State of emergency declared across France after Paris shootings and explosions
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
We've closed this thread to noob accounts because of trolls. If you've got a new account and want to comment here, feel free to email hn@ycombinator.com.
maybe it will also have a side-effect of uniting people and countries against a common threat to all humanity.
I don't think that will happen. Remember "Je suis Charlie"? How long did that sentiment last?
It's a matter of time before people will be writing 'Je suis Francais', and then promptly forget it a few days or weeks later.
Even worse is that I agree.
Can we do anything to change it?
I admire your patience for sure. The hope that we have decades to unwind this mess.
I fear, though, militant religious sects may not have the same self control.
I fear that the inability or lack of willingness to meet violence with violence may be the downfall of rationality. We rightfully shun violence in place of discussion, but as is evident (again), we are not dealing with rational actors.
I think a discussion about how we can realistically meet this violence with violence is warranted. Sam Harris made a good argument for this in this podcast: http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun-...
We have in a way changed the paradigm already. A bad actor brandishing a box cutter on a plane is to be sure to be met with resistance that wouldn't have been seen pre 9/11.
But that could actually be an advantage. The more people see them for the nutcases they are the shorter the path to a possible solution.
> I fear that the inability or lack of willingness to meet violence with violence may be the downfall of rationality. We rightfully shun violence in place of discussion, but as is evident (again), we are not dealing with rational actors.
The danger in dealing with non-rational actors is that rational people will either do one of two things: they will join the non-rational actors and will respond non-rationally themselves, or they will persist in setting up a rational frame of reference for dialogue with the non-rational actors, which clearly will not work.
So the solution is to treat non-rational actors as exactly what they are: crazy, and deal with them accordingly.
Sorry for not being clear. I'm not speaking about others perception; we can easily discern they are out of shape. They, though, don't care what the rest of us rational people think.
>So the solution is to treat non-rational actors as exactly what they are: crazy, and deal with them accordingly.
Agreed. What I'm arguing is that that may involve reciprocating violence -- which we (rightfully) inherently tend to avoid. You can't rationalize with irrational people.
In that situation, we need multiple people to be willing to sacrifice themselves to save others. In today's world, the modus operandi is to cower and hope things pass over or to sympathize with the attackers views. This will not work going forward as the attackers could give a fuck what you think or how you feel so long as your death plays into their idea of making the world right.
I think a lot of people are afraid that these incidents will lead to more wars in the Middle East, create more terrorists, and cause more attacks. This will further erode our fourth amendment freedoms and probably the second too, which is exactly what the terrorists want.
Intention is all that matters, and why its attempting to damage social fabric.
I'm not trying to be flip. I'm saying that by any viable moral theory, you are catastrophically wrong.
I'm not changing a damn thing in how I live my life, and not even out of courage (i.e. the "we can't let the terrorists win" bromide that took over in America in late 2001). It just shouldn't matter that much to you, and it only prevails insomuch as you let these irrational fears get to you.
No it's not - people die from unexpected accidents completely unaware of the risks all the time - intuitive risk perception doesn't work really well - caveman instincts and all that - risk perception is not the problem - if this was indeed an isolated incident that would not repeat it would be sad but not very relevant - an example of this is Breivik murders.
But obviously this is not comparable - people behind this will try to repeat it if not dealt with - this is why it's a big deal.
Unfortunatley from a mathematical standpoint you are incorrect, from an irrational human standpoint you have a point however.
The human mind is much worse at reasoning and reality than anticipated, how you and others perceive the world is not as real as you'd like to think, thats the whole point of math and science:
A scene from Brazil that explores this idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4KFNhxibec
Well, just to say my misunderstanding of to which Brazil it was referred.
I do think you want to treat it as "murder is a serious crime and needs to be prosecuted and punished" rather than "this is an act of Islamic terrorism and we need to declare War on Terror!". But, universally ignored is hardly how you want to react. You want to close borders and you want to declare emergency and you want to, ideally, apprehend these people using conventional police. You do not want to live in a permanent state of panic or build a police state after the fact, and you definitely don't want to take out your anger on a whole population of people over the actions of a small radical group. But you do want a, rational but concerned, reaction.
Right now, you want to get people to safety, help the survivors and catch those responsible, in that order.
I don't think ignoring the problem is the only way to not let the terrorists win. But I do agree responding militarily or by widespread panic is what they most likely want.
I know someone who is deadly afraid of putting shoes on tables. Because her friend did that before dying in a traffic accident.
Blow up enough people often enough and fear and panic will become pervasive. People stop opening their shops, investments stop coming.
Terror is a pretty effective way to overthrow a gov't.
Another is South Vietnam.
Although there was a war going on the NLF did a great job of terrorizing the local population and installing their own shadow government. The terror attacks fractured the populations allegiance to the South Vietnamese gov't (what good is a gov't that can't protect you?).
Terrorism can be an effective tool in guerrilla warfare.
