|
|
On January 12 2015 21:54 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 21:48 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:42 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 21:30 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:22 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:55 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:40 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:22 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:13 Simberto wrote:
Most countries have this principle that the army is not supposed to do police work. It is a very good idea to distinguish those two forces very clearly. The police's job is to keep the peace and uphold the laws against citizens of your own country, while the military forces are supposed to protect you from outside forces. Historically, if you do not have this distinction, you have a lot of problems with military coups and oppression, as the military tends to be a lot less careful when dealing with problems when compared to the police.
Thus, having military personnel do the jobs of the police is very problematic.
And personally, i don't feel save around people with assault rifles. Even if they are there to protect me, that implies that the situation is so unsafe that you need people in body armor and with assault rifles around. But the situation is exactly like that. When criminals are ready to suicide themselves in order to kill more people, the situation is exactly like that. Of course we could just all close our eyes and dull ourselves in a false sense of security but reality isn't forgiving. I also really don't get the 'restrictions' comment. Suppose all our elevators travel at 10 m/s. Then bad incidents happen and people start to say 'we should put a cap at 5 m/s'. How could anyone complain about this restraining our freedom? This is exactly what is happening with the Schengen discussion. You cannot protect yourself against terrorists, no matter how hard you try. You can buy a weapon and ammo faster than security forces notice you're about to do something really bad. The whole Schengen discussion is right-wing politicians wanting to win votes from ignorant voters (which is sadly the majority of voters nowadays). Terrorist attacks in Europe are done by people who have been living here all their lives, by Europeans. Not by outsiders. Altering the Schengen agreements (which will never happen because Germany and most of the Eastern European countries won't allow it) will do nothing to change that. Your behaviour is exactly the kind of thing terrorists want: a population that cowers in fear for the next potential attack, and that will gladly give up their freedoms to have a little more security. The good reaction against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you, that you will not bow downto violence and extortion. Also, people are dozens, if not hundreds of times more likely to die in a car accident than to die in a terrorist attack. Apparently that doesn't stop people from driving their cars everywhere and resisting stricter traffic regulation because speeding and treating the road like a rally track is too damn fun. Firs thing, saying that you can't protect yourself from terrorism is false. You can't prevent it from happening but that's different. It's similar to death (sad analogy, I know): you can't prevent it but does that mean you should not take medicine or visit a doctor? Your second paragraph is self-rebutting. If the majority of people are ignorant voters and as you claim right-wing movements appeal to those voters, why are there not any far right governments in Europe? Also, Schengen applies to people circulating between european countries, so why do you say 'attacks done by people who have been living here all their lives'? That is exactly the point. Third, your reasoning would almost be ok if we were not talking about human lifes. If you were a terrorist, would you rather attack a country where policemen don't even have guns or one where in every square there are 2 soldiers with m16 and bullet-proof? 'Good reactions against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you' that is true but if people die that's not so good. We should continue living our lifes, using metros, planes and busses. More security will not hinder this. I won't even comment the last paragraph since it is an insult to victims both in terrorist attacks and car accidents. If I was the terrorist, I'd attack the square with the two soldiers carrying m16s. If they'd try to hit me, chances are that civilians would get caught in the crossfire and die as well, showing people that apparently even the military can't protect them from terrorists. That would scare the people a lot more than attacking a place guarded by unarmed policemen. The terrorists in France were French people, i.e. French nationals. No amount of amending the Schengen agreements would have stopped them from doing what they did. Anders Breivik was a Norwegian national. Three of the London bombers were British nationals. Terrorism in Europe is a domestic issue. Politicians want to amend the Schengen agreements for economic reasons (i.e. they want to persue more protectionist policies), not for national security reasons. Right wing movements are on the rise everywhere in Europe. France, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Hungary... If you'd keep up with international news you'd know this. Then you'd not be a very smart terrorist. Every attack until now has been organized against unprotected targets. How many planes hijacking have there been after 9/11? Revising Schengen may help in dealing with terrorist groups in Europe - we don't know the links between french, german, italian cells (just to name some). If one is not doing anything illegal, everything will be the same. Maybe they are on the rise because actual governments suck terribly? Oh no, clearly they are all fascists. Please. This moral high grounding by socialist and left movements maybe was working in the '60s: people do not believe it anymore. The offices of Charlie Hebdo were protected by two (armed) police officers. They were both killed without even being able to draw their guns. 9/11 managed to scare US citizens into accepting the patriot act. Despite having arguably the best intelligence services in the world, the US could not prevent two planes from flying into two towers that basically symbolised American economic power, killing thousands of people. US soil is far from unprotected. The same with the London bombings: MI5 is incredibly competent but could not stop domestic terrorists from killing 52 people. In Afghanistan and Iraq, suicide bombers managed to do damage and kill scores of people even in heavily guarded areas. Conventional military methods will never stop terrorists who assume and accept that they are going to die on their mission. After all, they have nothing to lose. I really cannot understand your positions, sorry. They killed 2 guards at Hebdo's offices therefore your solution is removing guards from places at risk? It would work in an uthopia maybe but not in this world. I did not say that it was a solution, I just said that armed forces will not stop people who want to kill others and expect (and want) to die doing so.
yeah but that's like saying having an air-bag in your car is just an alibi solution. it won't help in case you crash with 140km/h
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On January 12 2015 21:56 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 21:54 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 21:48 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:42 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 21:30 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:22 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:55 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:40 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:22 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:13 Simberto wrote:
Most countries have this principle that the army is not supposed to do police work. It is a very good idea to distinguish those two forces very clearly. The police's job is to keep the peace and uphold the laws against citizens of your own country, while the military forces are supposed to protect you from outside forces. Historically, if you do not have this distinction, you have a lot of problems with military coups and oppression, as the military tends to be a lot less careful when dealing with problems when compared to the police.
Thus, having military personnel do the jobs of the police is very problematic.
