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.

While we're on the subject of "can we finally discuss islamic extremism?", what the hell have we been doing the last two or so years? It's not like the subject has been an obscure one. People disagreeing with Islam itself being the source of the problems is not the same as "not discussing the topic for fear of not being PC".

 Mr. Burning wrote:
I think ISIS are claiming this anyway.

@FWC I'm not sure why Merkel immediately springs to mind when this attack was in France.

I'm just comparing the different reactions of the two. Hollande has at least shown his face.

@ Orlanth

To me that seems like a really dirty way to do things. Very sneaky in a way.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
I think ISIS are claiming this anyway.

@FWC I'm not sure why Merkel immediately springs to mind when this attack was in France.

I'm just comparing the different reactions of the two. Hollande has at least shown his face.

@ Orlanth

To me that seems like a really dirty way to do things. Very sneaky in a way.

It's politics.

We have tactical voting also.

However we cant fine tune it like the French do.

Problem is the Front National doesn't really seem to offer realistic alternatives (and is a beacon to far-right extremists, no matter how "clean" they try to be).

Yet again, I abandoned the very idea of understanding politics long ago, like many of my fellow countrymen that will probably not vote next time.

 LethalShade wrote:
Problem is the Front National doesn't really seem to offer realistic alternatives (and is a beacon to far-right extremists, no matter how "clean" they try to be).

Yet again, I abandoned the very idea of understanding politics long ago, like many of my fellow countrymen that will probably not vote next time.

They make our own NF and BNP supporting rabble look like toddlers in most cases. \From a cursory look mainland European Far Right members and activists are as nasty as they come.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:
Problem is the Front National doesn't really seem to offer realistic alternatives (and is a beacon to far-right extremists, no matter how "clean" they try to be).

Yet again, I abandoned the very idea of understanding politics long ago, like many of my fellow countrymen that will probably not vote next time.

They make our own NF and BNP supporting rabble look like toddlers in most cases. \From a cursory look mainland European Far Right members and activists are as nasty as they come.

This is just more fuel to there engines room though...

 jhe90 wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:
Problem is the Front National doesn't really seem to offer realistic alternatives (and is a beacon to far-right extremists, no matter how "clean" they try to be).

Yet again, I abandoned the very idea of understanding politics long ago, like many of my fellow countrymen that will probably not vote next time.

They make our own NF and BNP supporting rabble look like toddlers in most cases. \From a cursory look mainland European Far Right members and activists are as nasty as they come.

This is just more fuel to there engines room though...

Of course. These attacks are a god send to the far right. 'See, we told you so!' and so on.

@LethalShade Please reconsider voting. Talk to your local MP, Councillors (or equivalent), look up their mandate, views and their voting records, do the same for other parties and their members and try and find someone who shares views and aims with with you. You may not totally be in sync but you can have a conversation.

Good work Religion of peace!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
While we're on the subject of "can we finally discuss islamic extremism?", what the hell have we been doing the last two or so years? It's not like the subject has been an obscure one. People disagreeing with Islam itself being the source of the problems is not the same as "not discussing the topic for fear of not being PC".

At least when I posted it, it was as a joke, in response to a guy immediately posting that kind of stuff the second a mass shooting hit dakka, and then it turned out to probably have nothing at all with Islamic terrorism, which must have been terribly embarrassing for him. I mean, it's not as snappy as posting some variant of "the religion of peace strikes again" over and over again, but give it time, it will get there.

The real joke being the bizarre narrative that somehow we're too afraid of talking about people like ISIL for fear of of being labelled un-PC while we're literally running out of ordnance to drop on them. But why let facts get in the way of feelings, to paraphrase Newt Gingrich?

 Ouze wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
While we're on the subject of "can we finally discuss islamic extremism?", what the hell have we been doing the last two or so years? It's not like the subject has been an obscure one. People disagreeing with Islam itself being the source of the problems is not the same as "not discussing the topic for fear of not being PC".

At least when I posted it, it was as a joke, in response to a guy immediately posting that kind of stuff the second a mass shooting hit dakka, and then it turned out to probably have nothing at all with Islamic terrorism, which must have been terribly embarrassing for him. I mean, it's not as snappy as posting some variant of "the religion of peace strikes again" over and over again, but give it time, it will get there.