Terrorism is not Effective: http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20Effective
Terrorism is not About Terror: http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror
Just look at the statistics. The total number of people killed by terrorists is negligible. And 0 terrorist groups have ever won and achieved their stated goals.
I remember the Boston bombing. That same week, there was another explosion at a chemical plant that killed many more people, and blew up a nursing home. Guess which event got more press, by a large amount? Which event are people more likely to remember? Can you even name what city the chemical plant exploded in or remember any details about it?
Why is this? It's because people react to violence much differently than they react to accidents. Because thousands of years ago, violence was the one cause of death you could do something about. If you got an infection, or if a natural disaster struck, or a famine broke out, etc, those are all out of your control. But if someone was a threat to your family or tribe, you could fight them, or flee from them.
We have many emotions and social instincts whose entire purpose is to deal with other humans that threaten us. Like paranoia, anger, and hate. No one hates the chemical plant, and wants to go kill it. People hate the Tsarnaev brothers.
Don't speak too soon. We have several political movements dedicated to this.
Hmm. Wasn't it Bin Laden's goal to restore the Islamic Caliphate?
It's all about human agency and intentions. Terrorist attacks are carried out by HUMANS with the clear INTENTION of inflicting harm on the populace. Accidents on the other hand lack these essential factors. When I walk by a chemical plant, it never crosses my mind that the plant would attack me or be capable of doing such a thing and therefore I am not worried to be around but on the other hand if I happen to be walking in a bad neighborhood late at night, I would be very wary of people around me because I know very well that some of them might inflict harm on me for any reason.
So, I think that the comparison you drew between these two categories is not that solid and that people have every right to be "terrified" of terrorism and take all the precautionary measures to stop/prevent it.
Every time they strike they put us on edge, and we make new laws and protocols to protect ourselves, giving up freedom in the name of security.
Flashing the towers card here sounds a little embarrassing in retrospective. Sadly, the I.Snake is also the bastard son of Bush great plans for Irak and the Guantanamo shame.
No, it's not. The danger is over reacting, as history has proven time and time again. Fear is not the answer.
The only impact is people's reaction to it. Blame should be shifted to those who react. It absolutely should be downplayed.
[1] http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2015/05/05/01016-201...
The point being of the people murdered in France this year less than 1/5th of them where killed by terrorists. Yet, the other 4/5th don't make international news.
Yes, this is a tragedy, so are all those other deaths.
PS: Even at over twice the normal rate, the average US city is far worse every year.
Maybe there are 100 people killed in France in a typical year by complete strangers. And we're talking about 180 people (maybe more) killed in 2015 by complete strangers and in the name of Allah. I don't think that can be easily ignored.
What's hard, is accepting that things like this happen, but there not reason to alter policy in any meaningful way.
Wait till you live in Iraq or Afghanistan where these incidents occur on a daily basis and see if you will still stand by your statement or revisit it very soon.
The pack leaders are the rational ones. The ones that stand to gain the most from organizing these horrors.
Exactly, and very important, not given the platform they want, the media are very much a part of this as well.
We have to fight for enlightenment values, and need to lead by example - we can't make martyrs out of people.
It certainly feels different when you feel affected. You want to be reactionary. You want to have a knee-jerk reaction. Maybe I now understand why people are so quick to try to blame the issue on a certain cause.
But inside me I've spent my time fighting against this. I know that those attacks are not done "just for fun", they are driven by what makes them so effective: The fear they instill. The panic. The people who want to start putting the blame on a marginalized group that is prone to violence by their own situation.
Part of me wants to elaborate, but another part of me feels too sick to actually write more about this. I just want to go to bed, forget it happened.
I would like to ask the HN community to please not be reactionary about it. Please don't be xenophobic. Please don't marginalize groups.
And I have actually only seen one comment talking about car accidents, in a very different light than what you imply... so add to that, please don't make shit up.
And that's why we very much should not react by further damaging the social fabric ourselves, but that is extremely hard, especially when everybody will be clamoring for some kind of reaction.
Don't know what to say , just that I hope everybody and their families are safe.
This is hard, a very hard hit on my country. Vive la France.
Stay safe.
I feel the strong need to point out that in these difficult times in Europe and the world, we CANNOT allow right-wing political extremism to use them to gather power. THIS IS NOT ABOUT MUSLIMS, IMMIGRANTS OR WHATNOT. THIS IS ABOUT CRAZY PEOPLE.
It is like Steven Weinberg summarized: With or without [religion] you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Recognizing this is important for assessing the situation and how to counter the problem – this is not a circumstance where more mental health services will make the tiniest difference. It requires intelligent debate about education, philosophy (including religion), and how to convey to people that any religious beliefs that cause the deaths of others are simply wrong.
Religion is not per se horrible – obviously the super-majority of religious people are fully functional contributing members of society and should be protected just like everyone else - but it has been used throughout history to conduct a huge number of atrocities.
Everyone has an existential crisis in their life, and desires to become a part of something greater than themselves.