And personally, i don't feel save around people with assault rifles. Even if they are there to protect me, that implies that the situation is so unsafe that you need people in body armor and with assault rifles around. But the situation is exactly like that. When criminals are ready to suicide themselves in order to kill more people, the situation is exactly like that. Of course we could just all close our eyes and dull ourselves in a false sense of security but reality isn't forgiving. I also really don't get the 'restrictions' comment. Suppose all our elevators travel at 10 m/s. Then bad incidents happen and people start to say 'we should put a cap at 5 m/s'. How could anyone complain about this restraining our freedom? This is exactly what is happening with the Schengen discussion. You cannot protect yourself against terrorists, no matter how hard you try. You can buy a weapon and ammo faster than security forces notice you're about to do something really bad. The whole Schengen discussion is right-wing politicians wanting to win votes from ignorant voters (which is sadly the majority of voters nowadays). Terrorist attacks in Europe are done by people who have been living here all their lives, by Europeans. Not by outsiders. Altering the Schengen agreements (which will never happen because Germany and most of the Eastern European countries won't allow it) will do nothing to change that. Your behaviour is exactly the kind of thing terrorists want: a population that cowers in fear for the next potential attack, and that will gladly give up their freedoms to have a little more security. The good reaction against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you, that you will not bow downto violence and extortion. Also, people are dozens, if not hundreds of times more likely to die in a car accident than to die in a terrorist attack. Apparently that doesn't stop people from driving their cars everywhere and resisting stricter traffic regulation because speeding and treating the road like a rally track is too damn fun. Firs thing, saying that you can't protect yourself from terrorism is false. You can't prevent it from happening but that's different. It's similar to death (sad analogy, I know): you can't prevent it but does that mean you should not take medicine or visit a doctor? Your second paragraph is self-rebutting. If the majority of people are ignorant voters and as you claim right-wing movements appeal to those voters, why are there not any far right governments in Europe? Also, Schengen applies to people circulating between european countries, so why do you say 'attacks done by people who have been living here all their lives'? That is exactly the point. Third, your reasoning would almost be ok if we were not talking about human lifes. If you were a terrorist, would you rather attack a country where policemen don't even have guns or one where in every square there are 2 soldiers with m16 and bullet-proof? 'Good reactions against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you' that is true but if people die that's not so good. We should continue living our lifes, using metros, planes and busses. More security will not hinder this. I won't even comment the last paragraph since it is an insult to victims both in terrorist attacks and car accidents. If I was the terrorist, I'd attack the square with the two soldiers carrying m16s. If they'd try to hit me, chances are that civilians would get caught in the crossfire and die as well, showing people that apparently even the military can't protect them from terrorists. That would scare the people a lot more than attacking a place guarded by unarmed policemen. The terrorists in France were French people, i.e. French nationals. No amount of amending the Schengen agreements would have stopped them from doing what they did. Anders Breivik was a Norwegian national. Three of the London bombers were British nationals. Terrorism in Europe is a domestic issue. Politicians want to amend the Schengen agreements for economic reasons (i.e. they want to persue more protectionist policies), not for national security reasons. Right wing movements are on the rise everywhere in Europe. France, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Hungary... If you'd keep up with international news you'd know this. Then you'd not be a very smart terrorist. Every attack until now has been organized against unprotected targets. How many planes hijacking have there been after 9/11? Revising Schengen may help in dealing with terrorist groups in Europe - we don't know the links between french, german, italian cells (just to name some). If one is not doing anything illegal, everything will be the same. Maybe they are on the rise because actual governments suck terribly? Oh no, clearly they are all fascists. Please. This moral high grounding by socialist and left movements maybe was working in the '60s: people do not believe it anymore. The offices of Charlie Hebdo were protected by two (armed) police officers. They were both killed without even being able to draw their guns. 9/11 managed to scare US citizens into accepting the patriot act. Despite having arguably the best intelligence services in the world, the US could not prevent two planes from flying into two towers that basically symbolised American economic power, killing thousands of people. US soil is far from unprotected. The same with the London bombings: MI5 is incredibly competent but could not stop domestic terrorists from killing 52 people. In Afghanistan and Iraq, suicide bombers managed to do damage and kill scores of people even in heavily guarded areas. Conventional military methods will never stop terrorists who assume and accept that they are going to die on their mission. After all, they have nothing to lose. I really cannot understand your positions, sorry. They killed 2 guards at Hebdo's offices therefore your solution is removing guards from places at risk? It would work in an uthopia maybe but not in this world. I did not say that it was a solution, I just said that armed forces will not stop people who want to kill others and expect (and want) to die doing so. yeah but that's like saying having an air-bag in your car is just an alibi solution. it won't help in case you crash with 140km/h
I don't think it's like saying that at all...
|
On January 12 2015 21:53 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 21:30 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:22 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:55 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:40 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:22 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:13 Simberto wrote:
Most countries have this principle that the army is not supposed to do police work. It is a very good idea to distinguish those two forces very clearly. The police's job is to keep the peace and uphold the laws against citizens of your own country, while the military forces are supposed to protect you from outside forces. Historically, if you do not have this distinction, you have a lot of problems with military coups and oppression, as the military tends to be a lot less careful when dealing with problems when compared to the police.
Thus, having military personnel do the jobs of the police is very problematic.
