Hostages taken in French church

[Johnnypenso]

Gee, I wonder where a terrorist could find an audience of two hundred people to brag to and be confident that none of them would try to stop him. Could it be possible that he was broadcasting to two hundred sympathisers? But you know, misrepresent it if it suits your purposes. You obviously want "proof" that this attack was not only avoidable, but that the police had ample opportunity to intervene. There's a reason why they use encrypted apps - to try and avoid scrutiny from security services in the first place.

I obviously want nothing, you are leaping to unfounded conclusions once again. Sure I'm not also being racist too? Misrepresent what? 200 people knew about it and no one reported it. What's that misrepresenting? Most likely they are sympathizers. If it makes you sleep better at night knowing there are 200 ISIS sympathizers vs. 200 indifferent people good for you.

You just made my day, thanks!!
Now I know why my links get ignored!

Pro Tip: Fox reports are often just links to other news agencies. Even though the stories are often word for word quoted, it's always best to just use the link in the Fox article because...well..you know how it is

Darnit...double..sorry.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I obviously want nothing

for those who melt in a puddle of tears at the thought of hitting a link to Fox News

Yes, obviously.

I really shouldn't have to tell one of the most prolific posters in the community to not double post, but here I am: don't double post.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

200 people knew about it and no one reported it. What's that misrepresenting?

Your post strongly implied that because those two hundred people knew about it, the police had ample opportunity to intervene in time to prevent the attack.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Your post strongly implied that because those two hundred people knew about it, the police had ample opportunity to intervene in time to prevent the attack.

It implied nothing of the kind, it simply stated that 200 people knew about it and did nothing. It's your very own spin that it implies anything at all.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And if that was your only post on the forum, I might believe you.

 

[fumunaplz]

there has to be a reason that, if it is true, 200 people would not sound an alarm of any sort. Sympathisers would be my first guess but i don't know enough about France to claim that factual. It could very well be that people have no desire to cooperate with authorities for more than one reason.

The fact remains they did not prevent the attack, it needs to be understood why right?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The fact remains they did not prevent the attack, it needs to be understood why right?

It's pretty obvious that if they broadcast their intention to attack, they would have done so to people who supported them and were thus unlikely to raise the alarm. How can you expect security services to anticipate an attack when the perpetrators are actively trying to conceal themselves if you expect them to use of the very method the perpetrators are hiding to find them?

 

[fumunaplz]

It's pretty obvious that if they broadcast their intention to attack, they would have done so to people who supported them and were thus unlikely to raise the alarm. How can you expect security services to anticipate an attack when the perpetrators are actively trying to conceal themselves if you expect them to use of the very method the perpetrators are hiding to find them?

Ok then, what to make of those people?

I never expected anything, I asked a a question. Very weak of you to pretend that I want to blame authority.

To me there is either sympathy(neutral support), or fear.

Wow you read a lot of things into what someone says vs. what they actually say lol.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Ok then, what to make of those people?

I never expected anything, I asked a a question. Very weak of you to pretend that I want to blame authority.

To me there is either sympathy(neutral support), or fear.

Wow you read a lot of things into what someone says vs. what they actually say lol.

Welcome to my world. If I had to guess I'd guess it was some kind of jihadi group or ISIS sympathizers who would have no interest in calling the authorities. Not exactly encouraging if that is the case. It means there are at least 200 other nutters out there just waiting for their opportunity.

 

[DK]

I can't find anything in that Fox News article suggesting that all c.200 in that Telegram chatroom were actually in France. I haven't studied French since I was a primary school student aged 12, so I needed to use Google Translate on that L'Express article, and I also couldn't find anything suggesting those c.200 people were all in France.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I can't find anything in that Fox News article suggesting that all c.200 in that Telegram chatroom were actually in France. I haven't studied French since I was a primary school student aged 12, so I needed to use Google Translate on that L'Express article, and I also couldn't find anything suggesting those c.200 people were all in France.

There is nothing in the article to suggest that the chat members were all in France or, indeed, that anyone besides the perpetrator was.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Interesting article... "Muslims Refuse To Bury France Priest Killer Adel Kermiche After Brutal Church Attack"

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...kermiche_uk_579cabc6e4b0459aae5d81e2?ci85b3xr

 

[fumunaplz]

There is nothing in the article to suggest that the chat members were all in France or, indeed, that anyone besides the perpetrator was.

It does not matter where the 200 are located, if they can chat with a terrorist in France I'm sure they could also chat with authorities in France. This brings into a question of law that I don't agree with, having a duty to report crime or possible crime, opens a whole other can of worms.

They could have been simply neutral interested parties not wanting to be involved on either side, but 200 of them?

 

[Dennisch]

Interesting article... "Muslims Refuse To Bury France Priest Killer Adel Kermiche After Brutal Church Attack"

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...kermiche_uk_579cabc6e4b0459aae5d81e2?ci85b3xr

They should dump the bodies of the jihadies in pigsblood, to make sure that they're never getting where they think they're going.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It does not matter where the 200 are located, if they can chat with a terrorist in France I'm sure they could also chat with authorities in France. This brings into a question of law that I don't agree with, having a duty to report crime or possible crime, opens a whole other can of worms.

What does one have to do with the other? I'm not bound by French laws on disclosure, if there are such things.

 

[fumunaplz]

What does one have to do with the other? I'm not bound by French laws on disclosure, if there are such things.

