Shootings and explosions in Paris.

  • Thread starter Dennisch
  • 915 comments
  • 43,487 views
Sorry Johnny, I didn't mean any offence, but it does seem that whenever things like this happen things become tougher on the communities it is related too, some places worse, some places better. I mean, I am walking around town here at present and everything seems normal, which is great. I apologise if my comment came out harsh and judgemental, it was not my intention.
No worries mate, I just wanted to point out that negative reactions are few and far between, at least on an individual level.

In other news, this might not be a coincidence:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish...riss-bataclan-theater-where-is-killed-dozens/

The Bataclan theater, targeted in Friday night’s Paris terror attacks, was Jewish-owned for decades, but was sold two months ago, its former owners said. [The Bataclan Theatre] has for years been the target of anti-Zionist groups as the Jewish owners often put on pro-Israel events. The publication quoted a member of the extremist group Army of Islam, who told French security services in 2011 that, “We had planned an attack against the Bataclan because its owners are Jews.”
 
http://news.stv.tv/east-central/133...tacked-by-mob-of-15-citing-revenge-for-paris/

loki_facepalm_by_foxedpeople-d56xo5a.gif
 
If his words are true, the USA should take a real good look at themselves and feel ashamed.
Should, maybe. But doubling down on self-righteousness and exceptionalism is more consistent with our national character.

Our myths (lies) are both more beautiful and more necessary than the ugly truth.
 
Last edited:
If his words are true, the USA should take a real good look at themselves and feel ashamed.

He is an astute politician. The US aren't saints, and the west in general has been acting in the middle east like an elephant in a porcelain shop, but you only need to remember Crimea to understand he runs his country's foreign relations with a very aggressive and unilateralist agenda.

International relations are a (bloody) game that favours the heavyweights. And all international forums (like the UN) can do is either legitimize action or be criticised because they're a waste of time.


http://news.stv.tv/east-central/133...tacked-by-mob-of-15-citing-revenge-for-paris/

Thugs will be thugs, anything will do to justify their mindless ways
 
The French are getting ready to propose for a law that will take away French citizenship, even if they are born in France. I wonder how the EU and the UN will respond to that.
 
It needs to be voted first and a change in the constitution is needed. The thing that disturbed me most was those politicians taking selfies in front of the palace on a national day of mourning. Wtf were they thinking 👎
 
I think nationality law is specific to each country, the EU has nothing to do with it. Basically if a EU country says you are a national, the Eu recognizes you as such. If not, that's it too.

I think the only reason the EU might have a say is if, as an example, nationality depended on race or religious belief (or lack of it). But that would be a human right's problem,
 
This here is just sad. These are the kind of people who makes things worse through his lack of knowledge. Taking the first video link, he has not got a clue.
"Muhammad got the Qur'an from the archangel Gabriel in a cave" Only partly true. The first verses were revealed in that cave. The rest were revealed over the period of 23 years after that. He then goes on to act as though the Qur'an as an independant book with no context behind it. Makes sense as if it was all revealed in a cave then there is no context. Except that is incorrect information right there. Hole number 1. And with that hole, his entire reasoning falls apart. Considering that even a young Muslim child knows that the Qur'an was revealed over 23 years and only the first few verses were revealed in that cave, it shows me and should hopefully be clear to everyone here that this man has no clue whatsoever about Islam and therefore cannot speak about it.


Both the video and the article are by people who know little of Islam (that being said the second did know a little more, but even then it was half truths or twisted lies either simply out of ignorance or perhaps, and I would say highly unlikely, purposefully). They know just as little about Islam as ISIS do, and for the second who seems to have got his knowledge FROM ISIS, well that is just the worst place to get knowledge from.

I'm sorry but on one side you have the ISIS devils destroying Islam and humanity, and on the other side you have people like these who are just spewing out whatever junk that comes out of their mouths. In the middle you have us, who try to make heads or tails of all of this and if we don't have the knowledge, what are we to believe. I know if I did not, what I would believe. And what I would believe that Islam is is a very very horrible thing to believe.

Sam Harris is no muslim scholar that's right. But saying he doesn't know anything about it is not honest as well. The guy has read the muslim sacred texts and has been writing about this for years. What he said is partially true? He mentioned the ludicrous part :an angel spoke to Muhammad in a cave". If he wrote the rest in the following 23y is irrelevant. Or do you expect every time someone speaks about islam to give a 5h conference about the history and doctrines in detail? The fact is that there's no authority in the muslim world as to what is the right way to interpret or to "read" the Quran. For goodness sake, even inside islam there are people killing themselves over difference of interpretation.