And personally, i don't feel save around people with assault rifles. Even if they are there to protect me, that implies that the situation is so unsafe that you need people in body armor and with assault rifles around. But the situation is exactly like that. When criminals are ready to suicide themselves in order to kill more people, the situation is exactly like that. Of course we could just all close our eyes and dull ourselves in a false sense of security but reality isn't forgiving. I also really don't get the 'restrictions' comment. Suppose all our elevators travel at 10 m/s. Then bad incidents happen and people start to say 'we should put a cap at 5 m/s'. How could anyone complain about this restraining our freedom? This is exactly what is happening with the Schengen discussion. You cannot protect yourself against terrorists, no matter how hard you try. You can buy a weapon and ammo faster than security forces notice you're about to do something really bad. The whole Schengen discussion is right-wing politicians wanting to win votes from ignorant voters (which is sadly the majority of voters nowadays). Terrorist attacks in Europe are done by people who have been living here all their lives, by Europeans. Not by outsiders. Altering the Schengen agreements (which will never happen because Germany and most of the Eastern European countries won't allow it) will do nothing to change that. Your behaviour is exactly the kind of thing terrorists want: a population that cowers in fear for the next potential attack, and that will gladly give up their freedoms to have a little more security. The good reaction against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you, that you will not bow downto violence and extortion. Also, people are dozens, if not hundreds of times more likely to die in a car accident than to die in a terrorist attack. Apparently that doesn't stop people from driving their cars everywhere and resisting stricter traffic regulation because speeding and treating the road like a rally track is too damn fun. Firs thing, saying that you can't protect yourself from terrorism is false. You can't prevent it from happening but that's different. It's similar to death (sad analogy, I know): you can't prevent it but does that mean you should not take medicine or visit a doctor? Your second paragraph is self-rebutting. If the majority of people are ignorant voters and as you claim right-wing movements appeal to those voters, why are there not any far right governments in Europe? Also, Schengen applies to people circulating between european countries, so why do you say 'attacks done by people who have been living here all their lives'? That is exactly the point. Third, your reasoning would almost be ok if we were not talking about human lifes. If you were a terrorist, would you rather attack a country where policemen don't even have guns or one where in every square there are 2 soldiers with m16 and bullet-proof? 'Good reactions against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you' that is true but if people die that's not so good. We should continue living our lifes, using metros, planes and busses. More security will not hinder this. I won't even comment the last paragraph since it is an insult to victims both in terrorist attacks and car accidents. If I was the terrorist, I'd attack the square with the two soldiers carrying m16s. If they'd try to hit me, chances are that civilians would get caught in the crossfire and die as well, showing people that apparently even the military can't protect them from terrorists. That would scare the people a lot more than attacking a place guarded by unarmed policemen. The terrorists in France were French people, i.e. French nationals. No amount of amending the Schengen agreements would have stopped them from doing what they did. Anders Breivik was a Norwegian national. Three of the London bombers were British nationals. Terrorism in Europe is a domestic issue. Politicians want to amend the Schengen agreements for economic reasons (i.e. they want to persue more protectionist policies), not for national security reasons. Right wing movements are on the rise everywhere in Europe. France, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Hungary... If you'd keep up with international news you'd know this. Then you'd not be a very smart terrorist. Every attack until now has been organized against unprotected targets. How many planes hijacking have there been after 9/11? Revising Schengen may help in dealing with terrorist groups in Europe - we don't know the links between french, german, italian cells (just to name some). If one is not doing anything illegal, everything will be the same. Maybe they are on the rise because actual governments suck terribly? Oh no, clearly they are all fascists. Please. This moral high grounding by socialist and left movements maybe was working in the '60s: people do not believe it anymore. Lines like this always give me the shivers.
yeah. I get the same feeling when I see innocents die and people thinking we're inside 1984
|
On January 12 2015 21:57 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 21:56 Doublemint wrote:On January 12 2015 21:54 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 21:48 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:42 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 21:30 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:22 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:55 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:40 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:22 SoSexy wrote:
[quote]
But the situation is exactly like that. When criminals are ready to suicide themselves in order to kill more people, the situation is exactly like that. Of course we could just all close our eyes and dull ourselves in a false sense of security but reality isn't forgiving.
I also really don't get the 'restrictions' comment. Suppose all our elevators travel at 10 m/s. Then bad incidents happen and people start to say 'we should put a cap at 5 m/s'. How could anyone complain about this restraining our freedom? This is exactly what is happening with the Schengen discussion. You cannot protect yourself against terrorists, no matter how hard you try. You can buy a weapon and ammo faster than security forces notice you're about to do something really bad. The whole Schengen discussion is right-wing politicians wanting to win votes from ignorant voters (which is sadly the majority of voters nowadays). Terrorist attacks in Europe are done by people who have been living here all their lives, by Europeans. Not by outsiders. Altering the Schengen agreements (which will never happen because Germany and most of the Eastern European countries won't allow it) will do nothing to change that. Your behaviour is exactly the kind of thing terrorists want: a population that cowers in fear for the next potential attack, and that will gladly give up their freedoms to have a little more security. The good reaction against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you, that you will not bow downto violence and extortion. Also, people are dozens, if not hundreds of times more likely to die in a car accident than to die in a terrorist attack. Apparently that doesn't stop people from driving their cars everywhere and resisting stricter traffic regulation because speeding and treating the road like a rally track is too damn fun. Firs thing, saying that you can't protect yourself from terrorism is false. You can't prevent it from happening but that's different. It's similar to death (sad analogy, I know): you can't prevent it but does that mean you should not take medicine or visit a doctor? Your second paragraph is self-rebutting. If the majority of people are ignorant voters and as you claim right-wing movements appeal to those voters, why are there not any far right governments in Europe? Also, Schengen applies to people circulating between european countries, so why do you say 'attacks done by people who have been living here all their lives'? That is exactly the point. Third, your reasoning would almost be ok if we were not talking about human lifes. If you were a terrorist, would you rather attack a country where policemen don't even have guns or one where in every square there are 2 soldiers with m16 and bullet-proof? 'Good reactions against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you' that is true but if people die that's not so good. We should continue living our lifes, using metros, planes and busses. More security will not hinder this. I won't even comment the last paragraph since it is an insult to victims both in terrorist attacks and car accidents. If I was the terrorist, I'd attack the square with the two soldiers carrying m16s. If they'd try to hit me, chances are that civilians would get caught in the crossfire and die as well, showing people that apparently even the military can't protect them from terrorists. That would scare the people a lot more than attacking a place guarded by unarmed policemen. The terrorists in France were French people, i.e. French nationals. No amount of amending the Schengen agreements would have stopped them from doing what they did. Anders Breivik was a Norwegian national. Three of the London bombers were British nationals. Terrorism in Europe is a domestic issue. Politicians want to amend the Schengen agreements for economic reasons (i.e. they want to persue more protectionist policies), not for national security reasons. Right wing movements are on the rise everywhere in Europe. France, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Hungary... If you'd keep up with international news you'd know this. Then you'd not be a very smart terrorist. Every attack until now has been organized against unprotected targets. How many planes hijacking have there been after 9/11? Revising Schengen may help in dealing with terrorist groups in Europe - we don't know the links between french, german, italian cells (just to name some). If one is not doing anything illegal, everything will be the same. Maybe they are on the rise because actual governments suck terribly? Oh no, clearly they are all fascists. Please. This moral high grounding by socialist and left movements maybe was working in the '60s: people do not believe it anymore. The offices of Charlie Hebdo were protected by two (armed) police officers. They were both killed without even being able to draw their guns. 9/11 managed to scare US citizens into accepting the patriot act. Despite having arguably the best intelligence services in the world, the US could not prevent two planes from flying into two towers that basically symbolised American economic power, killing thousands of people. US soil is far from unprotected. The same with the London bombings: MI5 is incredibly competent but could not stop domestic terrorists from killing 52 people. In Afghanistan and Iraq, suicide bombers managed to do damage and kill scores of people even in heavily guarded areas. Conventional military methods will never stop terrorists who assume and accept that they are going to die on their mission. After all, they have nothing to lose. I really cannot understand your positions, sorry. They killed 2 guards at Hebdo's offices therefore your solution is removing guards from places at risk? It would work in an uthopia maybe but not in this world. I did not say that it was a solution, I just said that armed forces will not stop people who want to kill others and expect (and want) to die doing so. yeah but that's like saying having an air-bag in your car is just an alibi solution. it won't help in case you crash with 140km/h I don't think it's like saying that at all...