It was a side note that is relevant to the conversation only depending on your point of view. I notice you used that one comment to sidestep the heart of my message.

Are there 200 people who could have possibly prevented the crime or not? If they could have at least tried and did not, the question remains, why?

There are laws in some countries concerning my secondary point.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What does one have to do with the other?

Absolutely nothing. He's just trying to twist the events to fit his logic.

 

[fumunaplz]

Absolutely nothing. He's just trying to twist the events to fit his logic.

Not by a long shot, not by a very long shot. What I said was it does not matter where the 200 people live, that was the point of the post, notice how none of you respond to that? I twist nothing, what I do do is ask why 200(if true) knew of the attack before hand and did nothing.

It is not hard to understand, what is hard to understand is why a majority of the conversation has to be weighted on arguing things that make no difference.

BTW, I notice you choose not to answer my first reply to you lol. Who is it that might blame authority? If anything I would think that would be you and not me.

So to sum it up, 200 people knew and did nothing to prevent the crime and it does not matter where they may live.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So to sum it up, 200 people knew and did nothing to prevent the crime and it does not matter where they may live.

Firstly; if you're against that being a requirement for people in certain places then why should they have done anything? Secondly; if you believed everything you read on the internet then you'd go insane.

 

[fumunaplz]

Firstly; if you're against that being a requirement for people in certain places then why should they have done anything? Secondly; if you believed everything you read on the internet then you'd go insane.

Firstly I am against that being a requirement for people in certain places and that is exactly why I posted what I did. How can you not see that? How about you explain to me why where the 200 live should matter in the least bit in regard to the topic at hand?

Secondly, it's a very good thing I don't believe a vast majority of things I read on the net(mostly things you post ) I have said several times "if it is true" how hard it that to disregard and pretend I swallow cool-aid?

you two are avoiding such simple questions in favor of questioning me.

Read what I wrote for what it is and not what you want it to be.

there has to be a reason that, if it is true, 200 people would not sound an alarm of any sort. Sympathisers would be my first guess but i don't know enough about France to claim that factual. It could very well be that people have no desire to cooperate with authorities for more than one reason.

The fact remains they did not prevent the attack, it needs to be understood why right?

I never expected anything, I asked a a question. Very weak of you to pretend that I want to blame authority.

To me there is either sympathy(neutral support), or fear.

Wow you read a lot of things into what someone says vs. what they actually say lol.

It does not matter where the 200 are located, if they can chat with a terrorist in France I'm sure they could also chat with authorities in France. This brings into a question of law that I don't agree with, having a duty to report crime or possible crime, opens a whole other can of worms.

It was a side note that is relevant to the conversation only depending on your point of view. I notice you used that one comment to sidestep the heart of my message.

Are there 200 people who could have possibly prevented the crime or not? If they could have at least tried and did not, the question remains, why?

There are laws in some countries concerning my secondary point.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

what I do do is ask why 200(if true) knew of the attack before hand and did nothing.

And that has been answered several times. Why did two hundred people know of the attack and do nothing? Because they wanted the attack to happen. They sympathised with the attackers, supported them, and thus did not do anything because they wanted the attack to succeed. For some reason, you have chosen to ignore this explanation every single time it has been given.

I notice you choose not to answer my first reply to you

I did that deliberately because I think you have an eight year-old's understanding of the issues that you are trying to discuss.

 

[Johnnypenso]

And that has been answered several times. Why did two hundred people know of the attack and do nothing? Because they wanted the attack to happen. They sympathised with the attackers, supported them, and thus did not do anything because they wanted the attack to succeed. For some reason, you have chosen to ignore this explanation every single time it has been given.

Source?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Not required for a hypothetical.

Thus, you see the fallacious trend emerging: if it's a hypothetical, he can claim that it's not representative; if it's not a hypothetical, then he can demand a source when he knows that there are none.

And so we arrive at the inevitable conclusion - that two hundred people did nothing, no doubt out of some misguided belief that to speak up would be politically incorrect to do so, and is thus a reflection of all the problems grasping Europe.

 

[fumunaplz]

I don't know who can claim what exactly from what.

Why is it that a number of people where aware of a future crime not inclined to alert anyone. It is so simple.

@prisonermonkeys, you still avoid the question with all your might. I ask very simply why.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Why is it that a number of people where aware of a future crime not inclined to alert anyone. It is so simple.

I LITERALLY JUST EXPLAINED THAT TO YOU:

Why did two hundred people know of the attack and do nothing? Because they wanted the attack to happen. They sympathised with the attackers, supported them, and thus did not do anything because they wanted the attack to succeed.

You're right - it is so simple. What's confusing is why you refuse to acknowledge that anyone has even attempted to answer it.

@prisonermonkeys, you still avoid the question with all your might. I ask very simply why.

Can you blame me when I give you a simple explanation to a question that you ask, and then you ignore it and ask the question again as if no-one responded to you in the first place?

 

[Famine]

Why is it that a number of people where aware of a future crime not inclined to alert anyone.

Probably similar reasons for a person who's repeatedly shown he isn't capable of abiding by a community's rules continuing to reregister accounts and agree to the same rules. Hi arora. Bye arora.

 

[ryzno]

So I was correct about said person being Hispanic? Damn I'm getting better!

 

[Dennisch]

So I was correct about said person being Hispanic? Damn I'm getting better!

Paranormal State: the GTP edition!