|
|
On January 13 2015 00:14 SkelA wrote:
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.
No detail in national papers so far. Local papers state:
Second in command at the Limoges police office commited suicide, using his service weapon yesterday evening. 44 years old, single, no children and depressive, he was part of the investigation regarding Charlie Hebdo and had been interrogating the victims' families earlier that day.
(article also notes that 3rd in command suicided in the same station in 2012)
As far as I understand, he was in charge for the local office, not the global inquiry.
|
On January 12 2015 21:30 SoSexy wrote:
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?
Underwear and shoe bombers come to mind as attacks on aircraft. Not hijackings mind you, but still aimed at ostensibly "protected" targets.
|
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.
For the record:
US gets around 45 murders/day.
The top cities in US, New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, all average a little over a murder a day each. Of course for very large cities that's not that surprising.
People don't seem interested in bringing the army in for extra security, even though there are areas within those cities that are rather nasty (areas with annualized murder rates of around 50-100 per 100,000).
I should note that in the US there's a rule somewhere prohibiting using the army for police purposes. (might not apply to the national guard)
|
Imo the march is already a failure. All those french going out to express a sense of a unity, and now some people explain us in the media that 1) we should not sing our national Anthem during the march 2) the 4 jews who died in the shop are not "simple" hostages, not "simple" french, but "jews", which makes it worse.
|
On January 12 2015 21:58 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 21:53 marvellosity 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. 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
This might be the first time I've seen something like this come from a European on these boards. I agree, but I'm an American, so watch out man!
On January 13 2015 02:15 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 21:30 SoSexy wrote:
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?
Underwear and shoe bombers come to mind as attacks on aircraft. Not hijackings mind you, but still aimed at ostensibly "protected" targets.
Yeah but those failed in spectacular fashion, making them the not very smart terrorists. :D
|
"Everything is forgiven", the cover of the next edition of Charlie Hebdo, coming up wednesday and printed up to 3 million copies (compared to 60 000 usually). And translated in 16 languages.
|
On January 13 2015 06:40 WhiteDog wrote:
Imo the march is already a failure. All those french going out to express a sense of a unity, and now some people explain us in the media that 1) we should not sing our national Anthem during the march 2) the 4 jews who died in the shop are not "simple" hostages, not "simple" french, but "jews", which makes it worse.
I dont see how either of these two make the march a failure. the 4 people who died in the shop were victims because they were jewish, and thats pretty terrible. dont get how talking about that is problematic.
and the anthem, well, it is pretty bloody, and you guys_girls can surely express a sense of unity even without some music.
|
On January 13 2015 07:15 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2015 06:40 WhiteDog wrote:
Imo the march is already a failure. All those french going out to express a sense of a unity, and now some people explain us in the media that 1) we should not sing our national Anthem during the march 2) the 4 jews who died in the shop are not "simple" hostages, not "simple" french, but "jews", which makes it worse. I dont see how either of these two make the march a failure. the 4 people who died in the shop were victims because they were jewish, and thats pretty terrible. dont get how talking about that is problematic.and the anthem, well, it is pretty bloody, and you guys_girls can surely express a sense of unity even without some music.
You are effectively creating distinction within the population, between the jews, muslims and christians (even a hierarchy, since some death seems worse than others). We've built ourself through the "laicité" and the republique, our constitution refuse to acknowledge racial, ethnical and cultural differences and see all citizen equally. When politicians talk about the "islamic community" or the "jewish community", they're identifying part of the population specifically, and not through our common identity - as french. It's the exact opposite of the desire of the population, most notably the muslim, who do not exist as a community per say in today's france, and who desire more than anything to live as french, and not to be identified and caracterised as "muslim" or "immigrant".
The marseillaise is not "some music" - it's a celebration of fraternity. The anthem is "bloody" for reasons, but it's also pretty deep (sadly, most people in the world only know about the first few verse). Saying that it is bad to sing it is being both ignorant and stupid.
|
On January 13 2015 07:28 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2015 07:15 Paljas wrote:On January 13 2015 06:40 WhiteDog wrote:
Imo the march is already a failure. All those french going out to express a sense of a unity, and now some people explain us in the media that 1) we should not sing our national Anthem during the march 2) the 4 jews who died in the shop are not "simple" hostages, not "simple" french, but "jews", which makes it worse. I dont see how either of these two make the march a failure. the 4 people who died in the shop were victims because they were jewish, and thats pretty terrible. dont get how talking about that is problematic.and the anthem, well, it is pretty bloody, and you guys_girls can surely express a sense of unity even without some music. You are effectively creating distinction within the population, between the jews, muslims and christians (even a hierarchy, since some death seems worse than others). We've built ourself through the "laicité" and the republique, our constitution refuse to acknowledge racial, ethnical and cultural differences and see all citizen equally.