those are highly trained military personal - those terrorists are bloody amateurs in comparison, lone wolves and losers that seek something to live - and paradoxically in this case - die for.
if you show that you mean business they won't try again that quickly.
also it is understandable, people need something to ease the tension, at least for a while until spirits are higher and the insecurity lessened.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On January 12 2015 22:02 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 21:57 marvellosity wrote:On January 12 2015 21:56 Doublemint wrote:On January 12 2015 21:54 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 21:48 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:42 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 21:30 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:22 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:55 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:40 maartendq wrote:
[quote]
You cannot protect yourself against terrorists, no matter how hard you try. You can buy a weapon and ammo faster than security forces notice you're about to do something really bad.
The whole Schengen discussion is right-wing politicians wanting to win votes from ignorant voters (which is sadly the majority of voters nowadays). Terrorist attacks in Europe are done by people who have been living here all their lives, by Europeans. Not by outsiders. Altering the Schengen agreements (which will never happen because Germany and most of the Eastern European countries won't allow it) will do nothing to change that.
Your behaviour is exactly the kind of thing terrorists want: a population that cowers in fear for the next potential attack, and that will gladly give up their freedoms to have a little more security. The good reaction against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you, that you will not bow downto violence and extortion.
Also, people are dozens, if not hundreds of times more likely to die in a car accident than to die in a terrorist attack. Apparently that doesn't stop people from driving their cars everywhere and resisting stricter traffic regulation because speeding and treating the road like a rally track is too damn fun. Firs thing, saying that you can't protect yourself from terrorism is false. You can't prevent it from happening but that's different. It's similar to death (sad analogy, I know): you can't prevent it but does that mean you should not take medicine or visit a doctor? Your second paragraph is self-rebutting. If the majority of people are ignorant voters and as you claim right-wing movements appeal to those voters, why are there not any far right governments in Europe? Also, Schengen applies to people circulating between european countries, so why do you say 'attacks done by people who have been living here all their lives'? That is exactly the point. Third, your reasoning would almost be ok if we were not talking about human lifes. If you were a terrorist, would you rather attack a country where policemen don't even have guns or one where in every square there are 2 soldiers with m16 and bullet-proof? 'Good reactions against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you' that is true but if people die that's not so good. We should continue living our lifes, using metros, planes and busses. More security will not hinder this. I won't even comment the last paragraph since it is an insult to victims both in terrorist attacks and car accidents. If I was the terrorist, I'd attack the square with the two soldiers carrying m16s. If they'd try to hit me, chances are that civilians would get caught in the crossfire and die as well, showing people that apparently even the military can't protect them from terrorists. That would scare the people a lot more than attacking a place guarded by unarmed policemen. The terrorists in France were French people, i.e. French nationals. No amount of amending the Schengen agreements would have stopped them from doing what they did. Anders Breivik was a Norwegian national. Three of the London bombers were British nationals. Terrorism in Europe is a domestic issue. Politicians want to amend the Schengen agreements for economic reasons (i.e. they want to persue more protectionist policies), not for national security reasons. Right wing movements are on the rise everywhere in Europe. France, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Hungary... If you'd keep up with international news you'd know this. Then you'd not be a very smart terrorist. Every attack until now has been organized against unprotected targets. How many planes hijacking have there been after 9/11? Revising Schengen may help in dealing with terrorist groups in Europe - we don't know the links between french, german, italian cells (just to name some). If one is not doing anything illegal, everything will be the same. Maybe they are on the rise because actual governments suck terribly? Oh no, clearly they are all fascists. Please. This moral high grounding by socialist and left movements maybe was working in the '60s: people do not believe it anymore. The offices of Charlie Hebdo were protected by two (armed) police officers. They were both killed without even being able to draw their guns. 9/11 managed to scare US citizens into accepting the patriot act. Despite having arguably the best intelligence services in the world, the US could not prevent two planes from flying into two towers that basically symbolised American economic power, killing thousands of people. US soil is far from unprotected. The same with the London bombings: MI5 is incredibly competent but could not stop domestic terrorists from killing 52 people. In Afghanistan and Iraq, suicide bombers managed to do damage and kill scores of people even in heavily guarded areas. Conventional military methods will never stop terrorists who assume and accept that they are going to die on their mission. After all, they have nothing to lose. I really cannot understand your positions, sorry. They killed 2 guards at Hebdo's offices therefore your solution is removing guards from places at risk? It would work in an uthopia maybe but not in this world. I did not say that it was a solution, I just said that armed forces will not stop people who want to kill others and expect (and want) to die doing so. yeah but that's like saying having an air-bag in your car is just an alibi solution. it won't help in case you crash with 140km/h I don't think it's like saying that at all... those are highly trained military personal - those terrorists are bloody amateurs in comparison, lone wolves and losers that seek something to live - and paradoxically in this case - die for. if you show that you mean business they won't try again that quickly. also it is understandable, people need something to ease the tension, at least for a while until spirits are higher and the insecurity lessened.
like others mentioned, if i'm walking around my town and seeing heavily armed army dudes there, the last thing i feel is eased tensions and higher spirits. The opposite.
|
On January 12 2015 21:47 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 21:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 12 2015 20:56 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seems if people really want to sacrifice freedoms for saving lives we should probably start with tobacco. Smoking tobacco is a spontaneous choice: being killed by a shooter while you're buying grooceries it's not. How about second hand smoke? Well inside it's forbidden and outside you can just move/ask to move few steps away 
Statistically speaking, during the 3 days 20 people were killed by the events (17 victims + 3 terrorists)
550 000 people die each year in France, meaning ~1500 per day. So those 20 were 20/4500 (0,44%).
