Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jasper76 wrote:

It's also probable that what hrs willing to say on film is a toned down version of what he's willing to say off camera in front of his congregation.

I mean, supporting domestic chemical or biological attacks is no small thing to admit...and one can only hope the government is watching this preacher and his congregation very very very carefully (assuming he's still alive)

Most certainly. They actually played back a recorded phone interview with one of the guys from a government agent. They KNEW through the entirety of this that they were being investigated and watched, and I'm almost certain they were watching themselves very carefully. There were also some very jarring cuts in the video, but that might have just been sloppy splicing getting it into youtube.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Spoiler:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

In all fairness the sort of 'Christian' who murders people at abortion clinics is a lone nutcase.
There is no camp to train at, no underground priest abroad mounting a crusade on abortionists, no dodgy denomination.

I don't buy this. Hell, I've seen clips on youtube of preachers telling congregations stuff like "if the law won't bring justice to these baby murderers, maybe its about time we tyake things into our own hands".

And I have little doubt that fringe right-wing militia groups, who do train, have Christianity mixed up into the equation.

The IRA used to go to training camps in Libya, if I remember correctly.

Gadaffi funded the IRA didn't he?

Yup. And supplied them.

The IRA needed Libyan supplied weaponry, especially access to quality explosives, and training camp opportunities; but didn't really need Libyan funding, though it helped.
They got plenty from those arch-terrorist financiers of the 80's.
How ironic how the USA now likes going after those nations who harbour citizens who fund terrorism with such gusto.

 Compel wrote:
One of the things that has only been mentioned in a couple of news sources and only took the headline of one (The Daily Star of all papers) was:

One of the two policemen killed on the first day was a Muslim.
I also read a report that said one of the people killed in the newspaper office was as well.

I tend to like to avoid the political threads but it seems to me that if the media were to highlight this more, that perhaps they can help show that these guys were attacking Islam as well, that perhaps, some kids mentioned in Litcheur's fascinating post may choose against starting down that path.

It's also quite possible, perhaps likely, that extremist Muslims view Westernized Muslims as traitors of the worst degree.

You'll have to take my word for it, but a Muslim girl I went to high school with was disowned by her own father , who divorced his wife and moved back to Egypt, for the horrible crime of dating an American...and he was just a business man.

 Compel wrote:
One of the two policemen killed on the first day was a Muslim.

IS sees all western muslims as infidels who must be coerced or even better, disposed of. Something about placing the law of men above the law of god...

 jasper76 wrote:
I've often wondered if radical Islam is sort of like "rock-and-roll" for disaffected youth. Something against the mainstream that gives them a sense of belonging and identity they're not finding in their society.

You nailed it.

Some people like to listen to rock 'n roll way too loud or dress in funny clothes. I chose to play bass. That's just one step further. If I had no education and was taught by donkey-caves, I guess I could make the entire block rumble at 2 am.

Some other people do the same with religion. Islam is definitely edgy in some aeras. Some people chose to take it more seriously, and usually brag about it because they're even ediger and somehow "truer". Some of them then encounter preachers who basically brainwash them to fit their political agendas.

To people who don't see what kind of social misfits I'm talking about...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_GlSAdp4_U

 whembly wrote:
Are there seriously 30+ "no go" areas in Paris? As in, the police don't go into by themselves?

Well, only two aeras in Paris intra-muros: 19th and 20th arrondissements. Not really unsafe, but I would still avoid them if I were a tourist.

If you cross the Ring Road (Boulevard Périphérique), you're in the suburbs, in the aera called Île de France.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Ile_de_France.svg/777px-Ile_de_France.svg.png
As you can see on the map, Paris is actually very small compared to the whole urban aera. And very densely populated too: 2x NYC, 3x Tokyo. Without any skyscraper-cheat-code.

That urban aera is pretty large, and you'll find everything, from über-über-rich-cities to small towns of <2k inhabitants, forests, fields, marvels of classical architecture... and ghettos. Those cités were built wherever one could be built, there's no urban logic behind that. You can find very nice (and rich) cities next to very crappy places.

Let's take an exemple: Versailles, beautiful, beautiful city, with the famous Château de Versailles, palace of the Kings of France. 5 miles to the south, you'll find a couple of cute rural cities built on what was once the large Forêt de Rambouillet. Royal hunting grounds. There's a castle too (we've got castles everywhere ). French presidents love to spend their holidays in that one.