Trying to hide the fact that islam plays a major role in the jihad (and in the lifes ans acts of jihadists) is like christians denying the ressurection of Jesus.

I'm not a muslim and I'm ignorant about a lot of things concerning islam. But what I won't do is adopt a patronizing position and claim that I know what's inside the brains of those who blow themselves up in the name of Allah because they believe is the right thing to do according to their faith and say they're just lying and the reasons are geo-political or socioeconomic.

I'll leave a text from an ex-muslim here. A iraqi man who lost a brother in the war and now dedicates his life to rescue people who live under the thread of muslim theocracies around the muslim world:

___

I'm a Jihadist and I am tired of not being credit

It must be incredibly frustrating as an Islamic Jihadist not to have your views and motives taken seriously by the societies you terrorize, even after you have explicitly and repeatedly stated them. Even worse, those on the regressive left, in their endless capacity for masochism and self-loathing, have attempted to shift blame inwardly on themselves, denying the Jihadists even the satisfaction of claiming responsibility.

It’s like a bad Monty Python sketch:

“We did this because our holy texts exhort us to to do it.”

“No you didn’t.”

“Wait, what? Yes we did…”

“No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons.”

“WHAT!? Did you even read our official statement? We give explicit Quranic justification. This is jihad, a holy crusade against pagans, blasphemers, and disbelievers.”

“No, this is definitely not a Muslim thing. You guys are not true Muslims, and you defame a great religion by saying so.”

“Huh!? Who are you to tell us we’re not true Muslims!? Islam is literally at the core of everything we do, and we have implemented the truest most literal and honest interpretation of its founding texts. It is our very reason for being.”

“Nope. We created you. We installed a social and economic system that alienates and disenfranchises you, and that’s why you did this. We’re sorry.”

“What? Why are you apologizing? We just slaughtered you mercilessly in the streets. We targeted unwitting civilians – disenfranchisement doesn’t even enter into it!”

“Listen, it’s our fault. We don’t blame you for feeling unwelcome and lashing out.”

“Seriously, stop taking credit for this! We worked really hard to pull this off, and we’re not going to let you take it away from us.”

“No, we nourished your extremism. We accept full blame.”

“OMG, how many people do we have to kill around here to finally get our message across?”

Faisal Saeed Al Mutar

___
 
Sam Harris is no muslim scholar that's right. But saying he doesn't know anything about it is not honest as well. The guy has read the muslim sacred texts and has been writing about this for years. What he said is partially true? He mentioned the ludicrous part :an angel spoke to Muhammad in a cave". If he wrote the rest in the following 23y is irrelevant. Or do you expect every time someone speaks about islam to give a 5h conference about the history and doctrines in detail? The fact is that there's no authority in the muslim world as to what is the right way to interpret or to "read" the Quran. For goodness sake, even inside islam there are people killing themselves over difference of interpretation.

Trying to hide the fact that islam plays a major role in the jihad (and in the lifes ans acts of jihadists) is like christians denying the ressurection of Jesus.

I'm not a muslim and I'm ignorant about a lot of things concerning islam. But what I won't do is adopt a patronizing position and claim that I know what's inside the brains of those who blow themselves up in the name of Allah and because they believe is the right thing to do according to their faith and say they're just lying and the reasons are geo-political or socioeconomic.

I'll leave a text from an ex-muslim here. A iraqi man who lost a brother in the war and now dedicates his life to rescue people who live under the thread of muslim theocracies around the muslim world:

___

I'm a Jihadist and I am tired of not being credit

It must be incredibly frustrating as an Islamic Jihadist not to have your views and motives taken seriously by the societies you terrorize, even after you have explicitly and repeatedly stated them. Even worse, those on the regressive left, in their endless capacity for masochism and self-loathing, have attempted to shift blame inwardly on themselves, denying the Jihadists even the satisfaction of claiming responsibility.

It’s like a bad Monty Python sketch:

“We did this because our holy texts exhort us to to do it.”

“No you didn’t.”

“Wait, what? Yes we did…”

“No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons.”

“WHAT!? Did you even read our official statement? We give explicit Quranic justification. This is jihad, a holy crusade against pagans, blasphemers, and disbelievers.”

“No, this is definitely not a Muslim thing. You guys are not true Muslims, and you defame a great religion by saying so.”

“Huh!? Who are you to tell us we’re not true Muslims!? Islam is literally at the core of everything we do, and we have implemented the truest most literal and honest interpretation of its founding texts. It is our very reason for being.”

