France in shock after Islamist attacks kill 129

[Skeezix the Cat 3,089]

Guys, your political views do not make insulting someone over them okay. The immigrants obviously did nothing wrong, but that also doesn't mean it's impossible for any "terrorists" to ride their way into the country either.

 

It's good discussion, but keep it civil.

Yeah.  Can a terrorist use refugees as cover?  Sure.  Should all refugees be shut out because of this?  No.  Say, hypothetically, France prevented any and all refugees from entering right before the attack and say that stopped these terrorists from ever even getting in.  So that action saved lives, yes?  Well what about the people trying to get away from those terrorists?  They could have just as easily died instead.  But that's okay, they're just statistics whereas "developed" people like those in Paris dying is a tragedy.

[swamp 1,017]

Yeah.  Can a terrorist use refugees as cover?  Sure.  Should all refugees be shut out because of this?  No.  Say, hypothetically, France prevented any and all refugees from entering right before the attack and say that stopped these terrorists from ever even getting in.  So that action saved lives, yes?  Well what about the people trying to get away from those terrorists?  They could have just as easily died instead.  But that's okay, they're just statistics whereas "developed" people like those in Paris dying is a tragedy.

Oh no, I wasn't commenting on it. Just trying to say that it's not as simple as "all immigrants are terrorists" or "no immigrants are terrorists".

[Skeezix the Cat 3,089]

Oh no, I wasn't commenting on it. Just trying to say that it's not as simple as "all immigrants are terrorists" or "no immigrants are terrorists".

I was just agreeing with you and building my point off of that

[Risk 1,828]

Yeah.  Can a terrorist use refugees as cover?  Sure.  Should all refugees be shut out because of this?  No.  Say, hypothetically, France prevented any and all refugees from entering right before the attack and say that stopped these terrorists from ever even getting in.  So that action saved lives, yes?  Well what about the people trying to get away from those terrorists?  They could have just as easily died instead.  But that's okay, they're just statistics whereas "developed" people like those in Paris dying is a tragedy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/world/middleeast/beirut-lebanon-attacks-paris.html?_r=0

 

Exactly.

[TCK 2,164]

Well what about the people trying to get away from those terrorists?  They could have just as easily died instead.

Each country's highest priority is the wellbeing of its citizens. If France saves as many French lives as possible, it is a success for France. Countries should not have to risk the lives of their citizens just because other countries have failed their citizens.

[tarikja 918]

Each country's highest priority is the wellbeing of its citizens. If France saves as many French lives as possible, it is a success for France. Countries should not have to risk the lives of their citizens just because other countries have failed their citizens.

France is currently not a war zone or something like that. French citizens are not in a state of acute danger or risk of losing their lives. So it can be expected from it to give humanitarian aid.

This tragedy may change the current situation but it is foreseeable that live in France soon turns back to a normal state.

[TCK 2,164]

France is currently not a war zone or something like that.

It's funny that normally I'd say something along the lines of, "it doesn't have to be a warzone to be dangerous to the citizens," but in this case I can just immediately flip your statement around:

carried out a wave of attacks across Paris that killed 129 people in what President Francois Hollande called an "act of war" by Islamic State.

And also:

http://www.newschannel10.com/story/28603897/isis-releases-kill-list-seven-texas-cities-included

Yep looks like ISIS has no intention of attacking any countries that aren't in Syria's immediate neighborhood. As we all know the US borders Syria so it's to be expected that they'd attack there, right?

French citizens are not in a state of acute danger or risk of losing their lives. So it can be expected from it to give humanitarian aid.

"France in shock after Islamist attacks kill 132" (number updated to most recent count I saw)

Then of course there was the office that was shot to bits after the cartoonist there published a drawing of Muhammad. Have we forgotten that already?

[tarikja 918]

France is currently not a war zone or something like that.

It's funny that normally I'd say something along the lines of, "it doesn't have to be a warzone to be dangerous to the citizens," but in this case I can just immediately flip your statement around:

carried out a wave of attacks across Paris that killed 129 people in what President Francois Hollande called an "act of war" by Islamic State.

It's funny that normally I'd had to word a response but in this case I can just quote my previous answer to invalidate this argument:

This tragedy may change the current situation but it is foreseeable that live in France soon turns back to a normal state.

---

 

"France in shock after Islamist attacks kill 132" (number updated to most recent count I saw)

Thank you, but I can read headlines.

 

Then of course there was the office that was shot to bits after the cartoonist there published a drawing of Muhammad. Have we forgotten that already?

It seems like France has the ability to distinguish between terrorist attacks and humanitarian crises. I mean, it didn't stop them from helping refugees in seek of aid.

[TCK 2,164]

It's funny that normally I'd had to word a response but in this case I can just quote my previous answer to invalidate this argument:

This tragedy may change the current situation but it is foreseeable that live in France soon turns back to a normal state.

You mean like how, after the Charlie Hebdo shooting and all subsequent shootings which got less coverage, nothing similar happened? Especially in the same year, right? Wait, I seem to be in a thread about exactly that.

 

Thank you, but I can read headlines.

Then you should have read it before making the post I was replying to.

 

It seems like France has the ability to distinguish between terrorist attacks and humanitarian crises. I mean, it didn't stop them from helping refugees in seek of aid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamist terrorist group Al-Qaeda's branch in Yemen, who took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region, where a further five were killed and 11 wounded.

Following a series of police raids in Belgium, in which two suspected terrorists were killed in a shootout in the city of Verviers, Belgian police stated that documents seized after the raids appear to show that the two were planning to attack sellers of the next edition of Charlie Hebdo released following the attack in Paris.

Yep looks like you're absolutely right, it was an isolated incident which was completely unrelated to the series of attacks surrounding it, and which was also not a part of any overarching doctrine or group which publicly stated their plans to do more and that their motive was terrorizing western peoples.

Edited November 17, 2015 by TCK

[tarikja 918]

I don't see what you're getting at.

Are you saying I mistake the Charlie Hebdo incident, where radical Islamist shoot up Paris, with this current incident, where radical Islamist shoot up Paris?

But on my search for the Charlie Hebdo thread I found another interesting one:

Radical OpenCarnageist plan to shot up Paris