The traditional institutions in Western society that promoted this sense of belonging have been eroded in the recent decade, which could explain the trend toward joining organizations like ISIS and their ilk.
At the larger scale, religious justifications are no more relevant than socialism's role in turning some rural Cambodians into ruthless killers (as opposed to the state-terrorism): http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-pol-pot-to-isis-anything...
Not really; religious identity politics are often used by leaders (whose motivation seems to be more power-seeking than genuinely religious) to connect with foot-soldiers (whose real impetus seems often to be desperation to improve conditions for their family, or themselves, or to redress wrongs they feel have been done to their family or themselves, or to feel connected to a group and gain meaning.)
And you see the same thing done in other places with racial identity politics, economic class identity politics, national identity politics, etc. (And, in many cases, many of these are at play in the same movement.)
Desperation, poverty, redress of (centuries long) wrongs, and seeing no other option than to join the movement do make sense as motives though.
I haven't studied all of those wars, but my understanding has been that behind every religious explanation for war is a political power struggle.
Religion is used to get ordinary people to go to war, certainly. If it wasn't religion, it would be something else that speaks to people's emotions and desire to belong to a group. (Patriotism, 'Duty', 'Honor', etc.)
For two of your examples:
The crusades cemented the power of the Papacy and Holy Roman Empire in Europe, partly by sending a lot of armed powerful people to fight elsewhere. It also was an attempt to reunite Catholicism under the Roman Pope (i.e. it was a massive land/tax/power grab by the Pope at the time). Fighting other faiths occurred, and was certainly used as a reason for people to leave their homes and travel hundreds of miles to fight foreigners. (I'm pretty convinced very few people do that willingly.)
The whole Protestant reformation taking off at all (Luther was not the first person to rail against the perceived hypocrisies of the Catholic church) and subsequent 30 years war was generally driven by a desire of the various princes and kings involved to remove themselves from Catholicism. The 30 years war also quickly devolved past Protestants vs. Catholics and largely into various factions jostling for power.
Islam has nothing to do with this whatsoever, no more than say a Christian shooter in some cinema in has anything to do with Christianity. Islam as a religion has a ton of issues that make this particular kind of thing very hard to get rid of and it is a sad coincidence that many youths that are easily misled are receptive to all sorts of bs but to generalize across a billion or so people because of what a few assholes did is simply wrong.
So the correlation is strong but a lack of tolerance will fuel the generation of more of these, not less.
The puppeteers are the ones that matter, the 'terrorists' are for the most part tools in the hands of masters at playing them believing they are making the world a better place (and how wrong they are).
I make no distinction between idiots of any plumage, be they muslim, Christians, atheists or something else, organized or acting alone. They're a plague on society and should be dealt with, preferably long before they can become a problem in such a way that becoming a problem never even enters their minds because they're too busy living and appreciating life.
I don't doubt it but those don't typically go around committing mass murder.
As far as the 'people are willing to kill and die for them' bit goes, that's a pretty good definition of insanity to me. After all if an idea was placed in your head and you then go out and use that idea as justification for murdering innocents that you have no personal grievance against (the one universal that most people seem to agree on is a bad thing) then there is something not entirely right in your head.
There seems a bit of wishful thinking there. We don't know the details but it seems quite likely Islam does have something to do with this.
So even if Islam is nominally involved and even if the fact that religious people have a fringe element (like all people!) that does not mean Islam is the cause of this. Just like Catholicism is not a religion centered around pederasty and just like atheists don't generally go around shooting people.
I recognize your username and I know you are highly intelligent, but how can you ignore all the daily evidence, crime statistics, the shows of intolerance + hatred + violence that Muslims put out towards the natives, all the logic and reason, and all the correlations about the Muslim population in Europe?
The Muslims that I know are very much upset about all this and fear for their future, if anybody is upset at the acts of terrorism by their nominal brethren it is them because they are confronted on a daily basis with the fall-out from all this. The scary bit is that the backlash against them drives them to become defensive and that's the one thing that should not happen.
There is much more to the story than fitting Muslims into the categories of: "non-terrorist" and "active-terrorist".
The fact still remains that Muslim [and other immigrating] populations in Europe negatively impact every single metric of social-ills (rapes, murders, acid-burning attacks, honor-killings / enormous housing and welfare costs / emergence of no-go zones / overall intolerance towards you / and so on and on).
This is the further split of society that you are talking about. It happens when you bring in incompatible groups into your home, and groups that do not reciprocate your good will, tolerance, and open mindedness.
It makes no difference that terrorists are few when double-digits (20%-90%) of Muslims (depending on region and % of population they make up) think that death should be the penalty for apostasy, that suicide bombings are justified, and so on.
You're forgetting a few not-so-juicy details. Most of these people that failed to integrate carry local passports and to the law they are just as French (or Dutch, or German or whatever) as the rest of the people living there.