Five miles, remember? The city of Trappes lies in between. Don't ever try wander off the main road: you may end in very unpleasant places. How unpleasant? Cops are reluctant to go there. Firefighters too. Too many ambushes. Yup, these people will harm firefighters if given the opportunity. While some of these firefighters do this job for a living, many others are volunteers who do that almost for free because they want to help the community. Both work in mixed teams, and both can fall into an ambush... See, that kind of unpleasant.

I don't know how things work in other countries, but fortunately, french people tend to be quite territorial. Even if they're next to a very rich city full of easy preys tourists, thugs will still stay in their ghetto and try to rob each other. I won't complain about that.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Compel wrote:
One of the things that has only been mentioned in a couple of news sources and only took the headline of one (The Daily Star of all papers) was:

One of the two policemen killed on the first day was a Muslim.
I also read a report that said one of the people killed in the newspaper office was as well.

I tend to like to avoid the political threads but it seems to me that if the media were to highlight this more, that perhaps they can help show that these guys were attacking Islam as well, that perhaps, some kids mentioned in Litcheur's fascinating post may choose against starting down that path.

It's also quite possible, perhaps likely, that extremist Muslims view Westernized Muslims as traitors of the worst degree.

In fairness it is possible the gunmen didn't have time to notice, and didnt care anyway.

They did have a twisted 'honour', in that they had a target list. Killed cops and soldiers if seen, earmarked specific people at Charlie Hebdo for murder but released others, and todaty when they took hostages freed what they considered a 'civilian' according to some press reports.

From what I can tell from this the uniform was the target, not the beliefs of the man in the uniform. The policeman represented French authority, and so was murdered even after he was incapacitated.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
And I have little doubt that fringe right-wing militia groups, who do train, have Christianity mixed up into the equation.

The IRA used to go to training camps in Libya, if I remember correctly.

The IRA was not a right-wing group. The IRA was actually set up with a distinct socialist leaning. And, again, the IRA was motivated by nationalist and political goals - not religious.

 Compel wrote:
One of the things that has only been mentioned in a couple of news sources and only took the headline of one (The Daily Star of all papers) was:

One of the two policemen killed on the first day was a Muslim.
I also read a report that said one of the people killed in the newspaper office was as well.

I tend to like to avoid the political threads but it seems to me that if the media were to highlight this more, that perhaps they can help show that these guys were attacking Islam as well, that perhaps, some kids mentioned in Litcheur's fascinating post may choose against starting down that path.

I mentioned that several times in this thread already.

But you are right, as usual the news media are dropping the ball on this. They should put a much greater emphasis on the Muslim cop that was executed outside the newspaper and on the Muslim newspaper editor that died. That would go a long way to diffuse these declarations from these far-right parties.

Litcheur wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I've often wondered if radical Islam is sort of like "rock-and-roll" for disaffected youth. Something against the mainstream that gives them a sense of belonging and identity they're not finding in their society.

You nailed it.

Some people like to listen to rock 'n roll way too loud or dress in funny clothes. I chose to play bass. That's just one step further. If I had no education and was taught by donkey-caves, I guess I could make the entire block rumble at 2 am.

Some other people do the same with religion. Islam is definitely edgy in some aeras. Some people chose to take it more seriously, and usually brag about it because they're even ediger and somehow "truer". Some of them then encounter preachers who basically brainwash them to fit their political agendas.

To people who don't see what kind of social misfits I'm talking about...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_GlSAdp4_U

Interesting you posted this.



Cherif Kouachi was amongst other things a rapper, and had zero problems trying to style himself as Americanised.

There is a subtitled version of the above video somewhere, I found yesterday. Like the Boston bombing scum these people had already been in front of the camera from time to time.
The Tsarnaev brothers were into western music.

Also some of the wanted jihadists joining ISIS from the UK had snippets of videos of their rap on TV

For all their hatred of western culture these jihadists dont mind partaking of it themselves, and as where the culture is sourced from the US ultimately its rather ironic that they will kill to remove our culture from Islam, but they are quite content to join in street style, rap and basically behave like they live in Harlem.

It would make sense if they were into western music then got into religion and grew beards and wore robes, a bit like Cat Stevens. But these people seem happy to interchange between western youth and people who hate everything the west stands for.