The real joke being the bizarre narrative that somehow we're too afraid of talking about people like ISIL for fear of of being labelled un-PC while we're literally running out of ordnance to drop on them. But why let facts get in the way of feelings, to paraphrase Newt Gingrich?

I think if I was wrong more then the once I'd feel embarrassed.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
While we're on the subject of "can we finally discuss islamic extremism?", what the hell have we been doing the last two or so years? It's not like the subject has been an obscure one. People disagreeing with Islam itself being the source of the problems is not the same as "not discussing the topic for fear of not being PC".

At least when I posted it, it was as a joke, in response to a guy immediately posting that kind of stuff the second a mass shooting hit dakka, and then it turned out to probably have nothing at all with Islamic terrorism, which must have been terribly embarrassing for him. I mean, it's not as snappy as posting some variant of "the religion of peace strikes again" over and over again, but give it time, it will get there.

The real joke being the bizarre narrative that somehow we're too afraid of talking about people like ISIL for fear of of being labelled un-PC while we're literally running out of ordnance to drop on them. But why let facts get in the way of feelings, to paraphrase Newt Gingrich?

I think if I was wrong more then the once I'd feel embarrassed.

Speaking of being wrong, how's that apology coming along?

I wouldn't feel embarassed if I were the one who claimed it: there is a great probability that if there is a mass shooting ,it is a member of the religion of peace, nowadays.

Well, it's one thing to speculate that it might be; that's just playing the odds. It's another to start ranting about it before any facts are in like it's an established fact before the blood is dry, that just makes you look like like a ghoulish opportunist, pointing to the still-warm bodies with barely disguised glee.

Ah ah, you are right, in deed^^

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
While we're on the subject of "can we finally discuss islamic extremism?", what the hell have we been doing the last two or so years? It's not like the subject has been an obscure one. People disagreeing with Islam itself being the source of the problems is not the same as "not discussing the topic for fear of not being PC".

At least when I posted it, it was as a joke, in response to a guy immediately posting that kind of stuff the second a mass shooting hit dakka, and then it turned out to probably have nothing at all with Islamic terrorism, which must have been terribly embarrassing for him. I mean, it's not as snappy as posting some variant of "the religion of peace strikes again" over and over again, but give it time, it will get there.

The real joke being the bizarre narrative that somehow we're too afraid of talking about people like ISIL for fear of of being labelled un-PC while we're literally running out of ordnance to drop on them. But why let facts get in the way of feelings, to paraphrase Newt Gingrich?

I think if I was wrong more then the once I'd feel embarrassed.

Speaking of being wrong, how's that apology coming along?

You are correct, I jumped the gun and I do apologize.
One mustn't be too hasty in such things, especially serious matters such as this.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
You are correct, I jumped the gun and I do apologize.

I've certainly been there. If I had a nickel for every time I did that on these forums, I'm sure I could buy a burrito at the very least - I mean a good Pancheros burrito with sour cream, steak, and rice, not a gas station burrito.

On the plus side, I know what I'm getting for lunch now.

 Ouze wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
You are correct, I jumped the gun and I do apologize.

I've certainly been there. If I had a nickel for every time I did that on these forums, I'm sure I could buy a burrito at the very least - I mean a good Pancheros burrito with sour cream, steak, and rice, not a gas station burrito.

On the plus side, I know what I'm getting for lunch now.

We don't have burrito's at gas stations in Canada.
Mexican food is not all that common, least not what I've seen.
Not that I'd touch it anyways, after the magnificent Mexican I had in Dallas, I don't think Canada could ever give me something as good .
That was something I liked about the US, though your money is paper, get with the plastic times man!

France is going to continue to suffer this type of terrorism until they get serious about putting an end to it. Otherwise France looks weak and that weakness will act as a magnet for terrorists.

 Breotan wrote:
France is going to continue to suffer this type of terrorism until they get serious about putting an end to it. Otherwise France looks weak and that weakness will act as a magnet for terrorists.