As a rule all these countries practice freedom of religion so whatever the effect the immigrating (grand)parents had on the statistics of decades past the problem is the effects today. And you can't attack anybody on grounds of religion without opening up the traditional make-up of the country as well so that's right out because it would make a great many people in various power structures extremely nervous.
The failure then is to fail to fully integrate these people, part of the failure is theirs, part of the failure is ours.
The fact that the younger generation (and definitely not all of them!) are unable to get work, unable to find meaning in life and unable to get ahead no matter how hard they try creates a level of frustration that I can only imagine, but which broke through partially in the riots in France a couple of years ago.
As far as the 'double digits' are concerned, right now an ultra-rightwing party holds > 25% of the vote in NL, that doesn't make all the Dutch racists any more than 30% of the Muslims agreeing with some or all of the terrorist activities makes all of the Muslims supporters of terrorism.
It's each and every person as an individual that matters.
And if a person specifically supports these acts then you can go after them with whatever tools are available but until then there is no reason to act in a generalizing manner. That only makes the problem (potentially much) worse.
The human race has been based on groups/collectives since its inception. Even before we were Homo-sapiens, we were forming natural groups that defined us - with each group producing, collecting, and evolving individuals of similar attributes and behaviors.
Once you mismatch a group into another, some type of violence always arises.
And we are mismatching on a lot here -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0sRmpvdIIk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2nlIfn8tNA
In addition to the above, the recent floods of immigration into Europe is also not working because the groups that are coming in are largely doing so for the immediate benefits (ex: mindset that thinks welfare is "salary") and not because they recognize and respect European values.
The further this goes on, the worse it gets, and its becoming a disaster.
Muslims are in the West, much to your horror, and the reasons they are here just might have something to do with France's imperial past and present. But they're here: so what's your solution fella?
The same holds for fascists. Fascists terrorists are driven by their ideology, which in itself can be evil and wrong. That many adherents to an ideology are not violent is in itself not an indication of lack of evil. Even if there were billions of fascists, this wouldn't prove lack of evil of fascism.
The reason that people out of principle will not condemn Islam in western society is that is seen as 'another culture' and a 'minority' in the West. Both aspects are seen as a source for racism, which is bad. But therefore it seems hard to truly look at Islam as a possible source of evil. And I think it is.
People who oppose rampant immigration, incompatible cultures, and hostile groups, are "extremists"?
You are living in a climate where Muslims flood out into the streets and chant death threats (and then kill people) because someone made a joke about Muhammad.
Bending over to these people and blaming yourself is not the way forwards - unless you want more of this chaos.
France has one of the largest Muslim populations in Europe, and 20% of this group are brazen enough to sympathize and justify with terrorism when polled. There is a correlation here.
Source: http://live.reuters.com/Event/Paris_attacks_2?utm_source=twi...
Like, how do they shut this down?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/France/@49.5467828,5.43629...
It's a lot easier to re-establish something that was there before than it is to do it from scratch and this is more of a logistical problem (and a personel one) than one of technicalities about whether or not such a thing can be done. It's not like France didn't have a functioning border patrol a couple of years ago.
They will likely be similar military/Customs presence at checkin for any international train or flight.
> Where there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security, these countries may exceptionally reintroduce border controls at its internal borders for a period of no more than 30 days (possible to prolong under conditions established by the code) or for the foreseeable duration of the serious threat. This action should be seen as a last resort.
source: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:l...
France was actually going to reinstate some border checks from November 13 to December 13 for the COP21.
How do you close that down, especially in the middle of the night? The US can't even do it in places with a wall.
Also, those with comments that are trying to cause fear and hatred, you are just making other muslims living in the west feel scared and sad. I swear, right now im scared taht one day some people will be treating muslims just like how Americans used to treat black people in Slavery era. Even worse, Im afraid we might see concentration camps like how Nazis did to Jews.
It's very sad to see that kind of blind hatred.
>in the prelude to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, President George W. Bush told Jacques Chirac that Gog and Magog were at work in the Middle East: "This confrontation is willed by God," he told the French leader, "who wants us to use this conflict to erase his people's enemies before a New Age begins." [Wikipedia]
which kind of kicked of the present run of difficulties.
When I heard the news I went to the neighborhood deli shop to buy cigarettes. The owners and workers there are muslim. They had a TV set up and were watching the news. I hung out with them for an hour or so. Watching, talking, feeling, reacting. All of us just being human, as the vast majority of people do.
As I was leaving I said, "Vive la France." And everyone there started saying it too.
I hope for the sake of everyone that all of us can realize that this kind of behavior has nothing to do with the teachings of Islam or the vast majority of how muslims think.
My thoughts are with muslim people all over the world tonight just as much as they are with the people of France. There will be reprisals against innocent people. But I will argue and fight against those just as much as I support and care about those who have lost loved ones in Paris today.
That's already starting, some idiots set fire to the camp near Calais.
And in case you forgot, secularists brought us the most violent conflicts in history, just last century. US slavery didn't need religion, nor did Apartheid. nor climate change or the atomic bomb. Pacifism is pretty much a religious concept, exclusively so until relatively recent human history.
