
These are no self-respecting Frenchmen, mon ami. :( :frog: They're probably "vronçais" anyways, as the most talented French xenophobe (L.-F. Céline) put it...
Quote from: dps on March 20, 2016, 01:35:16 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2016, 10:07:14 PM
And if you pay people instead of using slaves, you'll never make a profit.
Actually, paying people wages is more profitable, 'cause you don't have the large up-front capital investment in wage laborers you have to put into slaves.
I do not believe that is the case. I think there was some studies done seeing if slavery in America was more profitable then say sharecropping. Turns out slavery is more cost effective in the long run.
Quote from: Jaron on March 19, 2016, 06:45:51 PM
Europe is the new Byzantine Empire holding the Mohammedians away from the civilized West. In 2015 we witnessed their Manzikert. It's only a matter of time before the nation states of Europe fall and America is all that is left of their legacy.
Can we be: Ottoman Empire?
Capetian Mihali convinced me that socialism is a disease.
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2016, 04:54:22 AM
Capetian Mihali convinced me that socialism is a disease.
Capetian :rolleyes:
Hey, convincing anyone of anything is worth something on Languish. :) I'm happy to be the one to swing Martinius (sic) back to solidarity with his class interest, as was inevitable in any event.
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2016, 04:54:22 AM
Capetian Mihali convinced me that socialism is a disease.
A social disease?
The problem is he's lazy.
The problem is he drinks.
The problem is he's crazy.
The problem is he stinks.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 03:18:31 AM
What the hell does "macquée" mean, anyways? I'm gathering it's crude slang meaning "mated with" or "taken (sexually) by" since I'm only seeing it on Francophone how-to-get-the-ladies à la Legbiter boards.
Very colloquial for a woman in a relationship or a marriage. Bad connotation since maquée means also pimped (woman) in French slang.
What's with the seduction community meme? :frog:
Maybe they're the only ones who thrown in the "c"? (I only searched "macquée," which to me has a further bad connotation of being "mated" or something subhuman because of the similarity to "macaque" monkeys, like when that Virginia congressman called a campaign worker of his opponent, of South Asian descent, a "macaca" some years back...
The French seduction community (sad that such a thing even has to exist, from an Anglo-American "Pepe-Le-Pew"- influenced perspective) was using the term (with the "c") to debate whether it was ethical or sensible to pick up a woman in a relationship...to "cuckold" another man, I guess, just to bring it all full circle. :D
EDIT: Ah, I just remembered the word "maquereau," the only slang word I know in French for "pimp" (probably from footnotes on Genet or the description of a Brassaï photo book). That makes sense.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 01:52:25 AM
Great comments on that Marchais video you posted, Duque. :lol:
Quotece n'est plus le même parti .Comparer le PCF de MARCHAIS avec le PCF de la salope BUFFET c'est comme comparer le FN de LE PEN père avec le FN d'aujourd'hui infesté par la francmaçonnerie et la pédérasterie sodomite ,celui de sa fille macquée à un juif....
So my rough translation of this comment is: "It's not the same party anymore. Comparing Marchais's PCF with that whore Buffet's PCF is like comparing Le Pen's FN to today's FN, which is infested with Freemasonry and homosexual pederasty, the FN of his daughter, pimped out to a Jew...."
It's nice to see the anti-masonic sentiment is still alive in some quarters. Freemasons, Protestants, and Jews. The unholy trinity of French destruction c. 1900.
http://www.brusselnieuws.be/nl/nieuws/jongeren-gooiden-stenen-naar-agenten-ambulance-en-pers
during the actions stones were thrown at the police and ambulances, no wounded though.
----
Abdeslam was found at about 300m from where he fled a few months ago.
Must be quite a network of supporters there, if he was able to hide for that long.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 01:55:01 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 01:52:25 AM
Great comments on that Marchais video you posted, Duque. :lol:
Quotece n'est plus le même parti .Comparer le PCF de MARCHAIS avec le PCF de la salope BUFFET c'est comme comparer le FN de LE PEN père avec le FN d'aujourd'hui infesté par la francmaçonnerie et la pédérasterie sodomite ,celui de sa fille macquée à un juif....
So my rough translation of this comment is: "It's not the same party anymore. Comparing Marchais's PCF with that whore Buffet's PCF is like comparing Le Pen's FN to today's FN, which is infested with Freemasonry and homosexual pederasty, the FN of his daughter, pimped out to a Jew...."
It's nice to see the anti-masonic sentiment is still alive in some quarters. Freemasons, Protestants, and Jews. The unholy trinity of French destruction c. 1900.
That's the gist of it, the etymologic analogy through maquereau is not certain but possible, though in this case Marine is not working for the "Jew" Louis Alliot since he as Jewish grand-parent(like Sarkozy the Jew for the banlieue) , but the Jew is working for her and he's Marine life partner Though anti-protestant sentiment was abandoned by Pétain already, despite Maurras' objections. :contract:
As for Pepe Le Pew/Putois, I remember the French dub giving him a thick Marseille accent and/or an imitation voice of Yves Montand to make it more of a specific case. :D
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 20, 2016, 02:59:41 PM
http://www.brusselnieuws.be/nl/nieuws/jongeren-gooiden-stenen-naar-agenten-ambulance-en-pers
during the actions stones were thrown at the police and ambulances, no wounded though.
----
Abdeslam was found at about 300m from where he fled a few months ago.
Must be quite a network of supporters there, if he was able to hide for that long.
Attacking police and even ambulances or firemen happens a lot in those neighborhoods, "stigmatising" ant-terrorism or not, they had a more PC reason than usual I guess. Alles in Ordnung. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on March 20, 2016, 03:50:04 AM
Quote from: dps on March 20, 2016, 01:35:16 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2016, 10:07:14 PM
And if you pay people instead of using slaves, you'll never make a profit.
Actually, paying people wages is more profitable, 'cause you don't have the large up-front capital investment in wage laborers you have to put into slaves.
I do not believe that is the case. I think there was some studies done seeing if slavery in America was more profitable then say sharecropping. Turns out slavery is more cost effective in the long run.
Well, sharecropping isn't exactly wage labor, either.
And I doubt that one or the other is more profitable under all conditions. For example, at a guess, I'd say that chattel slavery was relatively more profitable on plantations in the 18th Century than in the 19th.
:huh: I thought the invention of the cotton gin radically increased the profitability of slavery.
Yes. Current data suggests slavery was becoming increasingly profitable as the US neared the Civil War, outperforming many other available investments .
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 09:25:53 PM
:huh: I thought the invention of the cotton gin radically increased the profitability of slavery.
Eh it is more complicated than that.
First the Cotton Gin was a pretty simple invention. It was actually a total flop as an invention because once the word got out about it everybody just built there own homemade ones that worked fine. Also it was invented decades before its impacts were really felt. The frontier for cotton also needed to be opened so even though it was invented in the 1790s it did not really have a huge impact until after the War of 1812 opened up all the land in the future cotton states. So the boom it participated in took place nearly 20 years after its invention.
Second slavery was doing really well in the 1790s even before the Cotton Gin was invented. I have not seen any data suggesting the supposed "decline" of slavery. It survived some pretty big attacks on its existence during the fervor of the Revolutionary era for a reason.
So I have always been skeptical of the story that slavery was struggling and then the mighty Cotton Gin saved it. The Cotton Gin was invented almost immediately after the need for it was discovered and, as I previously stated, it was reproduced really easily simply when people heard of its basic principles. Hardly a revolutionary moment in agricultural engineering.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 20, 2016, 11:54:38 PM
Yes. Current data suggests slavery was becoming increasingly profitable as the US neared the Civil War, outperforming many other available investments .
Oh yeah. Nothing in American History boomed quite like Cotton. And its best year ever was 1860. It was producing billions in 1860s dollars.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 20, 2016, 11:54:38 PM
Yes. Current data suggests slavery was becoming increasingly profitable as the US neared the Civil War, outperforming many other available investments .
Yep. Slavery "worked", which is why I brought it up with Yi statements on only adopting what "worked". If think solely on what "worked", then we should consider slavery. Of course other things besides Yi's neoliberal stance "worked". The world economy wasn't constantly spirally down with negative growth before the 19th century and America isn't pinning for the economic heyday of 1936 the year before we instituted a minimum wage.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 20, 2016, 02:59:41 PM
----
Abdeslam was found at about 300m from where he fled a few months ago.
Must be quite a network of supporters there, if he was able to hide for that long.
I'm quite sure I could have hidden him that long without a network. I would be more convinced he has many supporters if he had managed to flee the country.
The fact that he had to stay in his old neighbourhood convinces me that ge was basicly abbandonned by the terror network.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 12:51:37 AM
Yep. Slavery "worked", which is why I brought it up with Yi statements on only adopting what "worked". If think solely on what "worked", then we should consider slavery. Of course other things besides Yi's neoliberal stance "worked". The world economy wasn't constantly spirally down with negative growth before the 19th century and America isn't pinning for the economic heyday of 1936 the year before we instituted a minimum wage.
You've tried to wedge this slavery argument into several other issues where it didn't work.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 02:21:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 12:51:37 AM
Yep. Slavery "worked", which is why I brought it up with Yi statements on only adopting what "worked". If think solely on what "worked", then we should consider slavery. Of course other things besides Yi's neoliberal stance "worked". The world economy wasn't constantly spirally down with negative growth before the 19th century and America isn't pinning for the economic heyday of 1936 the year before we instituted a minimum wage.
You've tried to wedge this slavery argument into several other issues where it didn't work.
Which ones were you unsatisfied with?
Can we stop feeding Raz's insane fancies and instead focus on the fact that police cars and ambulances are attaked with stones in a European capital when conducting an anti-terrorist action? I would like to see Norgy spin it in a way that allows him to still feel smug.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 03:27:41 AM
Can we stop feeding Raz's insane fancies and instead focus on the fact that police cars and ambulances are attaked with stones in a European capital when conducting an anti-terrorist action? I would like to see Norgy spin it in a way that allows him to still feel smug.
So far from his posts I've gathered that Norgy like any other person isn't happy about the effect that living in ghettos has on people.
Ah, so I guess it's "Immigrants are great and if they aren't, it's Western white man's fault". Yeah, this one is very good - you can feel smug no matter the reality.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 03:33:58 AM
Ah, so I guess it's "Immigrants are great and if they aren't, it's Western white man's fault". Yeah, this one is very good - you can feel smug no matter the reality.
Why don't you make a deal? They take a stand against immigrants in exchange for recriminalizing homosexuality? That way we get intolerance for all.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 03:33:58 AM
Ah, so I guess it's "Immigrants are great and if they aren't, it's Western white man's fault". Yeah, this one is very good - you can feel smug no matter the reality.
You can choose to blame the immigrants for choosing to continue life there, the imams that advise them to stay, the "white man" for creating a system that favours it, or one of the countless other reasons I'm sure there are.
Smugness can be achieved in many of the reasons depending on your political flavour I guess.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 03:38:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 03:33:58 AM
Ah, so I guess it's "Immigrants are great and if they aren't, it's Western white man's fault". Yeah, this one is very good - you can feel smug no matter the reality.
Why don't you make a deal? They take a stand against immigrants in exchange for recriminalizing homosexuality? That way we get intolerance for all.
Immigrants are the most violently homophobic people in Europe at the moment, so sorry, no dice.
Quote from: Liep on March 21, 2016, 03:38:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 03:33:58 AM
Ah, so I guess it's "Immigrants are great and if they aren't, it's Western white man's fault". Yeah, this one is very good - you can feel smug no matter the reality.
You can choose to blame the immigrants for choosing to continue life there, the imams that advise them to stay, the "white man" for creating a system that favours it, or one of the countless other reasons I'm sure there are.