“Nope. We created you. We installed a social and economic system that alienates and disenfranchises you, and that’s why you did this. We’re sorry.”

“What? Why are you apologizing? We just slaughtered you mercilessly in the streets. We targeted unwitting civilians – disenfranchisement doesn’t even enter into it!”

“Listen, it’s our fault. We don’t blame you for feeling unwelcome and lashing out.”

“Seriously, stop taking credit for this! We worked really hard to pull this off, and we’re not going to let you take it away from us.”

“No, we nourished your extremism. We accept full blame.”

“OMG, how many people do we have to kill around here to finally get our message across?”

Faisal Saeed Al Mutar

___

Sorry mate, by no means was I directing any of that response to you so please don't feel like I was! And yes, I was told I did not argue the points well enough so I spend this morning doing so, if you'd like to read this post please?
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...losions-in-paris.338576/page-16#post-11092052
That shows my reasoning behind what I said, and yes I know I should have explained it in that way first.
I don't expect a massive explanation of all of the information, but there are key points that need to be said, and that is one of them...
And I will never ever agree that "Jihadists" are "true Muslims", So that ex Jihadist is really like a bad Monty Python sketch, and he is clueless.

Also, just for reference there are specific authorities on how the Qur'an is interpreted and who is allowed to interpret them. And ISIS are not one of those.
 
Is Russia our only hope?

No, the only hope is the right to self defense. The jihadis in France knew that not a single person would be armed, so that until he cops arrived they would be able to take their time and pick people off one by one.

Now imagine what the outcome would have been if even 1 civilian had been armed and able to defend themselves - If it could have saved even 1 life it would have been worth it for civilians in France to easily legally carry weapons.

But sadly, the west has tried to create a giant gun free zone - and now they pay the price as the muslim jihadis roll through the landscape unopposed.
 
No, the only hope is the right to self defense. The jihadis in France knew that not a single person would be armed, so that until he cops arrived they would be able to take their time and pick people off one by one.

Now imagine what the outcome would have been if even 1 civilian had been armed and able to defend themselves - If it could have saved even 1 life it would have been worth it for civilians in France to easily legally carry weapons.

But sadly, the west has tried to create a giant gun free zone - and now they pay the price as the muslim jihadis roll through the landscape unopposed.
I can't fully disagree that most people are defenceless because they have been conditioned that way.

However, having everyone packing sidearms is not some sort of solotion either.

For one, packing a handgun does little to combat explosive vests, or hand grenades. Do you propose that we should all wear combat vests any time we venture out in public?

Second, and this is the bigger problem, is you can just wish for a paradigm shift, and expect that the situation would have played out the same. If we lived in a world where everyone was militarized, do you think attackers would have attacked in the same method? Highly unlikely in my opinion.

Third, and this is just a personal belief of mine, I don't think that the average person has what it takes to carry a weapon on them at all time. Look at how incompetent a large percentage of people are at driving a car. And you want to give these same people a gun??? The average person does not posses the mental and physical attributes required to responsibly carry a fire arm.

In my opinion, wishing for everyone to be walking around packing heat on some sort of Jedi status is as hair brained as wishing for no guns at all and "world peace."
 
No, the only hope is the right to self defense. The jihadis in France knew that not a single person would be armed, so that until he cops arrived they would be able to take their time and pick people off one by one.

Now imagine what the outcome would have been if even 1 civilian had been armed and able to defend themselves - If it could have saved even 1 life it would have been worth it for civilians in France to easily legally carry weapons.

But sadly, the west has tried to create a giant gun free zone - and now they pay the price as the muslim jihadis roll through the landscape unopposed.

They'd have simply detonated suicide/homicide vests right off the bat. As you pro-gun types always point out, there's a lot of ways of killing people that arming a nation will do little to prevent.
 
So we got US gun-nuts hijacking this topic to push their own agenda now? 👎 Personally, I'd pick a terrorist attack every now and then over people shooting the crap out of each other every day. We have a long way to go until our death toll per year is even anywhere near to that of gun deaths in the US. The 'good guy with a gun' is a myth.
 
I don't believe even here in the US you're allowed to carry a firearm into a concert or concert venue. You can argue whether or not that it should be like that, but I'm guessing even if it was legal most places concerts were taking place wouldn't allow firearms anyways (which is as it should be, private property owners should be allowed to say whether firearms are permitted or not).

I agree with @twitcher too, I think there is a large subset of people who would be incompetent when it comes to the responsibility of gun ownership.
 
No, the only hope is the right to self defense.
Which I would agree if arming acted as a deterrent. But it wouldn't. These people intended to die, the gun fire was just the start.