For those 4500, taking french stats
- 27% died of cancer
- 26% of cardio-vascular problems
...
- 3,1% of domestic accidents
- 2,4% of suicides
- 0,9% of car accidents
Difficult to get figures for second hand smoke (tobacco globally is credited 11%). I'd still ban cars before freezing the country against terrorists.
On a global scale, fighting this kind of terrorism is not death prevention. It's investing in what will make the citizen happier: perceived security versus perceived oppression.
The target is probably the balance that will get our politicians through the next election.
|
On January 12 2015 22:08 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 21:47 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 12 2015 20:56 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seems if people really want to sacrifice freedoms for saving lives we should probably start with tobacco. Smoking tobacco is a spontaneous choice: being killed by a shooter while you're buying grooceries it's not. How about second hand smoke? Well inside it's forbidden and outside you can just move/ask to move few steps away Statistically speaking, during the 3 days 20 people were killed by the events (17 victims + 3 terrorists) 550 000 people die each year in France, meaning ~1500 per day. So those 20 were 20/4500 (0,44%). For those 4500, taking french stats- 27% died of cancer - 26% of cardio-vascular problems ... - 3,1% of domestic accidents - 2,4% of suicides - 0,9% of car accidents Difficult to get figures for second hand smoke (tobacco globally is credited 11%). I'd still ban cars before freezing the country against terrorists. On a global scale, fighting this kind of terrorism is not death prevention. It's investing in what will make the citizen happier: perceived security versus perceived oppression. The target is probably the balance that will get our politicians through the next election.
Do you realize that this is not a numbers game but rather a shock created by something completely extraneous to a society?
|
On January 12 2015 22:11 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 22:08 Oshuy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:47 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 12 2015 20:56 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seems if people really want to sacrifice freedoms for saving lives we should probably start with tobacco. Smoking tobacco is a spontaneous choice: being killed by a shooter while you're buying grooceries it's not. How about second hand smoke? Well inside it's forbidden and outside you can just move/ask to move few steps away Statistically speaking, during the 3 days 20 people were killed by the events (17 victims + 3 terrorists) 550 000 people die each year in France, meaning ~1500 per day. So those 20 were 20/4500 (0,44%). For those 4500, taking french stats- 27% died of cancer - 26% of cardio-vascular problems ... - 3,1% of domestic accidents - 2,4% of suicides - 0,9% of car accidents Difficult to get figures for second hand smoke (tobacco globally is credited 11%). I'd still ban cars before freezing the country against terrorists. On a global scale, fighting this kind of terrorism is not death prevention. It's investing in what will make the citizen happier: perceived security versus perceived oppression. The target is probably the balance that will get our politicians through the next election. Do you realize that this is not a numbers game but rather a shock created by something completely extraneous to a society?
Yes: this is exactly what I meant. Fighting terrorism means tackling psychological issues, more than preventing deaths.
|
On January 12 2015 22:03 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 22:02 Doublemint wrote:On January 12 2015 21:57 marvellosity wrote:On January 12 2015 21:56 Doublemint wrote:On January 12 2015 21:54 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 21:48 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:42 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 21:30 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:22 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:55 SoSexy wrote:
[quote]
Firs thing, saying that you can't protect yourself from terrorism is false. You can't prevent it from happening but that's different. It's similar to death (sad analogy, I know): you can't prevent it but does that mean you should not take medicine or visit a doctor?
Your second paragraph is self-rebutting. If the majority of people are ignorant voters and as you claim right-wing movements appeal to those voters, why are there not any far right governments in Europe? Also, Schengen applies to people circulating between european countries, so why do you say 'attacks done by people who have been living here all their lives'? That is exactly the point.
Third, your reasoning would almost be ok if we were not talking about human lifes. If you were a terrorist, would you rather attack a country where policemen don't even have guns or one where in every square there are 2 soldiers with m16 and bullet-proof? 'Good reactions against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you' that is true but if people die that's not so good. We should continue living our lifes, using metros, planes and busses. More security will not hinder this.
I won't even comment the last paragraph since it is an insult to victims both in terrorist attacks and car accidents. If I was the terrorist, I'd attack the square with the two soldiers carrying m16s. If they'd try to hit me, chances are that civilians would get caught in the crossfire and die as well, showing people that apparently even the military can't protect them from terrorists. That would scare the people a lot more than attacking a place guarded by unarmed policemen. The terrorists in France were French people, i.e. French nationals. No amount of amending the Schengen agreements would have stopped them from doing what they did. Anders Breivik was a Norwegian national. Three of the London bombers were British nationals. Terrorism in Europe is a domestic issue. Politicians want to amend the Schengen agreements for economic reasons (i.e. they want to persue more protectionist policies), not for national security reasons. Right wing movements are on the rise everywhere in Europe. France, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Hungary... If you'd keep up with international news you'd know this. Then you'd not be a very smart terrorist. Every attack until now has been organized against unprotected targets. How many planes hijacking have there been after 9/11? Revising Schengen may help in dealing with terrorist groups in Europe - we don't know the links between french, german, italian cells (just to name some). If one is not doing anything illegal, everything will be the same. Maybe they are on the rise because actual governments suck terribly? Oh no, clearly they are all fascists. Please. This moral high grounding by socialist and left movements maybe was working in the '60s: people do not believe it anymore. The offices of Charlie Hebdo were protected by two (armed) police officers. They were both killed without even being able to draw their guns. 9/11 managed to scare US citizens into accepting the patriot act. Despite having arguably the best intelligence services in the world, the US could not prevent two planes from flying into two towers that basically symbolised American economic power, killing thousands of people. US soil is far from unprotected. The same with the London bombings: MI5 is incredibly competent but could not stop domestic terrorists from killing 52 people. In Afghanistan and Iraq, suicide bombers managed to do damage and kill scores of people even in heavily guarded areas. Conventional military methods will never stop terrorists who assume and accept that they are going to die on their mission. After all, they have nothing to lose. I really cannot understand your positions, sorry. They killed 2 guards at Hebdo's offices therefore your solution is removing guards from places at risk? It would work in an uthopia maybe but not in this world. I did not say that it was a solution, I just said that armed forces will not stop people who want to kill others and expect (and want) to die doing so. yeah but that's like saying having an air-bag in your car is just an alibi solution. it won't help in case you crash with 140km/h I don't think it's like saying that at all... those are highly trained military personal - those terrorists are bloody amateurs in comparison, lone wolves and losers that seek something to live - and paradoxically in this case - die for. if you show that you mean business they won't try again that quickly. also it is understandable, people need something to ease the tension, at least for a while until spirits are higher and the insecurity lessened. like others mentioned, if i'm walking around my town and seeing heavily armed army dudes there, the last thing i feel is eased tensions and higher spirits. The opposite.