Smugness can be achieved in many of the reasons depending on your political flavour I guess.
I believe in a sort of Occam's razor where adults are responsible for their actions and only if that explanation does not work, you find an external cause. No matter the system or imams etc., there should be at least some onus on people choosing to migrate to a country to try and assimilate to its culture.
I believe people will mostly do what's easiest no matter what you might expect of them.
Quote from: Liep on March 21, 2016, 03:49:33 AM
I believe people will mostly do what's easiest no matter what you might expect of them.
But then neither do we have any moral or legal obligation to take them in or keep them here. Responsibility is a two-way street. The "easiest" for Europeans to do is what FN and Wilders say we should do - I thought we were trying to find out what's the right thing to do, not the easiest one, though.
Yeah, that's why the right is getting more and more popular. I'm not advocating just going with the easiest solution, but I feel that is the explanation of why some migrants chose a life on benefits in the ghettos and why some politicians thought that was okay.
Quote from: Liep on March 21, 2016, 03:49:33 AM
I believe people will mostly do what's easiest no matter what you might expect of them.
I would define easiest here as "takes least thought". People frequently get in the habit of doing things that require quite a bit of work, but if it's what they are used to they'll do it even if there's an easier way.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 03:55:35 AM
The "easiest" for Europeans to do is what FN and Wilders say we should do -
That's not going to be the easiest. Reversing islamisation of Europe is going to be a hard long slog with lots of violence.
The easiest course of action is going forward as we are and having our societies turn muslim one small step at a time. Easiest for us of course, and our children and grandchildren be damned.
------
opinion from Luckas Vander Taelen, former parlimentarian for Green! (the ecologists):
http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/opinieblog/opinie/1.2605158
Quote from: mangled by googleTranslate
Who dares to say something, was a frightened white man - Vander Taelen
Sat 03/19/2016 - 09:16 Luckas Vander Taelen
Luckas Vander Taelen, like Brussels, but now he thinks: "Ça suffit, j'en ai marre." He hopes that finally everyone finally dares to face the reality and humbly admits that being allowed to rot problems.
I've Friday afternoon followed the spectacular action of the security services in Brussels, zapping between four channels in two languages. A unique experience: from Vorst I watched what happened beyond a few kilometers. Live from Molenbeek. Two days earlier I had already been to see terrible images that time from my own congregation then. In a neighborhood where I occasionally shop, an Algerian had a heavy weapon fired at the police and had fled his dangerous companions over the rooftops. And disappeared.
All night a helicopter circled above our garden. An unpleasant experience; an uncomfortable feeling of menace crept over me.
When I looked Friday to the siege in Molenbeek, increased at a certain moment a smoke out of an apartment block. In each of Brussels familiar surroundings, an ordinary street with some shops, a butcher and a pharmacy police had deployed large resources. I bike ever passed in the Four Wind Street.
Now I saw that house in which banal banal street with the eyes of millions of viewers will get to see it and think it is there war in Brussels.
I thought, these terrorists have managed something very precious to permanently destroy: our sense of security safe in the city. I was overcome by a feeling of sadness. So far it's thus come into my town, which has become of it.
When I sat mesmerized watching these images, was a terrible thought in my head: we must learn to live with extreme violence of terrorists, they will be part of our new realities.
Three days later so arrested a man in Molenbeek, who sought throughout Europe since the attacks of Paris, but all the time in hiding was in Brussels. He was suspended from one to the other safe apartment, until they came to him almost by accident on the track, thanks to fingerprints he had left behind in Forest.
Apparently, he could count on a sophisticated network to keep him hidden. When Jan Jambon is a long time ago wondering how it was that Abdeslam could hide for so long, he had alluded to the role of its immediate surroundings.
It immediately earned him criticism that he stigmatized the Maghreb community. But now it appears that a whole gang of Brussels friends and relatives had no problem to help a man who was involved in November in one of the worst attacks in Western Europe since the end of the Second World War. Now tell people away that everyone knew what was Abdeslam.
Omerta?
Said people in this neighborhood do not immediately to the police because they believe there is such a thing as a war that justifies all means, waged in the name of a god? Were they in the name of their religion willing to keep a murderer from the hands of the court?
Or is it easier to: existing in the Maghreb community a holy omerta, where confession treason seen and unacceptable violation of the honor? I have this phenomenon often seen working with parents of criminals who remain in evidence against any claim that their sons are innocent lambs.
That they misunderstood solidarity and principled denial exist, unfortunately, yesterday also revealed when youths near the Four Wind Street police cars pelted with stones and shouted that was the part of them. That is to say the least not exactly an exciting thought.
Or will the weather so that one should not say this, because it would stigmatize and they prefer to keep the cherished idea of harmonious multiculturalism alive?
Sigh. Thus, it is for many years.
For years it has been a Brussels specialty to deny, minimize and perspective problems. I read it once again Saturday in a newspaper article where my description of the atmosphere has been "refuted" in low-Prince.
It's all so bad, the journalist wrote, the people are friendly and it was all so bad with that Islamization: you can still drink a beer. Sigh. As it is for years: ignore facts and looking away to get his ideological right.
A robbery with weapons of war was a "fait-divers". Students who were afgedreigd with guns every day and robbed, the mayor looked rather the other way. Neighborhoods where almost everything went wrong and the power was gradually taken over by local gangs, as they talked rather not too loud. And we had to talk about the positive side ...
How easy was violence, insecurity, Islamic radicalization and increasing religious pressure tolerated in this city!
Who dared to say something was a frightened white man, an Islamophobic or a provincial Stalinist Flemish coward who had understood nothing of life in the big city Brussels.
But now I understand it indeed. Ça suffit, j'en ai marre. I'm tired. My feelings of sadness has given way to one of anger. I do not want away and just be a sense of unease in my town.
I'm sick of electoral cowardice and opportunism continue to make it in politics, and that reality is covered with ideological wishful thinking. Which has for years ensured that it was so difficult to call problems by their name and we hatched a smoking apartment in Molenbeek, which very many people in the neighborhood knew there huddled the most wanted terrorist in Europe.
What should dare to face the reality finally face after Vorst and Molenbeek still happen in this city for its guardians and humbly admit that they have let the rot problems?
and from the same person, about a week earlier:
http://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/waarom-wat-in-vorst-gebeurde-allerminst-verbazend-is/article-opinion-679035.html
Quote from: google-translate mangler
"Why what happened in Vorst, is far from amazing '
As a resident of Vorst Luckas Vander Taelen is particularly surprised to see the amazement around the antiterrorist operation in Forest. "What is happening today in Vorst, could happen tomorrow in many other municipalities of Brussels."
Almost the entire Tuesday night and circled a police helicopter over our neighborhood. One of the most exciting moments of the security forces had been all day in progress, not far from where I live in Vorst. I received several phone calls from reporters, who knew clearly that I have long been living in this town and have also been a while ships. They apparently knew Vorst absolutely not ...
The journalists who contacted me seemed surprised that the police was looking for accomplices of the terrorists in the Parisian church that is only known to the general public through his music temple and the Audi factory. Apparently Molenbeek received after the dramatic events of November by the massive media coverage of such a reputation as a base for all kinds of dangerous riffraff that the media are conveniently fixated on this part of Brussels. And forget that we are living in a big city where everyone can move easily and thus hide.
Surprised me in the least what happened yesterday in my community. It was already clear that we are not dealing with highly structured terrorist cells that are controlled centrally by a mysterious Darth Vader. There IS a flag is found does not alter this finding. The researchers knew very quickly that it turns more on informal networks of friends and who are bound by no municipalities. What is happening today in Vorst, so tomorrow can in many other municipalities of Brussels. Not only in Molenbeek-ridden, but also in Schaerbeek, Anderlecht, part of Brussels City. And why not elsewhere in municipalities where one would not expect it?
But terrorists are only human, and easily fall back on their own contacts. Whoever immigrant born in Molenbeek, is not so quick in Woluwe-Saint-Lambert or Bosvoorde, but feels more at ease in those municipalities where friends and family live in similar neighborhoods. And it is for their not exactly a cultural shock to come to low-Prince could be greatly different from the somewhat better-off, higher part of the town which leans against Saint-Gilles. Laag-Vorst, not far from the canal, has a rapidly growing impoverished population, which lives in the workers' houses built a century ago here at a time when Frost was known for its industry. Factories are now close at Audi after.
I have often written about Vorst. In the first column nearly seven years ago, I talked about how the town had slowly changed, how more and more veiled women running around and loitering any kind were rebels without a cause. Restless it has never been more here, after the turbulent youth riots in the nineties. But it was in the Mérode Muriel Degauque lived, which was the first Belgian suicide terrorist blew up in Iraq. In the same street also was a long time an anti-Semitic banner, after demonstrations against Israel. The pool is turned into an Islamic cultural center, which also wants to establish a faith-based school.
Often I was accused that I stigmatized the Muslim community in my articles. But I heard myself immigrant friends who live in the Mérodeneighbourhood, they increasingly feel alienated from their environment and themselves off from social contacts, because this is the only way to escape the growing influence of fundamentalists. Yet a decade ago, one saw almost no veiled women; a Moroccan friend mockingly called them "beguines". Last week I saw a young woman in burqa. No shopkeeper dares open his shop on Friday, Lord's day for Muslims. Boucherie Islamique is opened on the corner of my street; in my neighborhood, there is no snack without halal stickers on the display. The local pizzeria has an Italian name, but the prosciutto has long been replaced by turkey fillets. Wine or beer, there is not obtainable.
These are the kind of little things which are not seen immediately, that have radically changed certain districts in Laag-Vorst. The same slow, almost imperceptible transformation is also evident in some other municipalities of Brussels. This has ensured that Molenbeek expats feel at many places at ease and submerge. It makes the work of the security services any easier ...
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 21, 2016, 06:42:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 03:55:35 AM
The "easiest" for Europeans to do is what FN and Wilders say we should do -
That's not going to be the easiest. Reversing islamisation of Europe is going to be a hard long slog with lots of violence.
The easiest course of action is going forward as we are and having our societies turn muslim one small step at a time. Easiest for us of course, and our children and grandchildren be damned.
That's why I prefer the "least thought" formulation. Too many people coming? Get rid of them!
Quote from: frunk on March 21, 2016, 06:47:25 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 21, 2016, 06:42:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 03:55:35 AM
The "easiest" for Europeans to do is what FN and Wilders say we should do -
That's not going to be the easiest. Reversing islamisation of Europe is going to be a hard long slog with lots of violence.
The easiest course of action is going forward as we are and having our societies turn muslim one small step at a time. Easiest for us of course, and our children and grandchildren be damned.
That's why I prefer the "least thought" formulation. Too many people coming? Get rid of them!
you know the situation is getting dire when solutions like that make a return.
the stupidity of it all. Take antwerp for example: The mayor is currently both the most popular and most hated politician of country (depending on position on political spectrum). When recently reports emerged that in certain boroughs up to 80% of the children were of islamic-migrant (usually moroccan) descent some of his detractors couldn't hide their Delight (the mayor is after all rightwing and thus worse than Hitler). Of course these same people forgot to think about what this would mean for the survival of the progressive values they hold dear...
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 03:40:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 03:38:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 03:33:58 AM
Ah, so I guess it's "Immigrants are great and if they aren't, it's Western white man's fault". Yeah, this one is very good - you can feel smug no matter the reality.
Why don't you make a deal? They take a stand against immigrants in exchange for recriminalizing homosexuality? That way we get intolerance for all.
Immigrants are the most violently homophobic people in Europe at the moment, so sorry, no dice.
Can't help but get the feeling that now you are comfortable that gay rights are protected you just want to pull up the lifeboats.
