Massacre In Paris

[ZanSnake 1,211]

Doesn't make it less likely, August wasn't a decade ago. Paris could be the first of many.

Sure the security, the online observations has kind of heighten since the. Plus the attacks would make for a more aggressive approach to that too.

Better to pinpoint that out and not cause any distress or fear. That isn't what is needed more of atm.

[manpe 10,855]

I admit i want justice for what happened as much as anyone else, but how many more innocent lives must be lost in all this ? We can call it collateral damage but fark this, it´s just a nightmare for both innocent parties, just too much blood being shed...

Do you think all of this can reach a peaceful conclusion? I don't, you can only do that with rational people. It's either us or them. It seems they haven't been bombed enough.

[iseah100 5,612]

Not sure if I missed this, but a lot of pro gun people are saying this is why people should carry guns. What do you all think about this?

[manpe 10,855]

Not sure if I missed this, but a lot of pro gun people are saying this is why people should carry guns. What do you all think about this?

Don't agree. Regular peace loving citizens carrying guns won't do anything to prevent events like this, instead it will only increase domestic violence like in USA. Not the answer.

[Dwight Schrute 114]

What is the point of dropping bombs again? We know it is useless. If we really want to destroy ISIS, let's go on the ground. We won't, so let's get out of there. Those bombs will only generate revenge and more deads. The truth is we are spending so much money and ressources on foreign wars that we are no longer able to protect our own territory.

And I just wanted to thank peoples from your respective countries for showing so much solidarity. This is really touching, particularly from peoples that constantly live with terrorism.

[kobematabryant 400]

People "care more" about Paris because it hit a lot closer to home then the other incidents you mentioned.

Also Paris isn't a warzone nor does it have a history of these type of events. People simply weren't expecting this kind violence so close to their doorstep.

No one in West-Europe expects to get gunned down while having a drink with some friends in a cafe or going to a concert and getting executed 1 by 1 or getting blown up while going to a football match.

A lot of people are simply in shock and feel the need to do something even if it's just changing their facebook image background to a french flag.

I mean my mom walked in the morning after the paris killings and asked me " you heared what happened in Paris? " I said "yeah, it's crazy" She then said with a terrified look on her face " That happened only 3 hours from here " She kept looking at me for a few seconds and walked out of the room.

People are shocked because they realize if it could happen in Paris it could happen everywhere.

Well you're a French Belgian so it makes sense for you. For majority of the people in the world, this isn't "home" to everyone. The issue with everyone changing profile pictures on Facebook, is why wasn't there a feature of changing your PP to a Turkish flag when the Ankara bombings took place for example. Or the Russian plane crash? Why weren't buildings lighting up Russian flags?

There needs to be some consistency and balance in the reporting. You can't be reporting the Paris Bombing if you are not even gonna mention a second of the Beirut bombing. Both huge tragedies. At least Aljazeera are good at professional reporting.

[manpe 10,855]

Just heard the news that Turkey managed to prevent a large-scale attack in Istanbul that was planned on the same day as Paris attacks.

[Johnnyeye 7,414]

Do you think all of this can reach a peaceful conclusion? I don't, you can only do that with rational people. It's either us or them. It seems they haven't been bombed enough.

I agree that there won´t be a peaceful resolution anytime soon, i do wish there was, but that´s living in denial and in fact we can´t rationalize with those maniacs, we value life unlike them, but does nuking them stop them from acting or growing again ? Many may die, but others will follow after, it will keep on going, they will never change their beliefs and how they don´t value human life because of blind faith, that´s a fact and they will keep on performing these atrocities unless they are all wiped off the face of the Earth or suddently change their beliefs, but that will never happen. It´s a endless war and we innocent people are like cattle in the middle of it, sorry for using this expression. It´s just a big shame the state of the world we live in...

[Johnnyeye 7,414]

What is the point of dropping bombs again? We know it is useless. If we really want to destroy ISIS, let's go on the ground. We won't, so let's get out of there. Those bombs will only generate revenge and more deads. The truth is we are spending so much money and ressources on foreign wars that we are no longer able to protect our own territory.

And I just wanted to thank peoples from your respective countries for showing so much solidarity. This is really touching, particularly from peoples that constantly live with terrorism.

I hope that you and other french members of Talk Chelsea are safe and your families and friends are too, the same aplies to the other innocent citizens in France who are going trough this ordeal, cheers and stay strong.

[ZanSnake 1,211]

Russian, Lebanese and French flags on the Great Pyramid.

RIP to all those that have passed. Thoughts are out to those that are affected with each death.