I don't really see how fanatic rationalism has any leg to stand on, really.
They didn't do this 'because of secularism' and that's a big difference. They tried to replace religion with other dogma's en use the religious control for their own purpose. Sure, being a secularist doesn't make you good or non-evil. But without dogmas it will be pretty hard to convince others to blow themselves up for your evil plans.
No one ever committed mass shooting while shouting 'in the name of science', or 'I hate you because I am a securalist.'
People HAVE committed and OFTEN commit mass shootings while shouting "For the Fatherland" or some other nationalist/racist slogan. Last I checked the body count is higher.
EDIT: If you're anywhere near these events in Paris, please get to safety now!
1. Enter house claiming to need to go somewhere. 2. Kill everybody. 3. Move to next willing house and repeat.
What do you mean by this? It sounds a bit ominous, if you'll pardon me.
The us and them mentality being used to "combat" terrorism is so harmful because it puts people in a position where they have nothing to lose - they're already being discrimminated against etc.
I agree that a few assholes can ruin things for everyone but the reason they can is because they can ruin the trust people have in each other thereby leading to a situation like I described above. The solution is therefore counterintuitive (since they exploit intuition).
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4256591
I was wondering though if there are some creative ways to improve this initiative and make it more secure. Anyone has anything better than filtering eventual candidates to give shelter to according to rough "trustworthiness" of their Twitter account?
Obviously don't know yet who is responsible, but I don't understand why France is being targeted in this way. They are hardly terrorist enemy number one.
Certainly they're closer and easier to get to from the Middle East than other parts of the world and contain a larger Arab population making it easier to hide within and recruit from.
But I would imagine French intelligence is deep within that same population and I remember members of the military on patrol in the streets of Paris.
I'd hesitate to assume that French intelligence operatives have thoroughly penetrated terrorist groups and their sympathizers. My experience suggests that French authorities have for years underestimated the threat posed by such groups and are also significantly underfunded/under resourced.
The military patrol is primarily a form of security theatre, though that does depend upon the location. Some areas truly do need greater protection, such as repeatedly targeted venues, and those populations do need reassurance that they are not completely vulnerable. I also want to make clear that those forces can actually intervene in the unlikely situation that the protected venue is attacked, but it's also likely that their presence displaces the attacks to alternative sites.
Anyway, France has a significant population that is sympathetic to jihadi terrorism's goals and practices, and my understanding is that counterterrorism and terrorism response operations in France - both strategically and tactically - leave much to be desired. France/Paris is not like Munich circa 1972 (shit-show level of unpreparedness), but there's significant room for improvement.
I agree with your point of fuck them, but still.
We consistently rank with top-notch nations, thank you very much.
Maybe because they let into their borders too many losers whose worldview renders them incapable of finding their way around the western the world? Maybe no more reasons are needed? No politics, no aims, nothing to gain, just a bunch of frustrated losers?
That's not separation of church and state, that's suppression of unpopular religion by the secular state, which is no different than suppression of unpopular religion in favor of a popular religion by the state. (And its not just in schools, though that was one of the focal points in the debates, the ban applies in all public spaces in France.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_c...
The French do have a fairly rigorous approach to separation of church and state. Where do they cross the line into something blatantly discriminatory?
On the face of it, sure; OTOH, the specific targeting of traditional attire of certain Muslims was overt among the promoters of both the ban you link to and the broader ban on face covering in public spaces.
is that even really about separation of church and state? Somehow I doubt it.
Also the US takes the, IMO, "better" position of saying that individuals practicing private religion doesn't break separation of church and state. Organized religion does.
Of course the US also effectively forces their children to recite a pledge (which includes "under god"), which I find rather distateful.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34372892
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-09/french-def...
You might think that only because it doesn't resonate in the English-speaking press, but that's far from true. In reality, France is historically involved in any goings-on in Northern Africa, and is a fundamental partner to US and UK in Middle East policies. They were the main proponents for "blowing up" Lybia, while UK and Italy had built bridges with the regime and were preparing for an eventual transition. They started military operations in Syria only a few months ago, but mostly because they have troops continuously engaged in various African countries and have to keep an eye on their limited resources.
Across radicalised groups all over Africa, ME and Asia, France is still seen as an old-school, violent colonial power with an anti-muslim bent. You could be surprised if Spain or (to a lesser degree) Italy were targeted, but France easily makes the "Top 5 Targets List" of most violent nutjobs in that part of the world.
The _reality_ is that certain religion somehow is different, for that religion a well-educated youth could easily become a cold-blood terrorist after watching some youtube videos and read a few propaganda booklets, throw everything away he previously learnt in the west, the place where he was raised, and use what he learnt to attack from within. That change is usually drastic, maybe that's why we call them extremist. It's very different from other massive killers that are having mental issues.
Everything in the universe is ruled by probability, there are hundreds of religions on earth but the integration of this group is just statistically unpredictable with much higher risk. It's not worth integrating in my opinion.