No, I just realised that the left has been making a horrible (and potentially suicidal) mistake by equating rights of women and gays with rights of muslims. Islam represents the most anti-women and anti-gay ideology in the world right now - much worse than the Western Christian Patriarchy the left has spent decades fighting. Only because some culture is so shitty it is an underdog it does not mean one should support it - it's like preferring human-sacrificing Aztecs over Spanish conquistadors.
The ultra-left's bizarre and seemingly automatic siding with the underdog, regardless of how odious said underdog might be, is a rather odd thing.
Yup.
Letting Muslims into your countries because you feel bad for them is like letting rats into your homes because they are cute and fuzzy.
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 11:05:41 AM
The ultra-left's bizarre and seemingly automatic siding with the underdog, regardless of how odious said underdog might be, is a rather odd thing.
Just to be clear - I am NOT siding with Marty's stance here. I don't think closing borders is practical or useful.
Quote from: Jaron on March 21, 2016, 11:05:47 AM
Yup.
Letting Muslims into your countries because you feel bad for them is like letting rats into your homes because they are cute and fuzzy.
:jaron:
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 11:05:41 AM
The ultra-left's bizarre and seemingly automatic siding with the underdog, regardless of how odious said underdog might be, is a rather odd thing.
I liked how in history class there would be this rush to idealize whomever the losers were from the leftists. Like some French Huguenot would be all noble one week but then would go slaughter some Irishmen and suddenly ooooh so bad. Same dudes serving the same cause...
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 10:56:35 AM
No, I just realised that the left has been making a horrible (and potentially suicidal) mistake by equating rights of women and gays with rights of muslims. Islam represents the most anti-women and anti-gay ideology in the world right now - much worse than the Western Christian Patriarchy the left has spent decades fighting. Only because some culture is so shitty it is an underdog it does not mean one should support it - it's like preferring human-sacrificing Aztecs over Spanish conquistadors.
You are confusing toleration with support. Also, your attitude has gone beyond just Muslims recently...
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 11:07:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 11:05:41 AM
The ultra-left's bizarre and seemingly automatic siding with the underdog, regardless of how odious said underdog might be, is a rather odd thing.
Just to be clear - I am NOT siding with Marty's stance here. I don't think closing borders is practical or useful.
There has to be a humane and reasonable way to handle refugees. I mean these refugee crises happen pretty regularly yet everybody is always caught by surprise.
Quote from: Valmy on March 21, 2016, 11:09:58 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 11:07:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 11:05:41 AM
The ultra-left's bizarre and seemingly automatic siding with the underdog, regardless of how odious said underdog might be, is a rather odd thing.
Just to be clear - I am NOT siding with Marty's stance here. I don't think closing borders is practical or useful.
There has to be a humane and reasonable way to handle refugees. I mean these refugee crises happen pretty regularly yet everybody is always caught by surprise.
I think the details are pretty much always something of a surprise. Where they are coming from, where they are going, what they want, etc., etc.
Also, the "plan" when there isn't a crisis always amounts to "Avoid the crisis!" because actually admitting that you would contemplate taking in hundreds of thousands or millions of refuges absent a crisis is almost certainly a political non-starter.
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 11:07:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 11:05:41 AM
The ultra-left's bizarre and seemingly automatic siding with the underdog, regardless of how odious said underdog might be, is a rather odd thing.
Just to be clear - I am NOT siding with Marty's stance here. I don't think closing borders is practical or useful.
Since when this is my stance? :huh:
My stance is:
1. Being concerned about Muslim immigration does not mean you are a racist.
2. There is a problem with Muslim immigration and until we recognise there is a problem, we will not be able to come up with an appropriate solution.
3. Also, until we recognise there is a problem, we will be pushing more and more people into the hands of right wing populists.
Edit: Admittedly, the fact is that "close off borders" is right now the only solution on the table - everything else is the establishment and the left having their heads deeply in their asses and saying there is nothing wrong and those who think something is wrong are racist xenophobes (like we have seen done in this thread over and over again).
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 11:27:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 11:07:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 11:05:41 AM
The ultra-left's bizarre and seemingly automatic siding with the underdog, regardless of how odious said underdog might be, is a rather odd thing.
Just to be clear - I am NOT siding with Marty's stance here. I don't think closing borders is practical or useful.
Since when this is my stance? :huh:
My stance is:
1. Being concerned about Muslim immigration does not mean you are a racist.
2. There is a problem with Muslim immigration and until we recognise there is a problem, we will not be able to come up with an appropriate solution.
3. Also, until we recognise there is a problem, we will be pushing more and more people into the hands of right wing populists.
If you're concerned about Muslim immigration separately and apart from immigration of other peoples and religions, it kind of does mean you're a bit racist. You're specifically judging immigrants based on their ethnic background or religious belief. :mellow:
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 11:12:49 AM
I think the details are pretty much always something of a surprise. Where they are coming from, where they are going, what they want, etc., etc.
Also, the "plan" when there isn't a crisis always amounts to "Avoid the crisis!" because actually admitting that you would contemplate taking in hundreds of thousands or millions of refuges absent a crisis is almost certainly a political non-starter.
Well I disagree. When there are no actual refugees is the only time it is a political starter. What? I somebody going to be all 'the government preparing to be ready in a crisis? OUTRAGE!'
Quote from: Barrister on March 21, 2016, 11:31:39 AM
If you're concerned about Muslim immigration separately and apart from immigration of other peoples and religions, it kind of does mean you're a bit racist. You're specifically judging immigrants based on their ethnic background or religious belief. :mellow:
Asking people to not judge others based on what they believe sounds pretty unreasonable.
Quote from: Barrister on March 21, 2016, 11:31:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 11:27:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 11:07:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 11:05:41 AM
The ultra-left's bizarre and seemingly automatic siding with the underdog, regardless of how odious said underdog might be, is a rather odd thing.
Just to be clear - I am NOT siding with Marty's stance here. I don't think closing borders is practical or useful.
Since when this is my stance? :huh:
My stance is:
1. Being concerned about Muslim immigration does not mean you are a racist.
2. There is a problem with Muslim immigration and until we recognise there is a problem, we will not be able to come up with an appropriate solution.
3. Also, until we recognise there is a problem, we will be pushing more and more people into the hands of right wing populists.
If you're concerned about Muslim immigration separately and apart from immigration of other peoples and religions, it kind of does mean you're a bit racist. You're specifically judging immigrants based on their ethnic background or religious belief. :mellow:
Islam is not a race. :rolleyes: In fact, most right wingers in Europe are perfectly happy to accept Syrian refugees, as long as they are Christian.
Anyway, Berkut, see? It's racist to judge people based on their religious belief. I rest my case.
Quote from: Barrister on March 21, 2016, 11:31:39 AM
If you're concerned about Muslim immigration separately and apart from immigration of other peoples and religions, it kind of does mean you're a bit racist. You're specifically judging immigrants based on their ethnic background or religious belief. :mellow:
Well, Marty has suggested that everyone is a at least a little bit racist, which I suppose means he knows
he's a little bit racist.
Raz is racist against Republicans.
Quote from: derspiess on March 21, 2016, 11:55:18 AM
Raz is racist against Republicans.
That's some alliteration there.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 11:35:06 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 21, 2016, 11:31:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 11:27:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 11:07:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 11:05:41 AM
The ultra-left's bizarre and seemingly automatic siding with the underdog, regardless of how odious said underdog might be, is a rather odd thing.
Just to be clear - I am NOT siding with Marty's stance here. I don't think closing borders is practical or useful.
Since when this is my stance? :huh:
My stance is:
1. Being concerned about Muslim immigration does not mean you are a racist.
2. There is a problem with Muslim immigration and until we recognise there is a problem, we will not be able to come up with an appropriate solution.
3. Also, until we recognise there is a problem, we will be pushing more and more people into the hands of right wing populists.
If you're concerned about Muslim immigration separately and apart from immigration of other peoples and religions, it kind of does mean you're a bit racist. You're specifically judging immigrants based on their ethnic background or religious belief. :mellow:
Islam is not a race. :rolleyes: In fact, most right wingers in Europe are perfectly happy to accept Syrian refugees, as long as they are Christian.
What about you - are you "perfectly happy to accept Syrian refugees, as long as they are Christian"?
Even if you are, saying "discriminating based on ethnic group is wrong, but discriminating based on religion is A-OK" is strongly out of line with how most people view tolerance and human rights.
Raz is racist regarding Republicans?
I wish I could convert to Islam, but I don't have the facial hair to do it properly. :(
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 21, 2016, 12:08:50 PM
I wish I could convert to Islam, but I don't have the facial hair to do it properly. :(
The Mormons will still take you :console:
Beeb, let's agree to (strongly) disagree. I really have no wish rehashing this old argument again.
Quote from: Valmy on March 21, 2016, 12:07:48 PM
Raz is racist regarding Republicans?
I think Sarah Palin said something like that once.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 12:24:20 PM
Beeb, let's agree to (strongly) disagree. I really have no wish rehashing this old argument again.
Fair enough. :hug:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 12:24:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 21, 2016, 12:07:48 PM
Raz is racist regarding Republicans?
I think Sarah Palin said something like that once.
She knows you well.
Quote from: Barrister on March 21, 2016, 11:31:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 11:27:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 11:07:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 11:05:41 AM
The ultra-left's bizarre and seemingly automatic siding with the underdog, regardless of how odious said underdog might be, is a rather odd thing.
Just to be clear - I am NOT siding with Marty's stance here. I don't think closing borders is practical or useful.
Since when this is my stance? :huh:
My stance is:
1. Being concerned about Muslim immigration does not mean you are a racist.
2. There is a problem with Muslim immigration and until we recognise there is a problem, we will not be able to come up with an appropriate solution.
3. Also, until we recognise there is a problem, we will be pushing more and more people into the hands of right wing populists.
If you're concerned about Muslim immigration separately and apart from immigration of other peoples and religions, it kind of does mean you're a bit racist.
That is just bullshit.
The fact is that different groups with different cultures and belief systems present different issues in a variety of ways.
Recognizing that there are differences between some Indian engineer immigrating and some Islamic refugee fleeing and structuring the processes and policies accordingly is not "racist". It is recognizing a fact that matters.
Pretending like two things that are not the same are the same because you are terrified of being called a racist is what is fucked up about this kind of supposed liberalism.
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 02:51:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 21, 2016, 11:31:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 11:27:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 11:07:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 11:05:41 AM
The ultra-left's bizarre and seemingly automatic siding with the underdog, regardless of how odious said underdog might be, is a rather odd thing.
Just to be clear - I am NOT siding with Marty's stance here. I don't think closing borders is practical or useful.
Since when this is my stance? :huh:
My stance is:
1. Being concerned about Muslim immigration does not mean you are a racist.
2. There is a problem with Muslim immigration and until we recognise there is a problem, we will not be able to come up with an appropriate solution.
3. Also, until we recognise there is a problem, we will be pushing more and more people into the hands of right wing populists.
If you're concerned about Muslim immigration separately and apart from immigration of other peoples and religions, it kind of does mean you're a bit racist.
That is just bullshit.
The fact is that different groups with different cultures and belief systems present different issues in a variety of ways.
Recognizing that there are differences between some Indian engineer immigrating and some Islamic refugee fleeing and structuring the processes and policies accordingly is not "racist". It is recognizing a fact that matters.
Pretending like two things that are not the same are the same because you are terrified of being called a racist is what is fucked up about this kind of supposed liberalism.
There are two very different things in your situation.
First, you have a skilled engineer lawfully immigrating, and you're comparing it to a refugee (who is not specified as being skilled, so presumably isn't). Of course the two matters are completely different! Their ability to integrate and obtain employment, the level of dysfunction that having lived through a civil war may cause... there are hundreds if not thousands of ways those people should be treated differently.