[Spike 12,049]

Not sure if I missed this, but a lot of pro gun people are saying this is why people should carry guns. What do you all think about this?

In my opinion more guns escalate the situation. It's the loophole in deterrence. A logical creature would know not to shoot for the risk of being shot in retaliation is too high. However, humans aren't logical beings, the fear of being shot first can be crippling and lead to a preemptive attack. On the other hand an attacker knows there is a chance that there won't be retaliation due to incapability or human nature not being destructive enough to retaliate. The concept of mutual destruction isn't perfect, fear and doubt plague the hearts of men too much for it to be a logical answer.

This is the loophole that plagued the Cold War and nuclear deterrence. It applies to people with guns too.

[cosmicway 1,252]

This worked against ISIS in the military sense but their logic is this:

First to radicalize all the Muslims. If some Muslims in the middle East are pro-west or anti-west but of moderate stance, they will be silenced or else. It's an old method, from the days of Black September.

Second to make Europe hate muslims and immigrants in general. This will again serve their strategic purpose of bringing about polarization.
Third to encourage the old Chamberlain style pacifists and appeasers.
I 'm not buying it and I 'd use maximum force.
Hitler too was a propaganda master and he employed secret agents and spies who were able to infiltrate. But he failed in his efforts to divide the allies (Hitler was so crazy that when Roosevelt died in the days he was hiding in the bunker, he thought it was a miracle and he won the war).
For me this one was just another U-2 bomb that was fired against the allies and the war continues.
The other ones were Ankara-Pakistan-Kenya-Paris again.

[Rmpr 8,977]

As long as people fail to understand the reasons behind the way ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc. works, "The West" will never come close to "winning" (in this case, winning would be being safe).

Going by the fact the worst of all has already happened (which is the very first 91 invasion and then 2003 to escalate everything). There are still many who cant see the bigger picture.

As long as people are dumb enough to cultivate pre-made Internet solutions such as "nuke them", "close the borders", etc. ISIS will be laughing all they long because this is exactly what they want. The more undeserved hatred innocent and peaceful Muslims get, the greater the poll of recruits will be and so will the support of the general population.

Do you guys seriously think they attacked Paris because France is a "free" country? Because they somehow are jealous of the superb miserable life 90% of you live? GROW UP! It is a mere answer to the wrongdoings YOUR goverment does. It is completely, 100% unjustified, but it is still nothing more then a reaction. Nordic Countries are free, Canada is free, most of South America is free, etc. Why arent they targets? Well, I will tell you, it is because they didnt go messing up someone elses business. They didnt need that pathetic sense of "peaceful crusade" some nations have.

You disagree with me? Ok. Lets invert roles. ISIS invades England and determines your political system is corrupt and favours a vast minority so they redo it and put new people in charge (people who will not beneift UKs population but ISIS own personal system of course). Then they will close all clubs and pubs with alcohol consumption because this is part of our culture and not theirs (so its obviously a bad thing right?). Lots of people will die in the process of course, so then people start creating resistance groups in the UK . They do a couple successful attacks and then the UK citizens grow tired of a never ending conflict and decide to flee the Island in masses. However, they get turned down because some idiots on the internet decided it was best to "close the borders" for safety. In the end, refugees and general population put against each other while all they want is the same fucking thing, which is the ability to live their lives in peace.

Now, 2 comlon things that will most probably be replied so I will already answer.1) "People get shocked because France isnt at war and bla bla bla". Really? Then why were they the ones leading the offensives on Arabic Spring and now in Syria? This is war in my point of view. The only reason you are not being constantly attacked is because your oponent doesnt have access to modern weaponry. So if your country has or had troops in the Middle East in the last decade and plan to follow France in the near future, sorry to inform you but you are at war. 2) "But closing the borders will help against attacks". Come on, how smart are you? Do you honestly think that rejecting refugees will make it any harder for terrorist groups to infiltrate people into Europe? They will get people inside whether the borders are closed or not. So in the end you will be hurting the innocent and not doing much (if at all) against those who really matter.

[Steve 10,227]

https://www.facebook.com/theprojecttv/videos/10153243154568441/

Spot on!

[Fulham Broadway 16,392]

Its OK wringing our hands -''oh its our fault etc, we invaded'' but it doesnt sove the problem.

It may be true, but lefty liberal guilt encourages them, justifies their actions in their heads, as does bombing them

We are where we are.

There are two immediate reasons why lost, rootless, young Muslims are doing this. One, the radical preachers who groom these young blokes have not been properly tackled, and secondly ISIS dont manufacture weapons -someone is supplying them. Tackle these two issues and you have an immediate solution, but not a long term one.