Your feelings != everyone else's on that matter. Clearly a shiteload of French people didn't feel it was so concerning.
And GreenHorizon, at this point you're practically just trolling ;p
|
On January 12 2015 22:02 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 21:57 marvellosity wrote:On January 12 2015 21:56 Doublemint wrote:On January 12 2015 21:54 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 21:48 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:42 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 21:30 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:22 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:55 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:40 maartendq wrote:
[quote]
You cannot protect yourself against terrorists, no matter how hard you try. You can buy a weapon and ammo faster than security forces notice you're about to do something really bad.
The whole Schengen discussion is right-wing politicians wanting to win votes from ignorant voters (which is sadly the majority of voters nowadays). Terrorist attacks in Europe are done by people who have been living here all their lives, by Europeans. Not by outsiders. Altering the Schengen agreements (which will never happen because Germany and most of the Eastern European countries won't allow it) will do nothing to change that.
Your behaviour is exactly the kind of thing terrorists want: a population that cowers in fear for the next potential attack, and that will gladly give up their freedoms to have a little more security. The good reaction against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you, that you will not bow downto violence and extortion.
Also, people are dozens, if not hundreds of times more likely to die in a car accident than to die in a terrorist attack. Apparently that doesn't stop people from driving their cars everywhere and resisting stricter traffic regulation because speeding and treating the road like a rally track is too damn fun. Firs thing, saying that you can't protect yourself from terrorism is false. You can't prevent it from happening but that's different. It's similar to death (sad analogy, I know): you can't prevent it but does that mean you should not take medicine or visit a doctor? Your second paragraph is self-rebutting. If the majority of people are ignorant voters and as you claim right-wing movements appeal to those voters, why are there not any far right governments in Europe? Also, Schengen applies to people circulating between european countries, so why do you say 'attacks done by people who have been living here all their lives'? That is exactly the point. Third, your reasoning would almost be ok if we were not talking about human lifes. If you were a terrorist, would you rather attack a country where policemen don't even have guns or one where in every square there are 2 soldiers with m16 and bullet-proof? 'Good reactions against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you' that is true but if people die that's not so good. We should continue living our lifes, using metros, planes and busses. More security will not hinder this. I won't even comment the last paragraph since it is an insult to victims both in terrorist attacks and car accidents. If I was the terrorist, I'd attack the square with the two soldiers carrying m16s. If they'd try to hit me, chances are that civilians would get caught in the crossfire and die as well, showing people that apparently even the military can't protect them from terrorists. That would scare the people a lot more than attacking a place guarded by unarmed policemen. The terrorists in France were French people, i.e. French nationals. No amount of amending the Schengen agreements would have stopped them from doing what they did. Anders Breivik was a Norwegian national. Three of the London bombers were British nationals. Terrorism in Europe is a domestic issue. Politicians want to amend the Schengen agreements for economic reasons (i.e. they want to persue more protectionist policies), not for national security reasons. Right wing movements are on the rise everywhere in Europe. France, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Hungary... If you'd keep up with international news you'd know this. Then you'd not be a very smart terrorist. Every attack until now has been organized against unprotected targets. How many planes hijacking have there been after 9/11? Revising Schengen may help in dealing with terrorist groups in Europe - we don't know the links between french, german, italian cells (just to name some). If one is not doing anything illegal, everything will be the same. Maybe they are on the rise because actual governments suck terribly? Oh no, clearly they are all fascists. Please. This moral high grounding by socialist and left movements maybe was working in the '60s: people do not believe it anymore. The offices of Charlie Hebdo were protected by two (armed) police officers. They were both killed without even being able to draw their guns. 9/11 managed to scare US citizens into accepting the patriot act. Despite having arguably the best intelligence services in the world, the US could not prevent two planes from flying into two towers that basically symbolised American economic power, killing thousands of people. US soil is far from unprotected. The same with the London bombings: MI5 is incredibly competent but could not stop domestic terrorists from killing 52 people. In Afghanistan and Iraq, suicide bombers managed to do damage and kill scores of people even in heavily guarded areas. Conventional military methods will never stop terrorists who assume and accept that they are going to die on their mission. After all, they have nothing to lose. I really cannot understand your positions, sorry. They killed 2 guards at Hebdo's offices therefore your solution is removing guards from places at risk? It would work in an uthopia maybe but not in this world. I did not say that it was a solution, I just said that armed forces will not stop people who want to kill others and expect (and want) to die doing so. yeah but that's like saying having an air-bag in your car is just an alibi solution. it won't help in case you crash with 140km/h I don't think it's like saying that at all... those are highly trained military personal - those terrorists are bloody amateurs in comparison, lone wolves and losers that seek something to live - and paradoxically in this case - die for. if you show that you mean business they won't try again that quickly. also it is understandable, people need something to ease the tension, at least for a while until spirits are higher and the insecurity lessened.