Important note: If you read the above as a condemnation of rap as causing violence etc, re-read it until it isnt.

@Orlanth: I guess the thrust of my point was that innocent Muslim cops and Charlie workers who were killed as bystanders may not be much of a detterent to terrorists, and there deaths might actually be celebrated by terrorists and sympathizers.

There are several phrases used by white racists for other white people who have friendly associations with black people, and of course the black community sometimes throws around phrases like "Uncle Tom".(at least it used to be semi-common), and I suspect the same might be true for Muslim terrorists in regards to other Muslims who have assimilated into western culture.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Orlanth: I guess the thrust dog my point was that innocent Muslim cops and Charlie workers who were killed as bystanders may not be much of a detterent to terrorists, and there deaths might actually be celebrated by terrorists and sympathizers.

Concurred, it wont take much mental legwork for a dodgy imam supporting the actions of Wednesday to rewrite a dead Moslem policeman doing his lawful duty as a apostate traitor and an enemy of Islam.
I wonder which Allah would favour.

 Orlanth wrote:

From what I can tell from this the uniform was the target, not the beliefs of the man in the uniform. The policeman represented French authority, and so was murdered even after he was incapacitated.

The point I'm trying to get at (another reason why I stay out of politics threads, is I'm not good at saying what I really mean), is that it doesn't necessarily really matter what the killers thought. If you have, say, a young guy, lost in life, in the sort of rubbishey situation described. I think, I'm guessing at least. It's, I don't want to say easy, but not an impossible thought, to think of the 'other' - The better off, the more materially successful, those who share very different beliefs from you into become The Enemy.

But, if someone were to be in a susceptible situation to this forerunners to train of thought but were reminded, say, that, 'The Enemy' isn't actually 'The Enemy' that the bloke who goes to the same mosque as you went your whole childhood. That shares the same beliefs that you grew up with (even though you're starting to stray away from them), that still hold the same beliefs as mum and dad. That they were killed by the same people you were drifting towards. It just might make them think that maybe it's best to go back before it's too late.

I really hope I'm not wrong in this, but, another way of putting it is. I really would like to think that, after all this, the mosque that the killed Police Officer went to, is not going to have any radicalisation problems.

It's not really the 'current' Jihadi's I'm thinking of, but any future ones.

 Orlanth wrote:

I wonder which Allah would favour.

That question is easy for an atheist like me to answer, but I will refrain

 Compel wrote:

I really hope I'm not wrong in this, but, another way of putting it is. I really would like to think that, after all this, the mosque that the killed Police Officer went to, is not going to have any radicalisation problems.

It's not really the 'current' Jihadi's I'm thinking of, but any future ones.

Assuming he was a law abiding Moslem, and it will be firmly in the French government's interest to paint that picture of him, then the message to his local mosque (if he had one) and to mainstream French moslems will be a positive one.
Something along the lines of - this is what a real French moslem stands for.
It will be a good idea to get that message out, to curb fears of Far Right reprisals and to highlight what would be preferably considered mainstream Moslem attitudes in France.

As to how to spin it:

You could also make the point that as he was there as part of police protection for Charlie Hedbo, he didn't refuse that duty. Many moslems (in the UK at least) have been more than vocal about not performinfg duties they are apid to do because of their conflict of faith. It hits the press every now and then.
However Ahmed Merabet, a police officer assigned as civic protection for the Charlie Hedbo offices performed his duty without complaint, and died at his post as a result.

How far can Imams and community leaders go in condemning these attacks and others where perpetrators take an existing precept of the Islamic faith (attacking the prophet demands a harsh response etc). As reason for murder?

Is it possible to condemn the perpetrators and not the verses which they take as their shield?

I






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

You could also make the point that as he was there as part of police protection for Charlie Hedbo, he didn't refuse that duty. Many moslems (in the UK at least) have been more than vocal about not performinfg duties they are apid to do because of their conflict of faith. It hits the press every now and then.
However Ahmed Merabet, a police officer assigned as civic protection for the Charlie Hedbo offices performed his duty without complaint, and died at his post as a result.

I was thinking this. Is it a case of French culture being different to ours in the UK? mainly with regards to how Moslems identify themselves as part of the UK?