The long term solution is to rein back on the invading and fucking up of foreign countries, sponsorted by US corporations and Republican billionaire weapons shareholders, and a proper critique of Islam whereby an supreme imaginary God is everything, and mystical powers rule.

An Enlightenment similar to what Europe went through in the 18th Century whereby divine rule is questioned wouldnt be amiss.

[Fulham Broadway 16,392]

While I am all for the humanistic approach etc I. just would like to point out that the "optimism" concerning the enlightenment also existed in the 19th century but was completely shattered after the two world wars.

A lot of people shared the optimism that through science and rational thought we could achieve to create a true utopia. Sadly the reality turned out to be horribly different.The idea that progress of science automatically makes humanity better has been exposed as poppycock. Besides all the wonderfull things we got through scientific 'progress', it also brought us automatic rifles, biochemic weapons and atomic bombs which are keeping the world in a weird stranglehold right now. Also, concerning rational thought, there are problems cause there isn't just 'one' rational thought. The Nazi's thought they where very rational when they ordred the endlösung. Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest was hijacked by the Nazi's and used to legitimize the extermination of many people who where considred lesser beings. There was a very rational approach in explaining why these people where different and how they should be killed, and it was accepted by a lot of people whom you propably would classify as rational. Just like science, rationality is subject to our limitations as human beings. This tackles one of the early principles of the enlightenment: that humans are good and rational by nature. Which,sadly, is not the case and which, again sadly, makes "the enlightenment-project" a lot harder.

Don't misunderstand me, I too think that the ideas of the enlightenment are propably the most useful and trustworthy in trying to reach 'a better world' but we may never forget what happened in the 20th century. If we forget that dark note the 'way of enlightenment' will only lead to darkness. ( Apologies for the pathos in the last sentence)

Good points, and I think what youre saying is that an Enlightenment approach is the best of two bad ways forward. This is what I was saying. Rational thought as opposed to blind faith in Mysticsm is by far preferable.

Of course there is 'Good science' and ' Bad science' but I would much prefer the advancement of science, along with the 'bad' than some totalitarian regime based on Mysticism. Science is a double edged sword, if we take nuclear fission for example -Oppenheimer developed a nuclear bomb , yet Madame Curie developed radiotherapy. Lasers can be used for remarkable surgery or for 'evaporating' people with US weaponry.

Related to the acceptance of bad Enlightement/science as a price for 'good science', there is a current comparison that the number of people shot down in Paris is the same as killed on French roads every day. we accept the death on the roads as a consequence of freedom to speed around in metal boxes. ipso facto shouldnt we just accept deaths because of radical Islam as a by product of mainstream Islam ? (I dont neccesarily agree with that, just playing devils advocate)

Communication has changed and will in the future It seems the social censure that derived largely from our christian moral culture has been replaced by social media which simultaneously encourages personal self obssession -(we see it on this forum , rather than a desire for truth ) within a tight circle of political correctness. This has led to the creation of a moral vacuum, and hence a loss of faith in Western societies. This ''groupthink''mentality kills freedom of speech whilst at the same time stokes up general dissent manifesting itself in extremism.

As far as we are concerned, we also need to look at ourselves -people mistake self-indulgence for freedom, never mind whose feelings get trashed in the process. This could apply to Hebdo. Adults with manners is unfortunately what the whole wide world in now missing.

[Special Juan 27,103]

The number 1 suspect has been arrested in Brussels according to SKY News.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

But the news over hear did cover the bombings in beirut, yeah not as much a paris but still covered over hear. I understand where you are coming from but i dont control the media do i?

how do we know who we are letting in??? 20% of then could be Isis for all we know. im not saying send them back at all. But as of now we are on high alert for attack and letting 100 of thousands in that could contain some of those scumbags is not worth the risk.

And no i do not class Europeans above everyone else. I have family from SA, and Australia. If i had my way along with millions of other im sure we could all just get along in peace.

I know that if it were up to you or me the whole world would live in peace. That is the very root of the principle of equality between all humans: that people are intrinsically good. Perhaps the same principle ought to be applied to the refugees coming to Europe?

On any account, there has been no proof that refugees increase the threat of attacks, but even assuming that is the case, stopping all refugees will certainly not stop the threat. Ultimately, Europe cannot detach itself from the world. Events anywhere in the world will affect everywhere. I'm not saying that you need to take in ever refugee who wants to go to Europe, but that everyone needs to be part of the solution.

One last point that is maybe worth considering is that the only side in Syria/Iraq that has been vocal about not allowing refugees to flee the countries towards Europe is....ISIS.