I think refusing to acknowledge these differences is exactly what creates tensions today. People do not only want to identify with their state but also with their religion, their individual beliefs and so on. Nationality is not the most important part of most people's identity any more and most people I think are not willing to leave all those things behind when they leave their house.
|
On January 13 2015 07:39 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2015 07:28 WhiteDog wrote:On January 13 2015 07:15 Paljas wrote:On January 13 2015 06:40 WhiteDog wrote:
Imo the march is already a failure. All those french going out to express a sense of a unity, and now some people explain us in the media that 1) we should not sing our national Anthem during the march 2) the 4 jews who died in the shop are not "simple" hostages, not "simple" french, but "jews", which makes it worse. I dont see how either of these two make the march a failure. the 4 people who died in the shop were victims because they were jewish, and thats pretty terrible. dont get how talking about that is problematic.and the anthem, well, it is pretty bloody, and you guys_girls can surely express a sense of unity even without some music. You are effectively creating distinction within the population, between the jews, muslims and christians (even a hierarchy, since some death seems worse than others). We've built ourself through the "laicité" and the republique, our constitution refuse to acknowledge racial, ethnical and cultural differences and see all citizen equally. I think refusing to acknowledge these differences is exactly what creates tensions today. People do not only want to identify with their state but also with their religion, their individual beliefs and so on. Nationality is not the most important part of most people's identity any more and most people I think are not willing to leave all those things behind when they leave their house.
That's the exact opposite. Nationality is certainly not the most important part of people's identity, but in the public sphere, it's the only identity that is relevant, because it is the only identity that prevent inequalities. Giving specific right or acknowledgement to specific group always lead to inequalities (and resentment), as those group gain symbolic power from their exposure.
The case of the jewish community in France is exemplary in this regard, as the situation of the CRIF, and the presumed power it has in the political field create resentment from specific groups (dieudonné, alain soral, islamic extremism, etc.) and a desire to micmic that strategy, by creating CRIF-like institutions, like the muslim "community" for exemple. Eventually people who don't feel represented by any of those fragmentary groups will vote the only party who propose a unified vision, which is the national front (and it's already the case).
|
I don't think it's bad that minorities gain disproportional rights from time to time, democracies aren't supposed to be a mob rule after all, and minorities often times are not able to execute their rights the way they should be able to. Forcing people to leave important parts of their identities out of the public space seems like a overly harsh way to ensure the power of the state and ignore social friction. Just because people are not allowed to carry their conflicts into the public sphere doesn't mean that they vanish.
Freedom of speech/expression should not become a tool to push a certain ideology,(like laicism) onto the public while other people can not express themselves in the same way.
|
On January 13 2015 07:53 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think it's bad that minorities gain disproportional rights from time to time, democracies aren't supposed to be a mob rule after all, and minorities often times are not able to execute their rights the way they should be able to. Forcing people to leave important part of their identities out of the public space seems like a overly harsh way to ensure the power of the state and ignore social problems. Just because people are not allowed to carry their conflict into the public sphere doesn't mean that they vanish.
Freedom of speech/expression should not become a tool to push a certain ideology,(like laicism) onto the public while other people can not express themselves in the same way.
Yeah that's not how france built itself that's the problem. We've always been a deeply egalitarianist society from a political perspective, hiding diversity in the intimacy of the private sphere, much more than most society (E. Todd's work on the diversity of familial structure is a good exemple of that, we're really really far from the german society in this regard for exemple). Sure giving specific rights to minority isn't a bad thing in itself, but if the mob disagree and ultimatly decide to burn down mosque and synagogues, you're pretty forced to listen.
I also think you're mistaking yourself about conflict. Creating public unity is a way to resolve conflict, not the opposite.
|
Welp, I still dont understand why that makes the march a failure.
the march did create a great sense of unity, why does it matter so much what some people in the media say.
You are effectively creating distinction within the population, between the jews, muslims and christians (even a hierarchy, since some death seems worse than others)
i am not creating a distiction between the population, the distiction already exists. and that isnt a necessarily bad thing, as long as they(the people) share some common values. also, i am certainly not creating a hierachy. there is a good reason why certain crimes get more attention/harsher punishment than others. the motivation is important too (after all, thats the reason why this act of terror gets so much attention.).
oh well, and i will probably never understand why the common identity needs to be the one as french/german/european/whatever. the common identity as human should be enough
|
On January 13 2015 07:28 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2015 07:15 Paljas wrote:On January 13 2015 06:40 WhiteDog wrote:
Imo the march is already a failure. All those french going out to express a sense of a unity, and now some people explain us in the media that 1) we should not sing our national Anthem during the march 2) the 4 jews who died in the shop are not "simple" hostages, not "simple" french, but "jews", which makes it worse. I dont see how either of these two make the march a failure. the 4 people who died in the shop were victims because they were jewish, and thats pretty terrible. dont get how talking about that is problematic.and the anthem, well, it is pretty bloody, and you guys_girls can surely express a sense of unity even without some music. You are effectively creating distinction within the population, between the jews, muslims and christians (even a hierarchy, since some death seems worse than others). We've built ourself through the "laicité" and the republique, our constitution refuse to acknowledge racial, ethnical and cultural differences and see all citizen equally. When politicians talk about the "islamic community" or the "jewish community", they're identifying part of the population specifically, and not through our common identity - as french. It's the exact opposite of the desire of the population, most notably the muslim, who do not exist as a community per say in today's france, and who desire more than anything to live as french, and not to be identified and caracterised as "muslim" or "immigrant". The marseillaise is not "some music" - it's a celebration of fraternity. The anthem is "bloody" for reasons, but it's also pretty deep (sadly, most people in the world only know about the first few verse). Saying that it is bad to sing it is being both ignorant and stupid.