I have mentioned it before: showing that you mean business only works with people who do not want to die after they commited a terrorist attack. To someone who wants and expects to die, i.e. someone with nothing to lose, that won't mean anything. The fact that they have nothing to lose makes is exactly what makes them dangerous. The US experienced that fighting the japanese during WW2, and in Afghanistan and Iraq in the first decade of the 21st century. Suicide bombers don't care if they get shot, they were going to die anyway. The same applied to japanese soldiers going into a 'banzaii'-frenzy, or kamikaze pilots back in WW2.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On January 12 2015 22:17 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 22:03 marvellosity wrote:On January 12 2015 22:02 Doublemint wrote:On January 12 2015 21:57 marvellosity wrote:On January 12 2015 21:56 Doublemint wrote:On January 12 2015 21:54 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 21:48 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:42 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 21:30 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:22 maartendq wrote:
[quote]
If I was the terrorist, I'd attack the square with the two soldiers carrying m16s. If they'd try to hit me, chances are that civilians would get caught in the crossfire and die as well, showing people that apparently even the military can't protect them from terrorists. That would scare the people a lot more than attacking a place guarded by unarmed policemen.
The terrorists in France were French people, i.e. French nationals. No amount of amending the Schengen agreements would have stopped them from doing what they did. Anders Breivik was a Norwegian national. Three of the London bombers were British nationals. Terrorism in Europe is a domestic issue. Politicians want to amend the Schengen agreements for economic reasons (i.e. they want to persue more protectionist policies), not for national security reasons.
Right wing movements are on the rise everywhere in Europe. France, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Hungary... If you'd keep up with international news you'd know this. Then you'd not be a very smart terrorist. Every attack until now has been organized against unprotected targets. How many planes hijacking have there been after 9/11? Revising Schengen may help in dealing with terrorist groups in Europe - we don't know the links between french, german, italian cells (just to name some). If one is not doing anything illegal, everything will be the same. Maybe they are on the rise because actual governments suck terribly? Oh no, clearly they are all fascists. Please. This moral high grounding by socialist and left movements maybe was working in the '60s: people do not believe it anymore. The offices of Charlie Hebdo were protected by two (armed) police officers. They were both killed without even being able to draw their guns. 9/11 managed to scare US citizens into accepting the patriot act. Despite having arguably the best intelligence services in the world, the US could not prevent two planes from flying into two towers that basically symbolised American economic power, killing thousands of people. US soil is far from unprotected. The same with the London bombings: MI5 is incredibly competent but could not stop domestic terrorists from killing 52 people. In Afghanistan and Iraq, suicide bombers managed to do damage and kill scores of people even in heavily guarded areas. Conventional military methods will never stop terrorists who assume and accept that they are going to die on their mission. After all, they have nothing to lose. I really cannot understand your positions, sorry. They killed 2 guards at Hebdo's offices therefore your solution is removing guards from places at risk? It would work in an uthopia maybe but not in this world. I did not say that it was a solution, I just said that armed forces will not stop people who want to kill others and expect (and want) to die doing so. yeah but that's like saying having an air-bag in your car is just an alibi solution. it won't help in case you crash with 140km/h I don't think it's like saying that at all... those are highly trained military personal - those terrorists are bloody amateurs in comparison, lone wolves and losers that seek something to live - and paradoxically in this case - die for. if you show that you mean business they won't try again that quickly. also it is understandable, people need something to ease the tension, at least for a while until spirits are higher and the insecurity lessened. like others mentioned, if i'm walking around my town and seeing heavily armed army dudes there, the last thing i feel is eased tensions and higher spirits. The opposite. Your feelings != everyone else's on that matter. Clearly a shiteload of French people didn't feel it was so concerning. And GreenHorizon, at this point you're practically just trolling ;p
Thanks for pointing out that I am not everyone else.
Clearly plenty of people share my pov, though.
|
On January 12 2015 22:20 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 22:02 Doublemint wrote:On January 12 2015 21:57 marvellosity wrote:On January 12 2015 21:56 Doublemint wrote:On January 12 2015 21:54 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 21:48 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:42 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 21:30 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:22 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:55 SoSexy wrote:
[quote]
Firs thing, saying that you can't protect yourself from terrorism is false. You can't prevent it from happening but that's different. It's similar to death (sad analogy, I know): you can't prevent it but does that mean you should not take medicine or visit a doctor?
Your second paragraph is self-rebutting. If the majority of people are ignorant voters and as you claim right-wing movements appeal to those voters, why are there not any far right governments in Europe? Also, Schengen applies to people circulating between european countries, so why do you say 'attacks done by people who have been living here all their lives'? That is exactly the point.
Third, your reasoning would almost be ok if we were not talking about human lifes. If you were a terrorist, would you rather attack a country where policemen don't even have guns or one where in every square there are 2 soldiers with m16 and bullet-proof? 'Good reactions against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you' that is true but if people die that's not so good. We should continue living our lifes, using metros, planes and busses. More security will not hinder this.