 Grey Templar wrote:
demanding that they receive special legal treatment is about as different from Christian Evangelism as you could get.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Lets be reasonable about holiday displays. Nobody else shares our holiday, demanding equal representation on our holiday is just confrontation and intimidation. We don't demand displays in other people's holiday celebrations. If Atheists want their own holiday they're welcome to it, just leave our holidays the alone.

So you agree that Christian groups do, in fact, want special snowflake status after all.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
How far can Imams and community leaders go in condemning these attacks and others where perpetrators take an existing precept of the Islamic faith (attacking the prophet demands a harsh response etc). As reason for murder?

Is it possible to condemn the perpetrators and not the verses which they take as their shield?

It would help immensely if all leaders and imams quit sending a portion of zakat collected to organizations that use it to fund jihad, and all moderate muslims refused to pay zakat until the imams issued a ruling that made the use of zakat for jihad a sin instead of an authorized use of the funds. as it currently stands.

You can't fund major insurgencies and training camps and movements in 20+ countries and growing without a source of income. And yes, there are other sources of income, but billions of dollars are flowing to support these organizations.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
demanding that they receive special legal treatment is about as different from Christian Evangelism as you could get.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Lets be reasonable about holiday displays. Nobody else shares our holiday, demanding equal representation on our holiday is just confrontation and intimidation. We don't demand displays in other people's holiday celebrations. If Atheists want their own holiday they're welcome to it, just leave our holidays the alone.

So you agree that Christian groups do, in fact, want special snowflake status after all.

Asking that atheist bigots don't mess with our religious holiday is hardly demanding special snowflake status.

Every public holiday of the year is an atheist holiday. :p

As an atheist I have no interest in messing with your holidays. In fact I quite enjoy (my family's) Christmas for the family time and get togethers, the fattening Christmas and boxing day meals, the sharing of presents. Oh, and the chocolate at Easter is nice. But then again I'm a closet atheist in a Christian family so I'm not entirely sure what an explicitly atheist Christmas is like.

*

Have a highly placed recognizable Imam issue a Fatwa to stop these type of attacks. Now that be something.
If a Imam can issue a Fatwa prohibiting Muslim from going to space/Mars then its not really far fetch

@Shadow Captain: Atheist Christmas is just like Christmas for everybody else, just minus the religious aspects. Me and my wife put up a tree, have a big meal, exchange gifts, and we take the time to relax and enjoy eachothers company at home.

By the way, I know several other atheists who feel the need to dissemble their beliefs because they're afraid of upsetting their family (assuming that's what you mean by 'closeted atheist'.). I really hope one day something as trivial as a view of the cosmos will no longer drive a wedge between families. I was in your situation for quite a lon*g time until a certain overbearing member of my family passed on. It was rough to regularly hear him basically say I was a piece of pig-spunk for years and years, without him even knowing he was insulting me. One of my life regrets was I never had the balls to shut him the f up and call him out for the bigot he was. I hope you're not dealing with anything quite so bad as I had to.


Actually, I suppose atheist Christmas is really anything you want it to be! If you decide to observe it at all.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Compel wrote:

I really hope I'm not wrong in this, but, another way of putting it is. I really would like to think that, after all this, the mosque that the killed Police Officer went to, is not going to have any radicalisation problems.

It's not really the 'current' Jihadi's I'm thinking of, but any future ones.

Assuming he was a law abiding Moslem, and it will be firmly in the French government's interest to paint that picture of him, then the message to his local mosque (if he had one) and to mainstream French moslems will be a positive one.
Something along the lines of - this is what a real French moslem stands for.
It will be a good idea to get that message out, to curb fears of Far Right reprisals and to highlight what would be preferably considered mainstream Moslem attitudes in France.

As to how to spin it:

You could also make the point that as he was there as part of police protection for Charlie Hedbo, he didn't refuse that duty. Many moslems (in the UK at least) have been more than vocal about not performinfg duties they are apid to do because of their conflict of faith. It hits the press every now and then.
However Ahmed Merabet, a police officer assigned as civic protection for the Charlie Hedbo offices performed his duty without complaint, and died at his post as a result.

The radicals will be able to paint him as a good man who got caught up in the wrong crowd and paid for it with his life. People hear what they want, and think what they want. His mosque will likely continue on as it was (whatever that may be).

Wonder how far France is going to go on "cracking down" extremists, those that left to fight for ISIS, possible deportation, and all that craziness mayhem this is going to create Are LEO going to go in the "NO GO" areas now?