I foresee Europe will suffer from it for years to come.
https://www.change.org/p/justin-trudeau-extend-resettlement-...
I can understand why the police units dealing with this situation do not want to let that kind of thing happen again.
These look very much like the Mumbai attacks from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks
Basically they go after soft targets where large number of people gather (cafes, bars etc) - very hard to defend against if you have any kind of open society.
Whoever these Assholes are they deserve no mercy.
Either way, it's an absolutely awful turn of events, and the kind of horrible thing that I thought would never happen again after the attacks in the early 00s.
But your right, recognizing it's a feedback loop is the first step.
Keep trusting, keep being fair to everyone.
That means not allowing people to break the rules of society due to their personal beliefs but enforcing laws above board. No "shadowbanning" (unlawful arrests) or unlawful surveillance.
www.spiegel.de/international/the-future-of-terrorism-what-al-qaida-really-wants-a-369448.html
Do any of the refugees blame Europe for their [Europe's] involvement? Probably some do, yes.
The latter has nothing essential to do with the NM/TX border, there are border patrol checkpoints (including mobile ones) in a pretty wide swath "near" the Mexican border. They don't exist to enforce any kind of control on state borders.
These people aren't victims. They made a choice.
Treating symptoms is never as useful as treating the underlying cause.
Like others have said the damage this is causing is mostly mental. The number of random (I mean that as in could happen to anyone not downplaying the significance of human life) deaths caused by terrorism is not so large.
However this does not mean we should tolerate people who refuse to play by the rules of society because of their personal beliefs (whatever they may be). Any countermeasures must be above board and transparently fair.
(There's also a whole suite of technology problems here solved via JDAMs and Hellfires, which seem to be actively being pursued.)
Simply discounting the power of technology is short-sighted.
An ex-recruiter who spent years in an Egyptian prison became disillusioned with the ideology.
Reminds me of this thing they have in Amsterdam: http://www.iamexpat.nl/read-and-discuss/expat-page/news/neth...
Obviously ISIS is past the point of laissez-faire tolerance but that isn't the point, ideological censorship should always be a last resort.
I am so saddened by this situation with a powerful IS which wants to remove our freedom and change the world into an extreme muslim one.
We must remember not to spread hate towards all the peaceful muslims.
One thing is for sure, marginalizing and discriminating even more is not a solution.
Too bad it smells like a conspiracy theory.
Edit for source: http://www.dw.com/en/france-arrests-islamic-state-supporter-...
There isn't any time that would be less effective for your goals than right now.
Also, it's like 'teen abstinence' sex ed - you can tell people to refrain all you want, but they're still going to do it. People want to talk about this thing as it's happening; they will find a place to do it regardless.
But we need to do so with sensitivity, too, now.
Edit: I'll go with jacquem's reply to NewNole2001: It can wait a day or two. It can't wait weeks, though. (The Patriot Act was passed less than 7 weeks after 9/11.)
It is our duty to keep our heads cool and minds clear. When the smoke has cleared - then we will grief.
Governments kill way more people than terrorists ever will, but fear those the government tells you to fear...
In fact, French and Russian security services are known for their heavy touch. Fat lot of good it's doing for them.
Apparently this method is not working at all.
An attack of this size and coordination was without a doubt electronically communicated. We can't possibly infiltrate every group of radicals with informants. And they are not going to stop.
I believe it was LA that had a plane fly above the city and record 24/7. It was just enough resolution to make out cars and people, but not identify anyone. Less invasive than security cameras in that sense. And I don't think it was live. It was just something the police could go back to and look at after a crime as committed, and see where the criminals went or came from.
Given some conditions, like the recordings be deleted after a few days, and that it requires a warrant to look at, I think that would be ok.
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#000000">
<img src="s.gif" height="5" width="0">
</td>
</tr>And now, I'll just wait for the downvotes I guess.
We'll be in some deep shit in the coming years.
Yup, as we always have been since we were humans. Sad.
Can you see how this is an extremely broad, lazy generalization? What really supports this comparison, other than their religion and colour of their skin?
And yes, "families fleeing war" are potential terrorist candidates. There is quite a possibility of future generations to radicalize. This happens (Europe exports quite some fighters for ISIL) and it will happen in the future, because the foundations are present. The refugees coming here will be mosty the future bottom of the lower class. And being poor, having no perspective and being insecure about ones identity aren't really things thatr you want to experience combined into a single adolescent boy.
And "families fleeing war" are not the only ones coming as refugees. It is also the fleeing fighters of ISIL.
If you marginalize people, mistrust them, do not make an effort to integrate them, and make them feel like the only place where they are welcome is segregated communities, don't be surprised when they radicalize. This has happened all throughout history, and will continue without changes.
Conservatives scream that Liberals are too soft on immigration, and are too focused on "political correctness". They want them to wake up and recognize that scary "others" are around every corner and can't wait to harm us. Well, the irony is that it is those social policies and that ostracization that creates the conditions in which resentment grows.
