261–270 of 672 posts
I don't understand how can you talk about ISIS, Nazis and Communists in the same sentence? Communism has nothing to do with violence compared to ISIS and Nazis... Edit: Why downvotes? Idea of communism does not propose violence, Nazis and ISIS on the other hand do.
I'm very curious about where the attackers got those firearms. France isn't as heavily disarmed as England, but it isn't exactly the United States for firearms availability; if any of the offenders' weapons can be recovered, I'm sure there will be interesting things to learn from their serial numbers.
Outlawing guns is a lot like outlawing drugs. If you want them, you can get them.
I don't understand how can you talk about ISIS, Nazis and Communists in the same sentence? Communism has nothing to do with violence compared to ISIS and Nazis... Edit: Why downvotes? Idea of communism does not propose violence, Nazis and ISIS on the other hand do.
I think he might be talking about Stalinism. Or at the very least, just Stalin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Terrorism is usually a rational act. It is terrible, but it has political goals. This, for instance, may be aimed at ending the European involvement in Syria and their taking in refugees.
Having a logic is not the same as being rational. All madness has its own logic. I want a raise so I terrorize my boss until he gives me one is a logic, but it is not a rational approach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do people think the refugees were running away from? Exactly these people.
Not European but travelling in Asia at the moment. Have had a couple of discussions with run-of-the-mill Europeans concerned that the refugees areproportionally made up much more of young men than women/children with the implication that these guys are up to no good. I'd say the subtleties of the humanitarian crisis is going to be lost on the average European Joe in the wake of this
You don't even have to imply that they are intentionally up to no good.
Groups of young men without possibilities of pairing off with young women are far more prone to crime and violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Basically, the French security system has been revealed as completely ineffective. How can a country possibly prevent these things while still maintaining a free society?
They can't; even the not free societies - think prisons - are not safe. People that want to do Bad Things will do them. Even if they didn't have guns or weapons, they could've - for example - get enough people into a dinner party or restaurant, have everyone grab a fork, and start stabbing people in the eye. Terrorism doesn't need weaponry. The only deterrent would be to read people's minds, and you've probably watch…
This soils the reputation of islam. I know some good people (muslims) who suffer from prejudice on a daily basis because of attacks like these. Being a muslim in a foreign country is an increasingly difficult and isolating experience.
Islam soils the reputation of islam. It has a massive problem of large percentages of Muslims supporting (or being okay with) violence and terrorism. 42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall). http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-ameri...
The repeated attacks, heavy immigration of refugees...I'm hoping for the best, but I feel like there is a powder keg here. Whether or not it is based in any fact, how this is handled and plays out is a serious concern.
Nevermind refugees. People everywhere are much more dangerous than any terrorists. Somehow we don't like the idea of banning everyone from everywhere so we feel justified in judging one group as more dangerous than another to give us a sense of safety.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I volunteered two different refugee camp constructions in Syrian border and I know the difference between a refugee camp and a homeless camp clearly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calais_jungle
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It used to be rational, rather. The classic terrorists of the '70s wanted "a lot of people talking but not a lot of people dead" -- and also wanted to survive the experience. The new breed of terrorism in the '80s and '90s was different from those; the IRA, the PLO, and various state-sponsored terrorists in that period had/have more in common with each other, despite their obvious differences, than any have with al-Q…
> ISIS is specifically out for either world empire or apocalyptic defeat Which is why (in my understanding) ISIS does not do attacks on foreign soil. Their idea is to re-establish a caliphate (ei Islamic empire, which existed from around the time of Mohamed for centuries). ISIS would probably be okay with those that cannot join the jihad in Syria conducting a terrorist attack on their home turf, but would not activel…