That's one of the logical flaws I've always had a bit of an issue with.

I sorta get that with the Qu'ran at least, the language tends to be very difficult and easy to interpret in many different ways, sometimes the interpretations being the opposite.

And, I can kinda conceptually understand how some of the old testament passages can have the same thing. But generally, I've found, the teachings of Christ part of the bible, tends to be generally agreed on and quite easy to follow. With one of the main ones being, "judge not less ye be judged." How do people like that rationalise this concept? I'm guessing the answer is: "They don't even bother to try and just blithely ignore it."

 Torga_DW wrote:

The radicals will be able to paint him as a good man who got caught up in the wrong crowd and paid for it with his life. People hear what they want, and think what they want. His mosque will likely continue on as it was (whatever that may be).

It's not the (current) radicals I was more talking about. - I'm pretty sure there's pretty darn little that'd convince them otherwise. I was more thinking of any future ones.

 Compel wrote:
With one of the main ones being, "judge not less ye be judged." How do people like that rationalise this concept? I'm guessing the answer is: "They don't even bother to try and just blithely ignore it."

Well, for one, mainstream Christianity already accepts that everyone will be judged, so this is kind of a redundant threat. Also, I imagine if you believe you know the will of God, you feel you are indeed an adequate judge, and if you believe you have Gods favor, you might not be afraid of being judge.


After all, it doesn't say, "Condemn not or you shall be condemned."

 jasper76 wrote:

Well, for one, mainstream Christianity already accepts that everyone will be judged, so this is kind of a redundant threat. Also, I imagine if you believe you know the will of God, you feel you are indeed an adequate judge, and if you believe you have Gods favor, you might not be afraid of being judge.

Oh they know gods will until some asks why he made parasites which make african children go blind. Then god moves in mysterious ways and his plan is ineffable etc.

Pretty sure claiming to be as adequate a judge as god would count as blasphemy, any way.

 whembly wrote:
To my French-dakkanaughts...

Are there seriously 30+ "no go" areas in Paris? As in, the police don't go into by themselves?

o.O

I wonder if this got lost in the shuffle... does any of my European ese / esa know about this?

 Jihadin wrote:
Wonder how far France is going to go on "cracking down" extremists, those that left to fight for ISIS, possible deportation, and all that craziness mayhem this is going to create Are LEO going to go in the "NO GO" areas now?

The problem with home-grown extremists is, where do you deport them to? As they usually are only a citizen of a European state and no other, which country will accept them? That is the difficulty currently facing policy makers, as it has to be proven that they participated in illegal activities, which is quite difficult to prove in a court of law and even if it is proven you cant just deport them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 whembly wrote:
To my French-dakkanaughts...

Are there seriously 30+ "no go" areas in Paris? As in, the police don't go into by themselves?

o.O

I wonder if this got lost in the shuffle... does any of my European ese / esa know about this?

It was answered by a French user on this page:

Litcheur wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Are there seriously 30+ "no go" areas in Paris? As in, the police don't go into by themselves?

Well, only two aeras in Paris intra-muros: 19th and 20th arrondissements. Not really unsafe, but I would still avoid them if I were a tourist.

If you cross the Ring Road (Boulevard Périphérique), you're in the suburbs, in the aera called Île de France.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Ile_de_France.svg/777px-Ile_de_France.svg.png
As you can see on the map, Paris is actually very small compared to the whole urban aera. And very densely populated too: 2x NYC, 3x Tokyo. Without any skyscraper-cheat-code.

That urban aera is pretty large, and you'll find everything, from über-über-rich-cities to small towns of <2k inhabitants, forests, fields, marvels of classical architecture... and ghettos. Those cités were built wherever one could be built, there's no urban logic behind that. You can find very nice (and rich) cities next to very crappy places.

Let's take an exemple: Versailles, beautiful, beautiful city, with the famous Château de Versailles, palace of the Kings of France. 5 miles to the south, you'll find a couple of cute rural cities built on what was once the large Forêt de Rambouillet. Royal hunting grounds. There's a castle too (we've got castles everywhere ). French presidents love to spend their holidays in that one.