You don't bring a knife to a gunfight. True. You don't bring a handgun to an automatic weapon and grenade fight either. And you probably wouldn't take your AR15 to every concert either.
 

A man carrying the "same" passport has been stopped by police in Serbia lending more weight to the theory that there are a number of non-cross-checked fake passports doing the rounds. Given that news there's nothing about the passport found at the scene that necessarily links it to any other occurrences of the "same" passport.

II agree with @twitcher too, I think there is a large subset of people who would be incompetent when it comes to the responsibility of gun ownership.

Nonsense, part of the answer to stopping the numerically-minute number of armed terror attacks is to flood the populace with guns*.

*Bollocks, obviously :D
 
I don't believe even here in the US you're allowed to carry a firearm into a concert or concert venue. You can argue whether or not that it should be like that, but I'm guessing even if it was legal most places concerts were taking place wouldn't allow firearms anyways (which is as it should be, private property owners should be allowed to say whether firearms are permitted or not).

I agree with @twitcher too, I think there is a large subset of people who would be incompetent when it comes to the responsibility of gun ownership.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but even back in the Wild West, wasn't it pretty common to have a "check your gun at the door" policy in saloons and other public gathering spaces?
 
Instead of making guns legal, we should have more people on the streets that are allowed to: police. We live in this surveillance bubble, where cameras give us the feeling of safety instead of being actually safe for when bad things like these happen.
 
Now imagine what the outcome would have been if even 1 civilian had been armed and able to defend themselves - If it could have saved even 1 life it would have been worth it for civilians in France to easily legally carry weapons.
Yeah because everyone's a real crack shot in a small, crowded, dark concert hall with hundreds of people screaming and panicking. The most unsettling part of this whole "good guy with a gun" schtick after every mass killing is the subtext, "if I had been there with my gun, I would have stopped this".

I get the self defense stuff, I really do. If you're talking about someone defending their home from intruders, stopping assailants on the street, sure. I can buy the argument and I can understand where you're coming from. But it's just an asinine power fantasy to imagine that a French John McClane could have stopped 4 assailants with automatic weapons in a tiny cramped concert hall with all the panic and confusion. This isn't a Die Hard movie.
 
Last edited:
Yeah because everyone's a real crack shot in a small, crowded, dark concert hall with hundreds of people screaming and panicking.

Of course they'll be a crack shot - many may have had several alcoholic beverages, and we all know we are much better at doing everything whilst we're under the influence 👍 ;)
 
Instead of making guns legal, we should have more people on the streets that are allowed to: police. We live in this surveillance bubble, where cameras give us the feeling of safety instead of being actually safe for when bad things like these happen.

Though we don't have armed police as the general constables here, this is something that should be happening. Front line policing in this country (UK) has been steadily reducing, a bobby on the beat is a lot rarer than it used to be and I'll be honest, I feel less safe than I used to because of it. Not because I feel the person walking nearby is a criminal, but the fact that if there is a criminal nearby there are no police nearby to stop them
 
Yeah because everyone's a real crack shot in a small, crowded, dark concert hall with hundreds of people screaming and panicking.
Or they might have killed one or two of them and saved dozens of lives.
 
Instead of making guns legal, we should have more people on the streets that are allowed to: police.
I suspect that very many people in places like - as a random example - Ferguson might have something to say about that.
 
No, the only hope is the right to self defense. The jihadis in France knew that not a single person would be armed, so that until he cops arrived they would be able to take their time and pick people off one by one.

Now imagine what the outcome would have been if even 1 civilian had been armed and able to defend themselves - If it could have saved even 1 life it would have been worth it for civilians in France to easily legally carry weapons.

But sadly, the west has tried to create a giant gun free zone - and now they pay the price as the muslim jihadis roll through the landscape unopposed.

The attackers in Paris were wearing suicide bomb vests... one misplaced gun shot from a civilian could have killed more people than the gun fire.

There are reasonable arguments both for and against carrying guns for self-defense, but not all arguments for carrying guns are appropriate in all circumstances e.g. you can't reasonably expect people to carry guns at all times, you can't arm children etc., and you can't defend against suicide bombers by arming the general population with guns.
 
Last edited:
Or they might have killed one or two of them and saved dozens of lives.

If they weren't properly trained on how to open fire in a crowded, dark room that's probably hazy, then there is a really good chance that an innocent bystander would have been hit.

I really think pro-arm-the-world folks forget that shooting a gun accurately isn't exactly easy, especially under extreme conditions. Ever trained people can have a difficult time in the heat of the moment.
 
Back