But if you say that someone fleeing civil war in, say, Eastern Ukraine, should be treated differently from someone fleeing civil war in Syria, I'm going to say yeah, that kind of sounds racist.
I suspect that if the best you can do in outrage is something as mealy mouthed as "that kind of sounds racist", then the problem is with you more than someone else.
Racism is a pretty terrible thing, and it exists and should be aggressively fought, or it does not exist and cannot be described as "kind of sounds racist".
If you are trying that hard to be outraged, I suspect the issue is internal.
Someone fleeing the civil war in the Ukraine should be treated just the same, because otherwise it is "kind of maybe sorta racist oh dear golly". So you are going to speak to them both in the same language? Going to assume they both have the same dietary needs, and would like to live in the same housing arrangement? Assume they both present the exact same security risks?
Quote from: Barrister on March 21, 2016, 03:38:20 PM
But if you say that someone fleeing civil war in, say, Eastern Ukraine, should be treated differently from someone fleeing civil war in Syria, I'm going to say yeah, that kind of sounds racist.
When you say it sounds kind of racist, do you mean the probability of these people engaging in religiously inspired violence, or impacting their new country negatively in some other way, is identical?
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 03:43:01 PM
I suspect that if the best you can do in outrage is something as mealy mouthed as "that kind of sounds racist", then the problem is with you more than someone else.
Racism is a pretty terrible thing, and it exists and should be aggressively fought, or it does not exist and cannot be described as "kind of sounds racist".
If you are trying that hard to be outraged, I suspect the issue is internal.
Someone fleeing the civil war in the Ukraine should be treated just the same, because otherwise it is "kind of maybe sorta racist oh dear golly". So you are going to speak to them both in the same language? Going to assume they both have the same dietary needs, and would like to live in the same housing arrangement? Assume they both present the exact same security risks?
I say "sounds kind of racist" it's because I want to give someone an "out".
If you want to treat my hypothetical differently because one requires service in Ukrainian/Russian, while the other requires services in Arabic? Okay yes you got me - they should eb treated differently in that respect. The Ukrainian refugee is going to enjoy eating pyrogies more than the Syrian refugee, so food aid should be different as well.
"Are they both going to present the exact same security risks"? I would say you damn well better do what you can to screen both groups for security risks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 03:45:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 21, 2016, 03:38:20 PM
But if you say that someone fleeing civil war in, say, Eastern Ukraine, should be treated differently from someone fleeing civil war in Syria, I'm going to say yeah, that kind of sounds racist.
When you say it sounds kind of racist, do you mean the probability of these people engaging in religiously inspired violence, or impacting their new country negatively in some other way, is identical?
The risk of religiously inspired violence, or more generally impacting their new country negatively, is much more individualized. Drawing sweeping generalizations based on colour of skin, religion, or country of origin, is simply not useful. You ought to take steps to ensure that both groups are not tied to negative groups (radical terrorism in Syria's case, organized-crime/FSB plant in the other). YOu ought to take steps to ensure both groups are positively engaged in the new country.
So Euros preferring other Euros is racist? Is it racist when Arabs prefer other Arabs?
Or maybe it is. But expecting people to not react to ethnicity in a part of the world where ethnicity is supreme is a lot to ask.
Quote from: Valmy on March 21, 2016, 11:34:17 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 21, 2016, 11:31:39 AM
If you're concerned about Muslim immigration separately and apart from immigration of other peoples and religions, it kind of does mean you're a bit racist. You're specifically judging immigrants based on their ethnic background or religious belief. :mellow:
Asking people to not judge others based on what they believe sounds pretty unreasonable.
Asking individuals not to make private, personal judgments is unreasonable. Asking that everyone be treated equally in the sight of the law isn't.
Quote from: dps on March 21, 2016, 04:09:35 PM
Asking individuals not to make private, personal judgments is unreasonable. Asking that everyone be treated equally in the sight of the law isn't.
US immigration law treats people very differently depending on their country of origin.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 04:21:01 PM
Quote from: dps on March 21, 2016, 04:09:35 PM
Asking individuals not to make private, personal judgments is unreasonable. Asking that everyone be treated equally in the sight of the law isn't.
US immigration law treats people very differently depending on their country of origin.
Don't make it right.
Quote from: dps on March 21, 2016, 04:52:24 PM
Don't make it right.
How so? If 50% of people from Country X jump ship when they come here for "tourism" and 0% of people from Country Y do, why should we pretend they act the same?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 04:55:11 PM
Quote from: dps on March 21, 2016, 04:52:24 PM
Don't make it right.
How so? If 50% of people from Country X jump ship when they come here for "tourism" and 0% of people from Country Y do, why should we pretend they act the same?
Uhm, people jumping ship when they come here on tourist visas doesn't really have anything to do with legal immigration. I was talking more about the quota system.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 04:55:11 PM
Quote from: dps on March 21, 2016, 04:52:24 PM
Don't make it right.
How so? If 50% of people from Country X jump ship when they come here for "tourism" and 0% of people from Country Y do, why should we pretend they act the same?
Well, at one time they wouldn't people like
you in.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 05:58:39 PM
Well, at one time they wouldn't people like you in.
There was a time when US citizens born overseas were not allowed in?
Quote from: Barrister on March 21, 2016, 12:07:32 PM
What about you - are you "perfectly happy to accept Syrian refugees, as long as they are Christian"?
Even if you are, saying "discriminating based on ethnic group is wrong, but discriminating based on religion is A-OK" is strongly out of line with how most people view tolerance and human rights.
I don't think most people agree that a country being in conflict means that everyone in that country is equally qualified for refugee status. Christians and other minorities are being persecuted in the Middle East, while conservative Muslims are not. There's considerable frustration over the fact that almost all "refugees" from the region are the latter.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 05:58:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 04:55:11 PM
Quote from: dps on March 21, 2016, 04:52:24 PM
Don't make it right.
How so? If 50% of people from Country X jump ship when they come here for "tourism" and 0% of people from Country Y do, why should we pretend they act the same?
Well, at one time they wouldn't people like you in.
RACISS
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 06:10:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 05:58:39 PM
Well, at one time they wouldn't people like you in.
There was a time when US citizens born overseas were not allowed in?
Yeah, if they came in from Asia. Good luck explaining that you really are an American citizen you just weren't born there when you arrive on a boat in 1910 without a passport.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 07:45:40 PM
Yeah, if they came in from Asia. Good luck explaining that you really are an American citizen you just weren't born there when you arrive on a boat in 1910 without a passport.
You don't seem to care when you post something that is transparently false. It is one of the qualities that makes you a difficult interlocuter.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 07:54:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 07:45:40 PM
Yeah, if they came in from Asia. Good luck explaining that you really are an American citizen you just weren't born there when you arrive on a boat in 1910 without a passport.
You don't seem to care when you post something that is transparently false. It is one of the qualities that makes you a difficult interlocuter.
Dude, you could be
born in this country and not get citizenship because you were Asian. Asians also couldn't naturalize at certain times. If they left, they were rarely allowed back in. The big Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship comes from one these cases.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 08:23:47 PM
Dude, you could be born in this country and not get citizenship because you were Asian. Asians also couldn't naturalize at certain times. If they left, they were rarely allowed back in. The big Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship comes from one these cases.
We weren't talking about the difficulties Asians had acquiring citizenship. We were talking about US citizens born overseas not being allowed into the country.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 08:28:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 08:23:47 PM
Dude, you could be born in this country and not get citizenship because you were Asian. Asians also couldn't naturalize at certain times. If they left, they were rarely allowed back in. The big Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship comes from one these cases.
We weren't talking about the difficulties Asians had acquiring citizenship. We were talking about US citizens born overseas not being allowed into the country.
Oh for fuck's sake, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark This guy was Born in the US, had citizenship, and left and was denied entry.
He was eventually let in when it went to the Supreme Court. So apparently at one time, having citizenship was insufficient for entry for Asian-Americans.
Yi is ethnically Chinese? Huh.
In any case his citizenship was not established, which was the whole point of the case. It was the 19th century, citizenship was a weirdly undefined thing back then.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 08:35:28 PM
Oh for fuck's sake, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark This guy was Born in the US, had citizenship, and left and was denied entry.
He was eventually let in when it went to the Supreme Court. So apparently at one time, having citizenship was insufficient for entry for Asian-Americans.
For fuck's sake yourself. You're still not talking about US citizens born overseas.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 08:43:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 08:35:28 PM
Oh for fuck's sake, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark This guy was Born in the US, had citizenship, and left and was denied entry.
He was eventually let in when it went to the Supreme Court. So apparently at one time, having citizenship was insufficient for entry for Asian-Americans.
For fuck's sake yourself. You're still not talking about US citizens born overseas.
Would the son of a white American missionary and a local woman in Korea get US citizenship to begin with in the time period in question? I was under the impression that that sort of thing wasn't encouraged, but it's just that - an impression.
Quote from: Jacob on March 21, 2016, 08:46:41 PM
Would the son of a white American missionary and a local woman in Korea get US citizenship to begin with in the time period in question? I was under the impression that that sort of thing wasn't encouraged, but it's just that - an impression.
Beats me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 08:43:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 08:35:28 PM
Oh for fuck's sake, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark) This guy was Born in the US, had citizenship, and left and was denied entry.
He was eventually let in when it went to the Supreme Court. So apparently at one time, having citizenship was insufficient for entry for Asian-Americans.
For fuck's sake yourself. You're still not talking about US citizens born overseas.
I'm talking about American citizens. Do you think it would it would improve you chances to be born in Korea rather than the US? Are you arguing that the Americans born overseas have rights that ones born here do not?
Quote from: Jacob on March 21, 2016, 08:46:41 PM
Would the son of a white American missionary and a local woman in Korea get US citizenship to begin with in the time period in question? I was under the impression that that sort of thing wasn't encouraged, but it's just that - an impression.
Yes. The law was changed in the 1980s to require that the citizen-parent have resided in the US for 5 years, but before that it was pretty much automatic. I believe that the citizen-child had to expressly take on the US citizenship and renounce the non-citizen-parent's nationality as the law existed before 1985 (some exceptions existing), though.
Quote from: Jacob on March 21, 2016, 08:46:41 PM
Would the son of a white American missionary and a local woman in Korea get US citizenship to begin with in the time period in question? I was under the impression that that sort of thing wasn't encouraged, but it's just that - an impression.
Maybe. See there was a requirement that you had to be either white or black to be a US citizen so for a long time there were rather embarrassing court cases trying to establish who got to be 'white'. Syrians, by American law, are white people. So they could have fled their country with no problem back in the 19th century. I don't remember what ended that.
However if, as Yi is saying, his citizenship had been established then he would have been fine. Or actually if he was living in Iowa at the time nobody would have cared. It is not like there were Visas or Green Cards or illegal immigrants being deported from Iowa in the 19th Century. I had many ancestors who just moved to the midwest and lived their entire lives without ever bothering to be naturalized.
I think I made my case pretty well. That people like Yi (Americans of East-Asian descent) could be prevented from entering this country even if they were natural born citizens. At the very least it is is not, "transparently false".
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 08:49:50 PM
I'm talking about American citizens. Do you think it would it would improve you chances to be born in Korea rather than the US? Are you arguing that the Americans born overseas have rights that ones born here do not?
So I finally read your wiki and it turns out your star witness was not a US citizen under the laws that obtained at the time.
There have been American missionaries in Asia since forever. Pearl Buck was born in China, and it doesn't seem she had any trouble returning to the US in 1935. There were missionary families in Korea in the 19th century, and none of their children had any difficulty entering the country.