Five miles, remember? The city of Trappes lies in between. Don't ever try wander off the main road: you may end in very unpleasant places. How unpleasant? Cops are reluctant to go there. Firefighters too. Too many ambushes. Yup, these people will harm firefighters if given the opportunity. While some of these firefighters do this job for a living, many others are volunteers who do that almost for free because they want to help the community. Both work in mixed teams, and both can fall into an ambush... See, that kind of unpleasant.

I don't know how things work in other countries, but fortunately, french people tend to be quite territorial. Even if they're next to a very rich city full of easy preys tourists, thugs will still stay in their ghetto and try to rob each other. I won't complain about that.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Wonder how far France is going to go on "cracking down" extremists, those that left to fight for ISIS, possible deportation, and all that craziness mayhem this is going to create Are LEO going to go in the "NO GO" areas now?

The problem with home-grown extremists is, where do you deport them to? As they usually are only a citizen of a European state and no other, which country will accept them? That is the difficulty currently facing policy makers, as it has to be proven that they participated in illegal activities, which is quite difficult to prove in a court of law and even if it is proven you cant just deport them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 whembly wrote:
To my French-dakkanaughts...

Are there seriously 30+ "no go" areas in Paris? As in, the police don't go into by themselves?

o.O

I wonder if this got lost in the shuffle... does any of my European ese / esa know about this?

It was answered by a French user on this page:

Litcheur wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Are there seriously 30+ "no go" areas in Paris? As in, the police don't go into by themselves?

Well, only two aeras in Paris intra-muros: 19th and 20th arrondissements. Not really unsafe, but I would still avoid them if I were a tourist.

If you cross the Ring Road (Boulevard Périphérique), you're in the suburbs, in the aera called Île de France.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Ile_de_France.svg/777px-Ile_de_France.svg.png
As you can see on the map, Paris is actually very small compared to the whole urban aera. And very densely populated too: 2x NYC, 3x Tokyo. Without any skyscraper-cheat-code.

That urban aera is pretty large, and you'll find everything, from über-über-rich-cities to small towns of <2k inhabitants, forests, fields, marvels of classical architecture... and ghettos. Those cités were built wherever one could be built, there's no urban logic behind that. You can find very nice (and rich) cities next to very crappy places.

Let's take an exemple: Versailles, beautiful, beautiful city, with the famous Château de Versailles, palace of the Kings of France. 5 miles to the south, you'll find a couple of cute rural cities built on what was once the large Forêt de Rambouillet. Royal hunting grounds. There's a castle too (we've got castles everywhere ). French presidents love to spend their holidays in that one.

Five miles, remember? The city of Trappes lies in between. Don't ever try wander off the main road: you may end in very unpleasant places. How unpleasant? Cops are reluctant to go there. Firefighters too. Too many ambushes. Yup, these people will harm firefighters if given the opportunity. While some of these firefighters do this job for a living, many others are volunteers who do that almost for free because they want to help the community. Both work in mixed teams, and both can fall into an ambush... See, that kind of unpleasant.

I don't know how things work in other countries, but fortunately, french people tend to be quite territorial. Even if they're next to a very rich city full of easy preys tourists, thugs will still stay in their ghetto and try to rob each other. I won't complain about that.

Thanks.... was it always this bad?

Because I stayed in Paris for over two weeks about 11 years ago and visited Versailles / surrounding country sides. Had a fething blast in those towns.

 whembly wrote:

Thanks.... was it always this bad?

Because I stayed in Paris for over two weeks about 11 years ago and visited Versailles / surrounding country sides. Had a fething blast in those towns.

Not always, but tensions increased since 11 years ago with several major riots:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Villiers-le-Bel_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_French_riots
Some of them were major news topics in Europe at the time. Unrest flares up from time to time, of course French users would be in a better position to explain, but socio-economic factors are similar to those in other countries. The rise of right wing, nationalist and anti-immigration parties that also included anti-islam rhetoric that sprung up in European countries did not help either.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
How far can Imams and community leaders go in condemning these attacks and others where perpetrators take an existing precept of the Islamic faith (attacking the prophet demands a harsh response etc). As reason for murder?

Is it possible to condemn the perpetrators and not the verses which they take as their shield?

Because it's easy to condone anything if you take a quote or a verse out of context. Take the ever popular

'Religion is the Opiate of the masses'.

Taken on the face, and robbed of context, it would appear a harsh condemnation of faith. In reality though, Marx wasn't saying that. In context, he's talking about how people turn to faith for the illusion of happiness when lacking it's substance.