The thing is, I don't think a single Western country has figured out one good way to "put an end to it". Doing some Trump-style wall-building is borderline impossible in France, and even if they tried to close all the borders, I'd hazard to say thet cat is out of the bag by now when it comes to refugees or radicalizable people inside the country.

 Breotan wrote:
France is going to continue to suffer this type of terrorism until they get serious about putting an end to it. Otherwise France looks weak and that weakness will act as a magnet for terrorists.

But what are they supposed to do? If you seal the borders or even mention screening refugees/immigrants you're a racist.

If you want to kill the perpetrators you are pro genocide.

According to at least one person in OT we should be building them roads schools and houses in their home country and do nothing else. AKA validate terrorism and a legit way to achieve political objectives.

 SickSix wrote:

According to at least one person in OT we should be building them roads schools and houses in their home country and do nothing else.

Realistically that's the only thing that would actually work. The multi trillion dollar war on terror has only made things worse.

 SickSix wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
France is going to continue to suffer this type of terrorism until they get serious about putting an end to it. Otherwise France looks weak and that weakness will act as a magnet for terrorists.

But what are they supposed to do? If you seal the borders or even mention screening refugees/immigrants you're a racist.

If you want to kill the perpetrators you are pro genocide.

According to at least one person in OT we should be building them roads schools and houses in their home country and do nothing else. AKA validate terrorism and a legit way to achieve political objectives.

Pretty sure you're referring to me, and pretty sure that's a gross simplification of what that argument was about.

@ SickSix

Exactly. I wonder if they realise that that idea is almost like a form of jizya.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ SickSix

Exactly. I wonder if they realise that that idea is almost like a form of jizya.

You know what you could do? Ask us instead of talking past us.

 Witzkatz wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
France is going to continue to suffer this type of terrorism until they get serious about putting an end to it. Otherwise France looks weak and that weakness will act as a magnet for terrorists.

The thing is, I don't think a single Western country has figured out one good way to "put an end to it". Doing some Trump-style wall-building is borderline impossible in France, and even if they tried to close all the borders, I'd hazard to say thet cat is out of the bag by now when it comes to refugees or radicalizable people inside the country.

Short of not complaining when the security services want to blanket monitor just about everyone.
The state can also sanction carefully targeted disappearances.

Trouble then is making sure it ends there.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You know what you could do? Ask us instead of talking past us.

Calm yourself down. Replies got posted before I could finish that message.

And good idea. So do you agree with building them things and paying them money in the vain hope they won't attack us for a while?

 Breotan wrote:
France is going to continue to suffer this type of terrorism until they get serious about putting an end to it. Otherwise France looks weak and that weakness will act as a magnet for terrorists.

What does "getting serious" entail? France has certain freedoms enshrined by law, they have freedom of religion, of movement, etc. They've deployed the Foreign Legion all of the world fighting terrorism, their police and intelligence service work towards preventing and punishing attacks. Even if it were possible for France to suddenly and completely clamp down on the borders and exert complete control over travel into and out of the country that still wouldn't solve their problems. France has had widespread rioting by disaffected Muslim youths long before ISIL existed or civil war broke out in Syria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_riots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Villiers-le-Bel_riots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_French_riots

What exactly should the French govt be doing that they aren't already doing? Turning the country into a police state isn't going to fix things.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You know what you could do? Ask us instead of talking past us.

Calm yourself down. Replies got posted before I could finish that message.

And good idea. So do you agree with building them things and paying them money in the vain hope they won't attack us for a while?

I'm going to give you a chance to rephrase that question so that it isn't a blatant leading question. I'm also going to ask you how you'd solve the problem.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/rouen-geiselnehmer-trug-fussfessel-a-1104872.html

One of the attackers was already in the court system for trying to get to Syria twice in 2015. He was wearing one of those electronic tracking foot-bracelet-thingies and was only allowed to leave his house during specific times.

That system certainly doesn't seem to work well for jihadists with nothing to lose, like in this scenario.

Apparently, French police took in a 16-year-old who might be the brother of an internationally pursued criminal, but I'm not getting the exact connection right now.