You made the claim that US citizens born in Asia were denied entry to the US, but then you did your old bait and switch thing to start talking about the US not recognizing naturalization of Asians born in the US. The first statement was a falsehood, and to repeat, it's irksome that you are totally indifferent to posting something which is simply not true.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 09:05:54 PM
I think I made my case pretty well. That people like Yi (Americans of East-Asian descent) could be prevented from entering this country even if they were natural born citizens. At the very least it is is not, "transparently false".
You reached back into the ancient past to discuss a law specifically designed to oppose the Chinese in California. Yi is neither Chinese nor does he live in California.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 09:07:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 08:49:50 PM
I'm talking about American citizens. Do you think it would it would improve you chances to be born in Korea rather than the US? Are you arguing that the Americans born overseas have rights that ones born here do not?
So I finally read your wiki and it turns out your star witness was not a US citizen under the laws that obtained at the time.
There have been American missionaries in Asia since forever. Pearl Buck was born in China, and it doesn't seem she had any trouble returning to the US in 1935. There were missionary families in Korea in the 19th century, and none of their children had any difficulty entering the country.
You made the claim that US citizens born in Asia were denied entry to the US, but then you did your old bait and switch thing to start talking about the US not recognizing naturalization of Asians born in the US. The first statement was a falsehood, and to repeat, it's irksome that you are totally indifferent to posting something which is simply not true.
Pearl Buck was white.
Your claim that my statement is a falsehood rests their being a legal difference between Jus soli and Jus sanguinis entering the US and that being Jus sanguinis has priority. My first statement was that people like you (Asian-Americans) were not into this country. When you countered with that you had American citizenship due to birth, I counter that people with American citizenship could still be barred with entry, and provided a court case where this had happened. Presumably you are going to narrow it down to people born with your name in the later half of the 20th century.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 09:05:54 PM
I think I made my case pretty well. That people like Yi (Americans of East-Asian descent) could be prevented from entering this country even if they were natural born citizens. At the very least it is is not, "transparently false".
You haven't. It is apples and oranges.
In the case you cited, he was denied entry because he was born to non citizen parents and determined to not be a citizen. The court case you cited ruled otherwise--because he was born in the US he was a citizen.
In the case of Yi, the question is whether a half white son of an american citizen born overseas would always be considered US citizen. That is not addressed by the case you cite. Assuming Yi's parents were married, I suspect Yi is correct, just because Americans have always traveled overseas, and my understanding is that parents of American fathers got citizenship as a general rule (in a practical sense, if not this could be a huge hardship for people on overseas assignments in the diplomatic service, military, or business). I doubt race would be put as a factor in the laws, just out of expediency and the cases would likely be rare.
The secondary point is whether Yi would be recognized as a US citizen at the border. The case you cite does not address this, and in fact probably lends weight to Yi's side, as the person was recognized for what he was, the question was whether that entitled him to US citizenship.
Quote from: Valmy on March 21, 2016, 09:11:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 09:05:54 PM
I think I made my case pretty well. That people like Yi (Americans of East-Asian descent) could be prevented from entering this country even if they were natural born citizens. At the very least it is is not, "transparently false".
You reached back into the ancient past to discuss a law specifically designed to oppose the Chinese in California. Yi is neither Chinese nor does he live in California.
There really wasn't any much Korean immigration prior to the Korean war to this country. I never distinguished between different East Asian countries. I doubt American clerks at ports of entry in the 19th century would have either.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 09:17:01 PM
Pearl Buck was white.
Your claim that my statement is a falsehood rests their being a legal difference between Jus soli and Jus sanguinis entering the US and that being Jus sanguinis has priority. My first statement was that people like you (Asian-Americans) were not into this country. When you countered with that you had American citizenship due to birth, I counter that people with American citizenship could still be barred with entry, and provided a court case where this had happened. Presumably you are going to narrow it down to people born with your name in the later half of the 20th century.
My claim that your statement is a falsehood rests on empirical evidence. I know of US citizens born in Asia who were not denied entry into the US.
You did not provide a court case about an American citizen being denied entry, as I already pointed out. US law at the time denied naturalization to Asians with non-US citizen parents born in the US.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 09:25:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 09:17:01 PM
Pearl Buck was white.
Your claim that my statement is a falsehood rests their being a legal difference between Jus soli and Jus sanguinis entering the US and that being Jus sanguinis has priority. My first statement was that people like you (Asian-Americans) were not into this country. When you countered with that you had American citizenship due to birth, I counter that people with American citizenship could still be barred with entry, and provided a court case where this had happened. Presumably you are going to narrow it down to people born with your name in the later half of the 20th century.
My claim that your statement is a falsehood rests on empirical evidence. I know of US citizens born in Asia who were not denied entry into the US.
You did not provide a court case about an American citizen being denied entry, as I already pointed out. US law at the time denied naturalization to Asians with non-US citizen parents born in the US.
Wait a second, individual in the case was not a naturalized citizen, he was natural born. He was recognized as a citizen the first time he returned the US, but not on his second visit. He was a natural born citizen by the 14th amendment.
Trying to lead me down a rabbit hole of irrelevance will not change the fact that you posted a falsehood and don't care.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 09:43:18 PM
Trying to lead me down a rabbit hole of irrelevance will not change the fact that you posted a falsehood and don't care.
What false hood did I post?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 09:45:10 PM
What false hood did I post?
There was a time when US citizens born overseas were not allowed in?
Yeah, if they came in from Asia.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 09:50:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 09:45:10 PM
What false hood did I post?
There was a time when US citizens born overseas were not allowed in?
Yeah, if they came in from Asia.
Okay, I will concede that I can find no case where an American citizen born in East Asia were specifically excluded though I could find attempts to exclude other natural born American citizens. I had heard about the Wong Kim case on the radio once and believed that it was sufficient to encompass all natural born citizens for the sake of these type of arguments not just ones born in the US. I'm sorry if you thought I was trying to spread "falsehoods".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 09:07:31 PM
There have been American missionaries in Asia since forever. Pearl Buck was born in China, and it doesn't seem she had any trouble returning to the US in 1935. There were missionary families in Korea in the 19th century, and none of their children had any difficulty entering the country.
That answers my question, thanks :)
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 10:11:28 PM
Okay, I will concede that I can find no case where an American citizen born in East Asia were specifically excluded though I could find attempts to exclude other natural born American citizens. I had heard about the Wong Kim case on the radio once and believed that it was sufficient to encompass all natural born citizens for the sake of these type of arguments not just ones born in the US. I'm sorry if you thought I was trying to spread "falsehoods".
This statement has not changed my opinion.
Okay, is there something else you want me to walk back?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 10:25:45 PM
Okay, is there something else you want me to walk back?
I don't want you to "walk back" anything. I want to see some indication that you give a shit about posting things that are not true.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 10:37:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 10:25:45 PM
Okay, is there something else you want me to walk back?
I don't want you to "walk back" anything. I want to see some indication that you give a shit about posting things that are not true.
I thought it was true. In fact, I still think it's true, I just can't find a specific example.
two explosions at the passenger side of Brussels Airport. I work at the freight side.
This is unfolding yet. Apparently explosion at American Airlines desk.
I don't suspect this is a gas leak :(
Oh my.
11 dead, 25 wounded so far, rumours of more bombs found.
Quote from: Barrister on March 21, 2016, 03:51:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 03:43:01 PM
I suspect that if the best you can do in outrage is something as mealy mouthed as "that kind of sounds racist", then the problem is with you more than someone else.
Racism is a pretty terrible thing, and it exists and should be aggressively fought, or it does not exist and cannot be described as "kind of sounds racist".
If you are trying that hard to be outraged, I suspect the issue is internal.
Someone fleeing the civil war in the Ukraine should be treated just the same, because otherwise it is "kind of maybe sorta racist oh dear golly". So you are going to speak to them both in the same language? Going to assume they both have the same dietary needs, and would like to live in the same housing arrangement? Assume they both present the exact same security risks?
I say "sounds kind of racist" it's because I want to give someone an "out".
If you want to treat my hypothetical differently because one requires service in Ukrainian/Russian, while the other requires services in Arabic? Okay yes you got me - they should eb treated differently in that respect. The Ukrainian refugee is going to enjoy eating pyrogies more than the Syrian refugee, so food aid should be different as well.
I dunno, assuming that someone speaks some particular language or likes some particular food because of their origins? Sounds kind of racist to me.
Quote
"Are they both going to present the exact same security risks"? I would say you damn well better do what you can to screen both groups for security risks.
That is just it though - you have limited resources, so you have to choose where and how to spend them. Your argument demands that in order to avoid "sounding kind of racist" we spend them non-optimally, and assume that two groups are the same when it comes to security risk, when in fact we know damn well they are not.
Your demand is that in order to not "sound kind of racist" we treat groups that present very different risks as if they present the exact same risk, which means that one group is going to get more attention than it deserves and the other will get less, all so we can make sure we are politically correct and don't "seem kind of racist".
The engineer immigrating from China presents a very different security risk than the migrant farm worker immigrating from Colombia and the Muslim refugee from Syria. They all need to be screened, but some in a cursory manner, and some not so cursory, and the kind of screening is different as well. Those differences might "seem kind of racist", but the ridiculous demand that we treat them all the same so we don't "seem kind of racist" is why radical nutjobs like Trump get traction with people when he says they are all rapists and Muslim terrorists. Lack of reasonable nuance on one end leads to lack of reasonable nuance on the other.
Quote from: Archy on March 22, 2016, 02:30:04 AM
two explosions at the passenger side of Brussels Airport. I work at the freight side.
This is unfolding yet. Apparently explosion at American Airlines desk.
I don't suspect this is a gas leak :(
I sure hope security forces don't focus their attention on Muslims, because that might seem kind of racist.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 07:33:41 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 21, 2016, 03:51:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2016, 03:43:01 PM
I suspect that if the best you can do in outrage is something as mealy mouthed as "that kind of sounds racist", then the problem is with you more than someone else.
Racism is a pretty terrible thing, and it exists and should be aggressively fought, or it does not exist and cannot be described as "kind of sounds racist".
If you are trying that hard to be outraged, I suspect the issue is internal.
Someone fleeing the civil war in the Ukraine should be treated just the same, because otherwise it is "kind of maybe sorta racist oh dear golly". So you are going to speak to them both in the same language? Going to assume they both have the same dietary needs, and would like to live in the same housing arrangement? Assume they both present the exact same security risks?
I say "sounds kind of racist" it's because I want to give someone an "out".
If you want to treat my hypothetical differently because one requires service in Ukrainian/Russian, while the other requires services in Arabic? Okay yes you got me - they should eb treated differently in that respect. The Ukrainian refugee is going to enjoy eating pyrogies more than the Syrian refugee, so food aid should be different as well.
I dunno, assuming that someone speaks some particular language or likes some particular food because of their origins? Sounds kind of racist to me.
Quote
"Are they both going to present the exact same security risks"? I would say you damn well better do what you can to screen both groups for security risks.
That is just it though - you have limited resources, so you have to choose where and how to spend them. Your argument demands that in order to avoid "sounding kind of racist" we spend them non-optimally, and assume that two groups are the same when it comes to security risk, when in fact we know damn well they are not.
Your demand is that in order to not "sound kind of racist" we treat groups that present very different risks as if they present the exact same risk, which means that one group is going to get more attention than it deserves and the other will get less, all so we can make sure we are politically correct and don't "seem kind of racist".
The engineer immigrating from China presents a very different security risk than the migrant farm worker immigrating from Colombia and the Muslim refugee from Syria. They all need to be screened, but some in a cursory manner, and some not so cursory, and the kind of screening is different as well. Those differences might "seem kind of racist", but the ridiculous demand that we treat them all the same so we don't "seem kind of racist" is why radical nutjobs like Trump get traction with people when he says they are all rapists and Muslim terrorists. Lack of reasonable nuance on one end leads to lack of reasonable nuance on the other.