And here we are. Screaming more about "those muslims". Which only pushes moderate muslims further to feel like there is no tolerance for nuiance in the West.
This will do gangbusters for ISIS recruitment.
edit: Just so people understand, I'm not victim blaming anyone. I am traumatized as one of my favourite cities and areas that I've been to only weeks ago are in the grips of panic and terror at the hands of horrific monsters.
I'm not saying "Well yeah, of course, that's what's going to happen. France had it coming". I'm responding to the people who are saying "Well, yeah, of course, that's what's going to happen. When you allow so many immigrants and muslims have free reign". I'm looking ahead at the next few weeks as people take this opportunity to just blame everything on Islam. And make the situation worse longer term.
I know this is not the best place to nitpick, but I believe you should capitalize the "m" in "Muslim" when used as a noun.
@deanCommie
Please, stop with the excuses , nobody marginalized anybody. The terrorists are not victims , the islamists are not victims. so don't give them excuses. The wide majority of muslims in France are integrated, they are bakers, plumbers , computer scientists , my baker is a muslim , so stop with that bull. There is no excuse none.
10% of the french people are muslims, that's a fact, out of that fact it increases the chances of people chosing an extreme vision of islam. There was attacks in Spain , UK and obviously USA, is it because muslims were marginalized ? so stop please, you are ignorant trying to apply your post modernist canvas on things when some people are still taken hostage as we speak, you should be ashamed of yourself.
FYI : I'm black and come from a muslim family though i'm not muslim, those who fail are those who don't try hard enough, nobody said it will be easy. Everything is "free" in France, education , college, healthcare , you feel "marginalized" , well there is Europe and you can basically pick and choose the country you want to live in today. So no excuses, enough.
Sooooo many studies have been done where the same resume gets shown to recruiters, except one has a French name and the other has an Arabic name. The results were an overwhelming amount of french resumes were chosen over the Arabic one. Not to mention constant issues like police harassment
The issue of integration of purely the fault of a country that pretends that race doesn't matter while simultaneously punishing minorities every step of the way
Sure, but it doesn't make my point false. Is there some discrimination going on ? absolutely we need to fight it. Is it widespread absolutely not, I've been victim of racism in France because of the color of my skin , and you know what ? we have a lot of charities , organizations , and anti discrimination laws to fight against it. So what does it have to do with people killing 50+ innocents ? nothing.
And the racism I endured didn't make me want to join ISIS or some bullshit Islamist movement, because I knew that for every racist ahole there are 10 000 people that are not and don't care about the color of my skin.
But people like the OP and their "oppressor/oppressed" mindset are just giving excuses to the crazies , but there is no excuse , there is no explanation other than the terrorists a f.ed up and part of a death cult.
Just like there will be people blaming 'all of Islam' for this atrocity there will be people on the other side that blame 'all of the West' either for their own inability and failure or as as a reaction to the inequalities in the society they are a part of an which they will find it hard to overcome. It is these people that are at risk of being radicalized, the smart ones (like yourself) never were at risk in the first place, have found their niche and simply want to live their lives as good as they can, like everybody else.
It's a pity because these few would be harmless fools if they weren't given the tools and instructions with which they then proceed their crimes, and probably they relish at the thought of the headlines they will be making.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of people that would very much like to blame their own personal failure on others or that would exact blind revenge on innocents for perceived or real sleights instead of seeking redress in a less violent manner.
I'm not defending the terrorists. I'm defending people like your family who will be lumped in with them in the next couple of weeks as people blame all of this on immigration and islam, like they do every time.
The fact is, we are living in an age of muslim extremism and sympathies are at an all time high. We could look at it at that fact and blame 1.57 billion people for all sharing this radical ideology, or we could look at what other forces are nudging a small section of those people to radicalize. And avoid denial.
You're not trying to keep people in check, you are as ignorant as the people saying racist comments with your stupid pomo explanations.
> I'm not defending the terrorists. I'm defending people like your family who will be lumped in with them in the next couple of weeks as people blame all of this on immigration and islam, like they do every time.
I won't be lumped in with anybody because most of the french can tell the difference and I don't need anyone defending me, thank you, i'm capable of defending myself. You're talking about a problem you know nothing about, with a specific school of thinking that is stupid at first place. You want to talk about a population that is really marginalized in France? talk about the Roma, I didn't see anyone of them killing 50+ people because of it. and they have it much , much worse than any arab or black in France.
France is not an apartheid where blacks, arabs and white people are separated and often ,those who claim being victim of society are the one with an intolerant and bigoted mindset. People like you give the crazies ammo to fuel their hatred toward a country that feed them , treat them , give them an education for free and a whole lot of percs. And again ,don't like it ? move , Europe is huge and go see if the grass is greener elsewhere.