I won't even comment the last paragraph since it is an insult to victims both in terrorist attacks and car accidents. If I was the terrorist, I'd attack the square with the two soldiers carrying m16s. If they'd try to hit me, chances are that civilians would get caught in the crossfire and die as well, showing people that apparently even the military can't protect them from terrorists. That would scare the people a lot more than attacking a place guarded by unarmed policemen. The terrorists in France were French people, i.e. French nationals. No amount of amending the Schengen agreements would have stopped them from doing what they did. Anders Breivik was a Norwegian national. Three of the London bombers were British nationals. Terrorism in Europe is a domestic issue. Politicians want to amend the Schengen agreements for economic reasons (i.e. they want to persue more protectionist policies), not for national security reasons. Right wing movements are on the rise everywhere in Europe. France, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Hungary... If you'd keep up with international news you'd know this. Then you'd not be a very smart terrorist. Every attack until now has been organized against unprotected targets. How many planes hijacking have there been after 9/11? Revising Schengen may help in dealing with terrorist groups in Europe - we don't know the links between french, german, italian cells (just to name some). If one is not doing anything illegal, everything will be the same. Maybe they are on the rise because actual governments suck terribly? Oh no, clearly they are all fascists. Please. This moral high grounding by socialist and left movements maybe was working in the '60s: people do not believe it anymore. The offices of Charlie Hebdo were protected by two (armed) police officers. They were both killed without even being able to draw their guns. 9/11 managed to scare US citizens into accepting the patriot act. Despite having arguably the best intelligence services in the world, the US could not prevent two planes from flying into two towers that basically symbolised American economic power, killing thousands of people. US soil is far from unprotected. The same with the London bombings: MI5 is incredibly competent but could not stop domestic terrorists from killing 52 people. In Afghanistan and Iraq, suicide bombers managed to do damage and kill scores of people even in heavily guarded areas. Conventional military methods will never stop terrorists who assume and accept that they are going to die on their mission. After all, they have nothing to lose. I really cannot understand your positions, sorry. They killed 2 guards at Hebdo's offices therefore your solution is removing guards from places at risk? It would work in an uthopia maybe but not in this world. I did not say that it was a solution, I just said that armed forces will not stop people who want to kill others and expect (and want) to die doing so. yeah but that's like saying having an air-bag in your car is just an alibi solution. it won't help in case you crash with 140km/h I don't think it's like saying that at all... those are highly trained military personal - those terrorists are bloody amateurs in comparison, lone wolves and losers that seek something to live - and paradoxically in this case - die for. if you show that you mean business they won't try again that quickly. also it is understandable, people need something to ease the tension, at least for a while until spirits are higher and the insecurity lessened. I have mentioned it before: showing that you mean business only works with people who do not want to die after they commited a terrorist attack. To someone who wants and expects to die, i.e. someone with nothing to lose, that won't mean anything. The fact that they have nothing to lose makes is exactly what makes them dangerous. The US experienced that fighting the japanese during WW2, and in Afghanistan and Iraq in the first decade of the 21st century. Suicide bombers don't care if they get shot, they were going to die anyway. The same applied to japanese soldiers going into a 'banzaii'-frenzy, or kamikaze pilots back in WW2.
I agree with your general sentiment.
but if you followed the news - those people wanted to flee, and live. there was a hunt. they wanted to leave France/Europe to get celebrated by their fellow shitforbrains.
|
Its not about people dying from cancer/accidents. Its about 17 people murdered in two days by 3 people.
Violent random deaths get to people. Murders per day statistics would be better for comparison, if you live in an area where people are being murdered every day by gangs ect. you would want the army on the streets till those gangs are dismantled.
|
for the french a military presence isn't a big deal, this is pretty common
the main train station i used to pass by when i went to university always had each morning and evening a significant military presence, and this is the same in a lot of public space (way before the recent's day event)
sometimes i also saw a military presence at some big shopping center
|
afaik France also has troops fighting against IS/support nato troops/operations. this makes perfect sense to have military presence from time to time.
not saying it's good or ok or anything, but just understandable.
|
So i left the thread for the week end and followed on other medias.
Are they close to finding the 4th man ? Because the video of that Vincennes fucktwad was published after he died (so they are looking for accomplice that made the video and publish it).
|
On January 12 2015 22:25 zeo wrote:
Its not about people dying from cancer/accidents. Its about 17 people murdered in two days by 3 people.
Violent random deaths get to people. Murders per day statistics would be better for comparison, if you live in an area where people are being murdered every day by gangs ect. you would want the army on the streets till those gangs are dismantled.
Each single death is major for the people involved. Think about a family that loses a close one to cancer after years of disease. Their world is shattered by the event. What makes the 17 people murdered special is that it is lived as a shock by more people thant directly involved. It is a local incident that has a nation-wide impact.
The fact that you compare it to gang killings each day is telling. You take an isolated event and ask "what if every day was like this?". The only place in France where terrorism is a local sport is Corsica, with a few nice spikes (235 terrorist acts in 2006 for example), mostly targetting buildings.
Agreed, there were a few occurences (OAS actions during Algeria war) where terrorists went close to an all out civil war (~100 actions within Paris between january and march 1962). In that case, I gladly welcome military presence. Putting them in place today is just letting the door slightly opened for the kid that has had a nightmare and is afraid to get back to sleep in the dark.
|
On January 12 2015 22:26 Makro wrote:
for the french a military presence isn't a big deal, this is pretty common
the main train station i used to pass by when i went to university always had each morning and evening a significant military presence, and this is the same in a lot of public space (way before the recent's day event)
sometimes i also saw a military presence at some big shopping center
+1, there is quite a bit of military patrolling in all highly frequented area. In Paris, that means train stations and and touristic places such as Champ de Mars or the Eiffel Tower.
Not sure if that was as common a few years ago though, I think their presence is mainly due to the raised levels of the Vigipirate plan since 09/11.
|
On January 12 2015 22:16 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 22:11 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 22:08 Oshuy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:47 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 12 2015 20:56 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seems if people really want to sacrifice freedoms for saving lives we should probably start with tobacco. Smoking tobacco is a spontaneous choice: being killed by a shooter while you're buying grooceries it's not. How about second hand smoke? Well inside it's forbidden and outside you can just move/ask to move few steps away Statistically speaking, during the 3 days 20 people were killed by the events (17 victims + 3 terrorists) 550 000 people die each year in France, meaning ~1500 per day. So those 20 were 20/4500 (0,44%). For those 4500, taking french stats- 27% died of cancer - 26% of cardio-vascular problems ... - 3,1% of domestic accidents - 2,4% of suicides - 0,9% of car accidents Difficult to get figures for second hand smoke (tobacco globally is credited 11%). I'd still ban cars before freezing the country against terrorists. On a global scale, fighting this kind of terrorism is not death prevention. It's investing in what will make the citizen happier: perceived security versus perceived oppression. The target is probably the balance that will get our politicians through the next election. Do you realize that this is not a numbers game but rather a shock created by something completely extraneous to a society? Yes: this is exactly what I meant. Fighting terrorism means tackling psychological issues, more than preventing deaths.
This is what I was getting at.
|
Is it true that the inspector who was in charge for the Charlie Hebdo case commited suicide ?
Its from my country news but then again they are x10 more retarded than Fox news so i cant take it seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