Yup, it's like banning sexually active gay men/MSM from donating blood. It may be reasonable to lift the ban now if statistics confirm the risk has shifted but until recently sorry, the risk was there and it just doesn't make sense to dedicate additional resources for a little objective gain just to make one group feel good about itself.
Filters like this are can be quick to be added, but frequently can take a long time to be reversed. They usually get added during a panic, get indiscriminately applied and last well past the point where they are doing any good. It would be best if such filters were well considered before use and regularly reviewed after.
Second, they can be useful when you are looking for terrorists, they are not useful when you are looking for immigrants. Looking for terrorists is a needle in a haystack type of problem, the target is a tiny percentage of the population. Anything that can reduce the search without getting too many false negatives is of utility. For immigrants knowing that .01% of a population could be terrorists versus .0001% doesn't tell you much. The vast majority of either group would be perfectly acceptable (on the "not a terrorist" criteria), and to exclude them based on a tiny sub-group isn't the best way to go about it.
Quote from: frunk on March 22, 2016, 09:21:25 AM
Filters like this are can be quick to be added, but frequently can take a long time to be reversed. They usually get added during a panic, get indiscriminately applied and last well past the point where they are doing any good. It would be best if such filters were well considered before use and regularly reviewed after.
Second, they can be useful when you are looking for terrorists, they are not useful when you are looking for immigrants. Looking for terrorists is a needle in a haystack type of problem, the target is a tiny percentage of the population. Anything that can reduce the search without getting too many false negatives is of utility. For immigrants knowing that .01% of a population could be terrorists versus .0001% doesn't tell you much. The vast majority of either group would be perfectly acceptable (on the "not a terrorist" criteria), and to exclude them based on a tiny sub-group isn't the best way to go about it.
It is certainly the case that any policy, even if based on reality, can then be exploited and abused.
Lucky for us, we are not really having any problem finding immigrants, so concerns about how a policy might make that difficult is not really much of an issue...:P
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 07:38:13 AM
Quote from: Archy on March 22, 2016, 02:30:04 AM
two explosions at the passenger side of Brussels Airport. I work at the freight side.
This is unfolding yet. Apparently explosion at American Airlines desk.
I don't suspect this is a gas leak :(
I sure hope security forces don't focus their attention on Muslims, because that might seem kind of racist.
As with any attack it is perfectly fine to put "Islamic terrorists" at the top of your suspect list - but you better be open to other possibilities and not just automatically assume that is your suspect.
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2016, 09:27:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 07:38:13 AM
Quote from: Archy on March 22, 2016, 02:30:04 AM
two explosions at the passenger side of Brussels Airport. I work at the freight side.
This is unfolding yet. Apparently explosion at American Airlines desk.
I don't suspect this is a gas leak :(
I sure hope security forces don't focus their attention on Muslims, because that might seem kind of racist.
As with any attack it is perfectly fine to put "Islamic terrorists" at the top of your suspect list - but you better be open to other possibilities and not just automatically assume that is your suspect.
That seems kind of racist.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 09:24:41 AM
Lucky for us, we are not really having any problem finding immigrants, so concerns about how a policy might make that difficult is not really much of an issue...:P
The concern isn't whether we can find immigrants, but what criteria should be used. Threat of terrorism from a religious group isn't a particularly useful one, apart from individuals who can be tied to such a threat.
Quote from: frunk on March 22, 2016, 09:40:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 09:24:41 AM
Lucky for us, we are not really having any problem finding immigrants, so concerns about how a policy might make that difficult is not really much of an issue...:P
The concern isn't whether we can find immigrants, but what criteria should be used. Threat of terrorism from a religious group isn't a particularly useful one, apart from individuals who can be tied to such a threat.
I, personally, do not believe that the threat of terrorism should significantly impact decisions about how many Syrian refugees countries should accept.
However, that threat should very much influence the process by which they are accepted, and how they are monitored. And if they don't like that, tough shit.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 09:45:36 AM
Quote from: frunk on March 22, 2016, 09:40:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 09:24:41 AM
Lucky for us, we are not really having any problem finding immigrants, so concerns about how a policy might make that difficult is not really much of an issue...:P
The concern isn't whether we can find immigrants, but what criteria should be used. Threat of terrorism from a religious group isn't a particularly useful one, apart from individuals who can be tied to such a threat.
I, personally, do not believe that the threat of terrorism should significantly impact decisions about how many Syrian refugees countries should accept.
However, that threat should very much influence the process by which they are accepted, and how they are monitored. And if they don't like that, tough shit.
Do you think it is going to help integration if you know you are assumed guilty and constantly monitored by the security services purely because of the way you look?
Quote from: Solmyr on March 22, 2016, 09:56:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 09:45:36 AM
Quote from: frunk on March 22, 2016, 09:40:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 09:24:41 AM
Lucky for us, we are not really having any problem finding immigrants, so concerns about how a policy might make that difficult is not really much of an issue...:P
The concern isn't whether we can find immigrants, but what criteria should be used. Threat of terrorism from a religious group isn't a particularly useful one, apart from individuals who can be tied to such a threat.
I, personally, do not believe that the threat of terrorism should significantly impact decisions about how many Syrian refugees countries should accept.
However, that threat should very much influence the process by which they are accepted, and how they are monitored. And if they don't like that, tough shit.
Do you think it is going to help integration if you know you are assumed guilty and constantly monitored by the security services purely because of the way you look?
if they're refugees they need to go back to their country of origin after the conflict.
I love when the cover gets blown on the "refugee" racket.
Quote from: Solmyr on March 22, 2016, 09:56:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 09:45:36 AM
Quote from: frunk on March 22, 2016, 09:40:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 09:24:41 AM
Lucky for us, we are not really having any problem finding immigrants, so concerns about how a policy might make that difficult is not really much of an issue...:P
The concern isn't whether we can find immigrants, but what criteria should be used. Threat of terrorism from a religious group isn't a particularly useful one, apart from individuals who can be tied to such a threat.
I, personally, do not believe that the threat of terrorism should significantly impact decisions about how many Syrian refugees countries should accept.
However, that threat should very much influence the process by which they are accepted, and how they are monitored. And if they don't like that, tough shit.
Do you think it is going to help integration if you know you are assumed guilty and constantly monitored by the security services purely because of the way you look?
No, it will harm integration. Which is why there has to be some reasonable implementation of these policies, of course, and it should obviously not be done in such a way that makes people feel like they are "assumed guilty" at all, much less "purely because of the way you look".
This kind of language is exactly the problem. That we must look at through these extreme kind of lenses that make everything be about overt racism, rather than sober understanding and evaluation of the problem, and how to address it.
if you go to some population of Muslims and use that kind of language, of course the result is going to be resentment and anger. But you don't have to use that kind of language, and of course the people who actually have to do these things don't use that kind of language.
But people who have an axe to grind are happy to stand up and claim that any reasonable and sober and even compassionate attempt to implement reasonable policies are "targeting you purely because of the way you look!"
The radical religious nuts, for example, will stand up and say that. And having otherwise reasonable people echo it doesn't help.
When some imam says "We should apply Sharia law in Canada! The Canadians hate us anyway, and they are all infidels!" they get tacit support from people who are willing to say "Yeah, focusing the attention of anti-terrorism efforts on Muslims is racism!"
We should leave the overtly racist tinged language to the actual radicals.
The only way some particular Muslim immingrants "knows you are assumed guilty" is if someone tells them they are assumed guilty. They will have people doing that of course, from their own radicals in their groups. We don't need to help them by telling them that ourselves because someone notes that Syrian refugees are a obvious security threat and need to be carefully vetted.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 10:08:08 AM
No, it will harm integration. Which is why there has to be some reasonable implementation of these policies, of course, and it should obviously not be done in such a way that makes people feel like they are "assumed guilty" at all, much less "purely because of the way you look".
How about only monitoring people when you actually have reasonable proof that they might commit a terror attack, rather than just because they were born in Aleppo, have a beard, and pray towards Mecca? That seems like a reasonable implementation to me.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 10:05:06 AM
I love when the cover gets blown on the "refugee" racket.
yeah those Syrian civilians getting their houses burned down and limbs blown off - what a bunch of con men.
Quote from: Solmyr on March 22, 2016, 10:12:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 10:08:08 AM
No, it will harm integration. Which is why there has to be some reasonable implementation of these policies, of course, and it should obviously not be done in such a way that makes people feel like they are "assumed guilty" at all, much less "purely because of the way you look".
How about only monitoring people when you actually have reasonable proof that they might commit a terror attack, rather than just because they were born in Aleppo, have a beard, and pray towards Mecca? That seems like a reasonable implementation to me.
This is the lawyer in me coming out - I think your formulation is perfectly fine except when you say the word "proof". If you have proof you should be arresting people.
What about "only monitoring people when you actually have a reasonable suspicion that they might commit a terror attack". "Reasonable suspicion" is a judicially considered phrase.
Quote from: Solmyr on March 22, 2016, 10:12:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 10:08:08 AM
No, it will harm integration. Which is why there has to be some reasonable implementation of these policies, of course, and it should obviously not be done in such a way that makes people feel like they are "assumed guilty" at all, much less "purely because of the way you look".
How about only monitoring people when you actually have reasonable proof that they might commit a terror attack, rather than just because they were born in Aleppo, have a beard, and pray towards Mecca? That seems like a reasonable implementation to me.
Not really. Your language is *precisely* the problem and the reason people like Trump get traction.
You want to cast perfectly reasonable choices about how to approach security as "You want to monitor people because they have a beard!". You insist that the only way to have a discussion about the issue is with accusatory language from the start.
It is perfectly reasonable to note that if you are looking for terrorists, you should probably not bother looking in populations that do not generally have terrorists (within reason and understanding how that then impacts those trying to hide themselves). If you want to investigate the latest bombing, asking questions at the local Amish church is probably not a good use of your time - asking at the local Mosque that has been known to harbor radicals might be a much better use of your time.
When you do that, and people start screeching about how you are "assuming people are guilty because they have a beard and pray towards Mecca!" then people like Trump LOVE that. Because it makes them look like the only people interested in actually addressing the reality, rather than what we wish was the reality.
Targeting security efforts at the groups that you know predominantly contain the threat is not assuming anyone is guilty. Equating *reasonable* profiling as a tool as being the same as outright racism is exactly the issue I am talking about. When you say that is no different than Trump's demand that all Muslims be refused entry, you play directly into his hands. Both the victims of his racism and the racists listen to that kind of language.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2016, 11:01:59 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 10:05:06 AM
I love when the cover gets blown on the "refugee" racket.
yeah those Syrian civilians getting their houses burned down and limbs blown off - what a bunch of con men.
You mean con-women & -children. Absolutely zero young able-bodied men among them.
But obviously I'm talking about their tendency to become permanent residents rather than more temporary refugees. Send them back home after the conflict? Ha.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 11:49:02 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2016, 11:01:59 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 10:05:06 AM
I love when the cover gets blown on the "refugee" racket.
yeah those Syrian civilians getting their houses burned down and limbs blown off - what a bunch of con men.
You mean con-women & -children. Absolutely zero young able-bodied men among them.
]
I don't get this part - what difference does it make whether they are men or not?
Why can't able bodied young men be refugees?
Quote
But obviously I'm talking about their tendency to become permanent residents rather than more temporary refugees. Send them back home after the conflict? Ha.
If you are fleeing a war torn catastrophe, then I imagine it is not surprising if some percentage of those people don't want to go back afterwards. And some of them might want to go back. What difference does this make?