EDIT: There is preventing integration as a host nation's people, and refusing to integrate as an immigrant. One can only do so much to make a person feel welcome in a country as their new home. You may bring your beliefs, but you'll follow the laws and human rights expectations of your host country. Otherwise, stay at home, war torn or not.
Disclaimer: American who is unwilling to watch first world country progress move backwards due to political correctness.
"Al-Qaida Kills Eight Times More Muslims Than Non-Muslims"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/surprising-study-o...
"ISIS’s Gruesome Muslim Death Toll: The group’s killing of Westerners gets attention. But ISIS has killed far more Muslims, and publicizing that fact would harm it more."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-grue...
"Well, if spilling Muslim blood is the deciding factor for us Muslims to decide who we should take vengeance against, then al-Ansi and others in al Qaeda should immediately go into hiding. Simply put, al Qaeda has been slaughtering Muslims for years. Islamic clerics, doctors, nurses, women, children, etc. -- you name any type of Muslim, and al Qaeda has butchered them.
In fact, a report released in 2009 by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point documented the people killed by al Qaeda between 2004 and 2008. It found that only 12% of the victims of al Qaeda were Westerners. That suggests that al Qaeda has killed seven times as many Muslims as non-Muslims. And these attacks were just the ones for which al Qaeda had publicly claimed responsibility."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/15/opinion/obeidallah-al-qaeda-hy...
Well, if you assume that all Westerners are non-Muslims and all non-Westerners are Muslims, it suggests that.
The Western world lost all moral superiority when they decided torture and genocide were acceptable acta to commit.
US-backed Iraq against Iran war: some 1/2 million - 1 million deaths.
Desert Storm: 20-30 thousand
Operation Desert Fox (1998): 600 (in 4 days)
Iraq War: 30-40 thousand
Sanctions against Iraq: somewhere between 150 and 500 thousand deaths.
And this is Iraq (and Iran) alone.
Then there are: the war in Libya and its ongoing civil war, the civil war in Iraq, in Syria, the bombs on Gaza, Afghanistan... all the direct work or at least helped or backed by the Western countries.
This goes far beyond "shared traits". They organize against us with a dogmatic reverence for violence known as radical Islam, and your dogmatic tolerance for it allows it to metastasize.
"Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
-Winston Churchill, from "The River War"
source : http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/churchillislam.asp
"starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Suppli...
And definitely not a benchmark for the 21st century.
And the other allied leader has (deservedly) an awful reputation. Definitely a reputation which is worse than Churchill's.
I'm sorry but you can't just say "this is the inevitable outcome of marginalization". There are plenty of marginalized groups that choose not to commit mass murder in the name of justice.
It seems like your point is that the French are to blame because they didn't properly integrate Muslim immigrants?
This is shockingly bad taste. People are still dying, as we speak, and you decide to rail against a strawman and blame the victims because you are nervous about your political opponents making hay?
So no, I don't buy it you blaming the host country, in this case France.
"We" (US, UK, France, Italy, Germany etc etc) have completely destabilised an entire subcontinent in the last 25 years. "We" keep pretending that these places are far away, far removed from our shining civilisations, but they are not -- they are on our doorstep, they have been our neighbours for millennia. Rome was fighting wars in that region when ships were still powered by human rowers. Until "we" think that a few drones is all we need to solve what is now a humongous clusterfuck (mostly of our own making), "we" will suffer wave after wave of lunatics with a death wish. Unfortunately, none of the current crop of European and American leaders has the faintest clue about what to do about it, except applying short-term measures that look good on tabloids.
Beyond reporting emergency contact info they serve no purpose other than encouraging the next attack.
Reddit discussions become overrun with useless comments. Stupid memes, puns, and just other irrelevant drivel.
Many of the mainstream news outlets have lagging facts, horrible commenting (if any) and biased/washed/slanted reporting.
HN thoroughly discourages both worthless commenting and links to worthless news sources.
For me personally, I much prefer following stories like this on HN vs anywhere else.
1. Updated chronology of news with source links
2. Practically important publicization of #porteouverte effort
3. Updated chronology of news as experienced by Parisian local
4. First-person account of person who was present at theatre shooting
5. ... content-light junk starts. More than halfway down the page.
There's interesting commentary in this HN thread that I'm not seeing upvoted to visibility on Reddit, so it is valuable. But there is a ton of uniquely valuable stuff on the Reddit thread, and that is consistently the case in these live serious news situations.
----
And 10 minutes after I posted this, the top comment on this very HN thread and all its replies are all empty sentiment. "vive la france", "hearts go out", "be safe", etc.
As a story like this ages, my personal experience has been that the quality of comments on HN go UP while the quality of comments on Reddit go DOWN.
In regards to the parent post of this thread, I think that HN provides a valuable outlet for posting stories like this, and I personally feel it is within the overall HN "charter" for stories. It could turn out that this specific case balances out differently, but my personal opinion is that overall HN discussions for a given HN-worthy topic are more valuable than the comparative Reddit thread.
I think I'll go watch my copy of "The Battle of Algiers".