If we accepted as refugees a bunch of Jews fleeing Germany in 1938 (and it is embarrassing and shameful to me that my country turned them away using a lot of the same logic then that we use now), would it come as no surprise that a lot of them aren't much interested in heading back come 1946? What difference would it make to our decision to let them in either way?
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 11:54:55 AM
I don't get this part - what difference does it make whether they are men or not?
Obama mocked his opponents for being afraid of Syrian women & children refugees, implying that very few if any were men.
QuoteWhy can't able bodied young men be refugees?
I guess they can. But generally speaking they should be back home continuing the fight.
Quote
If you are fleeing a war torn catastrophe, then I imagine it is not surprising if some percentage of those people don't want to go back afterwards. And some of them might want to go back. What difference does this make?
If we accepted as refugees a bunch of Jews fleeing Germany in 1938 (and it is embarrassing and shameful to me that my country turned them away using a lot of the same logic then that we use now), would it come as no surprise that a lot of them aren't much interested in heading back come 1946? What difference would it make to our decision to let them in either way?
At least drop the pretense of them being refugees (which implies a temporary status) and just call them immigrants.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 12:04:13 PM
At least drop the pretense of them being refugees (which implies a temporary status) and just call them immigrants.
I don't think the categories are mutually exclusive.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 12:04:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 11:54:55 AM
I don't get this part - what difference does it make whether they are men or not?
Obama mocked his opponents for being afraid of Syrian women & children refugees, implying that very few if any were men.
QuoteWhy can't able bodied young men be refugees?
I guess they can. But generally speaking they should be back home continuing the fight.
That is just silly. Continuing the fight against who, and for who?
What if they don't want to fight, what if they don't think any of the sides in question are worth fighting for?
What is about being male that means you are obligated to fight regardless of whether you think there is something worth fighting for?
Quote
Quote
If you are fleeing a war torn catastrophe, then I imagine it is not surprising if some percentage of those people don't want to go back afterwards. And some of them might want to go back. What difference does this make?
If we accepted as refugees a bunch of Jews fleeing Germany in 1938 (and it is embarrassing and shameful to me that my country turned them away using a lot of the same logic then that we use now), would it come as no surprise that a lot of them aren't much interested in heading back come 1946? What difference would it make to our decision to let them in either way?
At least drop the pretense of them being refugees (which implies a temporary status) and just call them immigrants.
They can be both - but right now, at the moment, they are refugees. Calling them immigrants would be saying they are the same as someone NOT fleeing the likelihood of being killed, and that is a distinction that matters a great deal.
What utility is in removing that classification (refugee) in favor of a more general one (immigrant) that provides less information?
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 12:04:13 PM
I guess they can. But generally speaking they should be back home continuing the fight.
Is there some kind of obligation for young men to fight in a war that they had nothing to do with in the first place?
They should be fighting against whatever evil that is scaring them into leaving. And I'm speaking specifically of Syria here.
Berkut, do you think Syrian refugees should stay here once things settle down in Syria? Or do you want them staying here? Assuming you want them to stay, is that good for the US, specifically people who are US citizens? Or does that matter to you?
Quote from: Solmyr on March 22, 2016, 12:11:23 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 12:04:13 PM
I guess they can. But generally speaking they should be back home continuing the fight.
Is there some kind of obligation for young men to fight in a war that they had nothing to do with in the first place?
If someone is threatening their homes and families, I would say so.
What if they have no weapons and are not trained to fight? Are they still obligated to go and die at the hand of Daesh, in your opinion? Why is saving their families by bringing them here not an option?
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 07:38:13 AM
Quote from: Archy on March 22, 2016, 02:30:04 AM
two explosions at the passenger side of Brussels Airport. I work at the freight side.
This is unfolding yet. Apparently explosion at American Airlines desk.
I don't suspect this is a gas leak :(
I sure hope security forces don't focus their attention on Muslims, because that might seem kind of racist.
that would be kinda dumb.
Should we list religion on our passport?
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 12:15:31 PM
They should be fighting against whatever evil that is scaring them into leaving. And I'm speaking specifically of Syria here.
Berkut, do you think Syrian refugees should stay here once things settle down in Syria? Or do you want them staying here? Assuming you want them to stay, is that good for the US, specifically people who are US citizens? Or does that matter to you?
It would depend on how long the war goes on.
If, miraculously, the war comes to an end in 6 months then it's not unreasonable for them to go back.
But if, say 2+ years on, they've now put down roots, it's not unreasonable to allow them to stay.
The few Jews who fled Germany in the 30s weren't expected to go back post-1945.
The migration wave into Europe has a good number of people from Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, and a lot others.
FFS, a guy from HAITI was caught crossing the Hungarian border illegally a couple of weeks ago.
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2016, 12:25:22 PM
The few Jews who fled Germany in the 30s weren't expected to go back post-1945.
And they shouldn't have been expected to go back. But that's a bit of an extreme example.
True story:
Some time ago I had a kid (19 yo) from Bangladesh as a pro bono client. His mother had been a political activist years before and fled to the US when the kid was an infant. The kid hung out with some rowdy sorts and once day they got into a fight with some other guys. During the course of that fight the kid's shoe came off and he picked it up and hit someone with it (allegedly - there was some dispute over whether he made contact). That turned out to be significant because it arguably turned it into a Class A misdemeanor, which is punishable by a year in prison. And thus qualifies as a deportable "crime of violence." So he found himself in an ICE jail awaiting deportation to Bangladesh.
Problem was he had never been to Bangladesh, knew no one there, had no place to go. He spoke no Bengali, only English with a New York accent. He had basically never been outside of Queens.
Once someone comes in as a refugee and settles in doing what our society expects - hold down a job, get educated, make a home, contribute to a community, establish roots etc. - it makes no sense to come in 10 years later when the risk in their home country has subsided and say - OK time to pull up everything and go back to this now basically foreign place. It is like making them a refugee a second time.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2016, 01:16:56 PM
Once someone comes in as a refugee and settles in doing what our society expects - hold down a job, get educated, make a home, contribute to a community, establish roots etc. - it makes no sense to come in 10 years later when the risk in their home country has subsided and say - OK time to pull up everything and go back to this now basically foreign place. It is like making them a refugee a second time.
Ok well then that is the rub isn't it? Hence why refugees are being rejected and blocked. It might make sense to do that if that is the condition under which they can escape their home country?
But also this situation is different. This is a mass migration of people not a singular political activist. They are unlikely to fully integrated in only 10 years.
Moving to an alien country isn't some kind of horrible fate that is cruel and unusual. People do it all the time.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 12:15:31 PM
They should be fighting against whatever evil that is scaring them into leaving.
What if they have no opportunity to engage in such a fight? Should they just go and die on principle?
What if they just don't like fighting? What if they are terrible at it?
Quote
And I'm speaking specifically of Syria here.
Berkut, do you think Syrian refugees should stay here once things settle down in Syria?
I think that if you accept refugees, you should plan on allowing them to stay. Simply because it isn't possible to forsee how things might turn out in the long run, so it is better to just assume that they are not going back.
Once things do settle down, then it can be left up to them whether they want to return or not.
Quote
Or do you want them staying here?
My wants aren't really the question though.
What *I* "want" is my country to be the kind of country that is willing and courageous enough to take in those who have nowhere else to go, the kind of country that values kindness and courage such that we do not allow our fear of the people we should stand against to influence how we act to others. I want to live in a country that says "Fuck you ISIL, *you* don't get to define our refuges policy by threatening to send terrorists in with the refugees so that we compromise our values out of fear".
That is what *I* want. I don't want them to stay, or to go - I want them to have the freedom to make that choice for themselves. What I *want* is for people to not have to flee from religious maniacs who think nothing of lining them up - men, women, and children, and machine gunning them into a ditch. And I want neighbors who have the courage to take those people in even if it means we risk being attacked in our ultra comfortable homes ourselves. Especially given that at most the actual risk of that attack effecting any of us personally is a tiny, tiny fraction of the threat that those fleeing those people face by us refusing them sanctuary.
So yeah, what *I* want is for us to stand by the values that separate us from the crazy assholes creating the crisis to begin with.
Quote
Assuming you want them to stay, is that good for the US, specifically people who are US citizens? Or does that matter to you?
Personally, I think it is good for the US, but I realize that my definition of good is likely very different from your own. I think the US is the great country it is *because* we have values that are worth some potential short term pain. I think that more and different views, different people with different ideas are good for the US, and good for the people who are US citizens. I think that being the country of last resort, the country of hope, the country of sanctuary is not just good for the people we provide that sanctuary to, but good for those of us who have already found it is as well.
Maybe more importantly, I think being the country that cannot refuse to help those who need it, that cannot turn our backs on murder, rape, and torture is good for *us*, especially given that maybe in the past we have failed to live up to those ideals. Maybe we have some payback owed, and taking in some people who are fleeing terror seems like the very least we can do.
I believe in "Land of the free, home of the brave", not "Land of the free, home of those terrified of refugees".
I think that is true both in philosophy, and good in practical economic terms as well.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 03:06:47 PM
What *I* "want" is my country to be the kind of country that is willing and courageous enough to take in those who have nowhere else to go
I'll agree here; the attitude of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is what built this country.
Quote from: dps on March 22, 2016, 03:18:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 03:06:47 PM
What *I* "want" is my country to be the kind of country that is willing and courageous enough to take in those who have nowhere else to go
I'll agree here; the attitude of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is what built this country.
It sure did and we're all better for it. Time and a place for everything, though. Time to move on.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 03:22:29 PM
Quote from: dps on March 22, 2016, 03:18:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 03:06:47 PM
What *I* "want" is my country to be the kind of country that is willing and courageous enough to take in those who have nowhere else to go
I'll agree here; the attitude of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is what built this country.
It sure did and we're all better for it. Time and a place for everything, though. Time to move on.
Just what the Know-Nothings said back when they were arguing against immigration then as well.
"Sure, immigration was OSSUM when my parents immigrated, but not anymore!"
Like Seedy says, there's enough traffic already.
Quote from: dps on March 22, 2016, 03:18:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 03:06:47 PM
What *I* "want" is my country to be the kind of country that is willing and courageous enough to take in those who have nowhere else to go
I'll agree here; the attitude of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is what built this country.
Note that the statue of liberty was erected and that dedication inscribed at a port of entry of primarily white christian and jewish immigrants. No such monument was on the other coast, where the chinese exclusion act was in effect.
Were it not for those policies, the racial and religious makeup of the country would likely be quite different.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 22, 2016, 04:02:20 PM
Quote from: dps on March 22, 2016, 03:18:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 03:06:47 PM
What *I* "want" is my country to be the kind of country that is willing and courageous enough to take in those who have nowhere else to go
I'll agree here; the attitude of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is what built this country.
Note that the statue of liberty was erected and that dedication inscribed at a port of entry of primarily white christian and jewish immigrants. No such monument was on the other coast, where the chinese exclusion act was in effect.
Were it not for those policies, the racial and religious makeup of the country would likely be quite different.
Your point? As I mentioned in a couple of other current threads, we haven't always lived up to our ideals, and our immigration policy hasn't always been what I'd consider the right thing to do. I don't see the fact that we discriminated against Orientals in immigration policy for a long time as justifying discriminating against Muslims now and going forward.
Quote from: dps on March 22, 2016, 04:23:46 PM
Your point? As I mentioned in a couple of other current threads, we haven't always lived up to our ideals, and our immigration policy hasn't always been what I'd consider the right thing to do. I don't see the fact that we discriminated against Orientals in immigration policy for a long time as justifying discriminating against Muslims now and going forward.
I don't really have a point. Just the history nerd in me combined with what CdM would call assburgers.
However, I don't think that you can look at the plaque on the statue of liberty and say those reflected our national ideals for all people everywhere. If you look at government policy which may be the best reflection we have of "national public opinion" of that day, ie the ideals of the time, we were okay with mass immigration of poor people so long as they were europeans of a judeo christian background.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 22, 2016, 04:34:25 PM
Quote from: dps on March 22, 2016, 04:23:46 PM
Your point? As I mentioned in a couple of other current threads, we haven't always lived up to our ideals, and our immigration policy hasn't always been what I'd consider the right thing to do. I don't see the fact that we discriminated against Orientals in immigration policy for a long time as justifying discriminating against Muslims now and going forward.
I don't really have a point. Just the history nerd in me combined with what CdM would call assburgers.
However, I don't think that you can look at the plaque on the statue of liberty and say those reflected our national ideals for all people everywhere. If you look at government policy which may be the best reflection we have of "national public opinion" of that day, ie the ideals of the time, we were okay with mass immigration of poor people so long as they were europeans of a judeo christian background.
I don't particularly disagree with your interpretation of our policy at the time; I'm just saying that it should be one of our national ideals.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 03:22:29 PM
Quote from: dps on March 22, 2016, 03:18:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 03:06:47 PM
What *I* "want" is my country to be the kind of country that is willing and courageous enough to take in those who have nowhere else to go
I'll agree here; the attitude of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is what built this country.
It sure did and we're all better for it. Time and a place for everything, though. Time to move on.
When is the cut off date?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2016, 06:53:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 03:22:29 PM
Quote from: dps on March 22, 2016, 03:18:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 03:06:47 PM
What *I* "want" is my country to be the kind of country that is willing and courageous enough to take in those who have nowhere else to go
I'll agree here; the attitude of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is what built this country.
It sure did and we're all better for it. Time and a place for everything, though. Time to move on.
When is the cut off date?
How about 1945.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 07:05:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2016, 06:53:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 03:22:29 PM
Quote from: dps on March 22, 2016, 03:18:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 03:06:47 PM
What *I* "want" is my country to be the kind of country that is willing and courageous enough to take in those who have nowhere else to go
I'll agree here; the attitude of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is what built this country.
It sure did and we're all better for it. Time and a place for everything, though. Time to move on.
When is the cut off date?
How about 1945.
I
knew you were going to go for the end of WWII.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 07:05:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2016, 06:53:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 03:22:29 PM
Quote from: dps on March 22, 2016, 03:18:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 03:06:47 PM
What *I* "want" is my country to be the kind of country that is willing and courageous enough to take in those who have nowhere else to go
I'll agree here; the attitude of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is what built this country.
It sure did and we're all better for it. Time and a place for everything, though. Time to move on.
When is the cut off date?
How about 1945.
Kind of tough on your wife, isn't it?
Quote from: dps on March 22, 2016, 07:13:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 07:05:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2016, 06:53:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 03:22:29 PM
Quote from: dps on March 22, 2016, 03:18:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 03:06:47 PM
What *I* "want" is my country to be the kind of country that is willing and courageous enough to take in those who have nowhere else to go
I'll agree here; the attitude of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is what built this country.
It sure did and we're all better for it. Time and a place for everything, though. Time to move on.
When is the cut off date?
How about 1945.
I knew you were going to go for the end of WWII.
wasn't the Geneva Convention expanded/amended after WW2 in regards to refugees?
Mr. Trump on Syrian refugees:
Quote"What should happen is the United States and a bunch of other countries should get together—funded by the Gulf States, because they have tremendous amounts of money—and we should build a safe zone," Trump said. "It should be in Syria. Or a number of safe zones, in different parts of Syria, where you build until the war ends and they can go back—if they want to—they can go back to where they want to be. But, absolutely, we should not be taking undocumented people into this country."
If you sift through his usual "flowery prose" this is actually a decent policy - but I guess Jacob will be worried America starts alienating its Gulf state allies like that, by expecting them to pull their weight...
Also we need a "Immigration and Terrorism (aka Islam) Megathread" and combine at least 3 active threads.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 06:17:24 AM
Mr. Trump on Syrian refugees:
Quote"What should happen is the United States and a bunch of other countries should get together—funded by the Gulf States, because they have tremendous amounts of money—and we should build a safe zone," Trump said. "It should be in Syria. Or a number of safe zones, in different parts of Syria, where you build until the war ends and they can go back—if they want to—they can go back to where they want to be. But, absolutely, we should not be taking undocumented people into this country."
If you sift through his usual "flowery prose" this is actually a decent policy - but I guess Jacob will be worried America starts alienating its Gulf state allies like that, by expecting them to pull their weight...
Fucking safe zones??!? And trigger warnings?? :bleeding:
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 06:17:24 AM
If you sift through his usual "flowery prose" this is actually a decent policy - but I guess Jacob will be worried America starts alienating its Gulf state allies like that, by expecting them to pull their weight...
Actually this is what I have wanted for a long time. Well if Trump wins I hope he at least advances this strategy in dealing with these kinds of crises.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2016, 11:12:02 AMActually this is what I have wanted for a long time. Well if Trump wins I hope he at least advances this strategy in dealing with these kinds of crises.
what does a safe zone look like? a long-term refugee camp, or?
Quote from: LaCroix on March 23, 2016, 11:21:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2016, 11:12:02 AMActually this is what I have wanted for a long time. Well if Trump wins I hope he at least advances this strategy in dealing with these kinds of crises.
what does a safe zone look like? a long-term refugee camp, or?
Perhaps. I think it is more likely to be a staging area for dispersing the refugees around the world. The main point is to give them someplace to go where resources are available to care for them and security can be established.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2016, 09:06:58 PM
Kind of tough on your wife, isn't it?
No. I knew you'd go there, though.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 06:17:24 AM
Mr. Trump on Syrian refugees:
Quote"What should happen is the United States and a bunch of other countries should get together—funded by the Gulf States, because they have tremendous amounts of money—and we should build a safe zone," Trump said. "It should be in Syria. Or a number of safe zones, in different parts of Syria, where you build until the war ends and they can go back—if they want to—they can go back to where they want to be. But, absolutely, we should not be taking undocumented people into this country."
If you sift through his usual "flowery prose" this is actually a decent policy - but I guess Jacob will be worried America starts alienating its Gulf state allies like that, by expecting them to pull their weight...
Well that's kind of what the world is doing now - except the "safe zones" are in Turkey and Lebanon. And the EU, for one, is paying billions of dollars to do so.
To create "safe zones" inside Syria however... just how do you propose to do that? Just declaring a "no fly zone" isn't going to do the trick. You're either going to need to partner with a local faction - likely Assad - or you're going to need your own boots on the ground. Which is exactly the thing Trump has been promising not to do.
This is precisely the kind of off the cuff policy announcement we've come to expect from Trump.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2016, 11:23:42 AMPerhaps. I think it is more likely to be a staging area for dispersing the refugees around the world. The main point is to give them someplace to go where resources are available to care for them and security can be established.
as barrister said, don't we already have staging areas?
re "perhaps," aren't long-term refugee camps well known for breeding terrorism?
Quote from: LaCroix on March 23, 2016, 11:40:54 AM
as barrister said, don't we already have staging areas?
If we did they are failing miserably. And they are not being protected by the United States military.
Quotere "perhaps," aren't long-term refugee camps well known for breeding terrorism?
Doubtful when they have the substantial resources of the entire international community behind them. Usually they are poorly run because they are thrust upon the shoulders of whatever poor assholes happen to border the crisis zone, rather than an organized deployment of resources from the international community with the objective of containment and limitation of the crisis.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2016, 11:45:13 AMIf we did they are failing miserably.
Doubtful when they have the substantial resources of the entire international community behind them.
how are they failing miserably?
you know the taliban originated in long-term refugee camps set up/cared for by the UN. I assume those camps had "substantial resources of the entire international community"
Quote from: LaCroix on March 23, 2016, 11:52:46 AM
how are they failing miserably?
Because being a refugee is so great? Because no refugee crisis has ever happened in recent history? Because the allocation of refugees and standards and procedures for their care is completely haphazard and non-existent? Because they should not all be in Greece and Turkey if a rational procedure is in place?
Quoteyou know the taliban originated in long-term refugee camps set up/cared for by the UN.
Wait you just said that they are not failing miserably? Huh.
QuoteI assume those camps had "substantial resources of the entire international community"
You would assume wrong. The international community has failed to recognize what an important security and stability issue this is.
In any case in some cases it might be logical to maintain long-term camps, in others it might not. Maybe some of the refugees are anticipating returning to their nation shortly and do not want to be evacuated to Sri Lanka or wherever.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 23, 2016, 11:40:54 AM
re "perhaps," aren't long-term refugee camps well known for breeding terrorism?
European housing projects for refugees seem to breed terrorism as well. Maybe it's better to keep them at arm's length.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 06:17:24 AM
Mr. Trump on Syrian refugees:
Quote"What should happen is the United States and a bunch of other countries should get together—funded by the Gulf States, because they have tremendous amounts of money—and we should build a safe zone," Trump said. "It should be in Syria. Or a number of safe zones, in different parts of Syria, where you build until the war ends and they can go back—if they want to—they can go back to where they want to be. But, absolutely, we should not be taking undocumented people into this country."
If you sift through his usual "flowery prose" this is actually a decent policy - but I guess Jacob will be worried America starts alienating its Gulf state allies like that, by expecting them to pull their weight...
it's the policy proposed by Turkey, establish a city or cities in northern Syria and enforce a no fly zone.
Quote from: viper37 on March 23, 2016, 12:18:46 PM
it's the policy proposed by Turkey, establish a city or cities in northern Syria and enforce a no fly zone.
Should have done it.
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2016, 12:14:13 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 23, 2016, 11:40:54 AM
re "perhaps," aren't long-term refugee camps well known for breeding terrorism?
European housing projects for refugees seem to breed terrorism as well. Maybe it's better to keep them at arm's length.
islamic states breed terrorism as well. better have none of those either...
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2016, 11:58:48 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 23, 2016, 11:52:46 AM
how are they failing miserably?
Because being a refugee is so great? Because no refugee crisis has ever happened in recent history? Because the allocation of refugees and standards and procedures for their care is completely haphazard and non-existent? Because they should not all be in Greece and Turkey if a rational procedure is in place?
Quoteyou know the taliban originated in long-term refugee camps set up/cared for by the UN.
Wait you just said that they are not failing miserably? Huh.
QuoteI assume those camps had "substantial resources of the entire international community"
You would assume wrong. The international community has failed to recognize what an important security and stability issue this is.
In any case in some cases it might be logical to maintain long-term camps, in others it might not. Maybe some of the refugees are anticipating returning to their nation shortly and do not want to be evacuated to Sri Lanka or wherever.
I think without a firm conclusion in sight to a regional conflict, refugees should be dispersed as quickly as possible into stable long-term environments (which, sad for the euros, is Europe) to prevent them from getting infected by extremists. I don't think it's a good idea to have long-term refugee camps for people (cultures) who have an extremist group running around. (so, imo jaron's people could do well in camps) this lowers the terrorist conversion rate and thus increases overall safety. even if some of the bad ones end up doing something bad in the communities they're sent to, (which, statistically, is just gonna happen) it's for a greater good
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 23, 2016, 02:10:13 PMislamic states breed terrorism as well. better have none of those either...
I think terrorists organizations should be annihilated and the people who fund those organizations imprisoned (I'm not aware of any evidence that the saudi nation itself funds terrorism, just rich assholes), so yeah if that's what you mean... that would absolutely cut down/eliminate terrorist conversion
Quote from: derspiessEuropean housing projects for refugees seem to breed terrorism as well. Maybe it's better to keep them at arm's length.
I mean, if euro housing projects have like 50,000 people in them, yeah, agree