completely agree
i felt pretty embarassed when hollande and his ministers went for more like an hour in the synagogue of paris and it was broadcasted all over the television, to pay a tribute to the victims
at this point one should wonder why he did not do the same thing at the mosquée de paris because as far as i know some victims were muslim
i think that unity can be achieved only if the general agreement is to feel french before anything else
|
On January 13 2015 07:57 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2015 07:53 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think it's bad that minorities gain disproportional rights from time to time, democracies aren't supposed to be a mob rule after all, and minorities often times are not able to execute their rights the way they should be able to. Forcing people to leave important part of their identities out of the public space seems like a overly harsh way to ensure the power of the state and ignore social problems. Just because people are not allowed to carry their conflict into the public sphere doesn't mean that they vanish.
Freedom of speech/expression should not become a tool to push a certain ideology,(like laicism) onto the public while other people can not express themselves in the same way. Yeah that's not how france built itself that's the problem. We've always been a deeply egalitarianist society from a political perspective, hiding diversity in the intimacy of the private sphere, much more than most society (E. Todd's work on the diversity of familial structure is a good exemple of that, we're really really far from the german society in this regard for exemple). Sure giving specific rights to minority isn't a bad thing in itself, but if the mob disagree and ultimatly decide to burn down mosque and synagogues, you're pretty forced to listen. I also think you're mistaking yourself about conflict. Creating public unity is a way to resolve conflict, not the opposite.
Right, I get that that's your intention, but Nyx is right: ignoring division on an official level while it exists on the ground just causes problems. My own country's race relations form a good case study: some people want to brush the inequality between the races under the rug, and others would like to look at why such disproportionate results are attained by people of different races. The fact that the French government basically keeps no statistics on race/religion is admirable on some idealistic level, but causes serious problems for people in the real world.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On January 13 2015 06:54 Boucot wrote:![[image loading]](http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/308211mahomet.jpg)
Where can I get a copy? I'm from Canada, Montreal. Is there a place I can order online?
EDIT: NM, found out a place of international bookstore, gonna go there first thing in the morning.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 13 2015 08:24 Tien wrote:Where can I get a copy? I'm from Canada, Montreal. Is there a place I can order online?
as far i as i know it will be published in 25 countries and 16 languages, i guess canada is in
more information will come out soon i guess
|
On January 13 2015 08:10 Paljas wrote:
Welp, I still dont understand why that makes the march a failure.
You'll see in a few week / month when the people will have another say in politics. My guess is the FN will win.
Show nested quote +You are effectively creating distinction within the population, between the jews, muslims and christians (even a hierarchy, since some death seems worse than others) i am not creating a distiction between the population, the distiction already exists. and that isnt a necessarily bad thing, as long as they(the people) share some common values. also, i am certainly not creating a hierachy. there is a good reason why certain crimes get more attention/harsher punishment than others. the motivation is important too (after all, thats the reason why this act of terror gets so much attention.). oh well, and i will probably never understand why the common identity needs to be the one as french/german/european/whatever. the common identity as human should be enough
The reality is structured by many things : social class, ethnicity, nation, religion. So there are many differencies, in cultural practice, social and economical situations, from one individual to another. But that does not mean that the society acknowledge and structure social groups around those differencies. There is a bridge from factual distinctions between social groups, and a society that effectively distinguish those social groups. People eventually identify those distinction as part of their common identity only through collective and political action. What makes religion today relevant to the political game in France ? And not social class ?
Also, why is the death of a jew worse than that of a muslim ? What distinguish the death of a jew, an atheist or a muslim ?
We are french german or greek because we've created it that way. There is an history that defined not only national identities, but states, army and police that goes with it. This collective structure then structure our daily actions.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 13 2015 06:40 WhiteDog wrote:
Imo the march is already a failure. All those french going out to express a sense of a unity, and now some people explain us in the media that 1) we should not sing our national Anthem during the march 2) the 4 jews who died in the shop are not "simple" hostages, not "simple" french, but "jews", which makes it worse.
can you expand on point 2 because it does not make much sense
|
On January 13 2015 08:38 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2015 06:40 WhiteDog wrote:
Imo the march is already a failure. All those french going out to express a sense of a unity, and now some people explain us in the media that 1) we should not sing our national Anthem during the march 2) the 4 jews who died in the shop are not "simple" hostages, not "simple" french, but "jews", which makes it worse. can you expand on point 2 because it does not make much sense
That's just the discourse in the media. There is an outrage because some newspapers didn't say that the 4 people who died in the shop were jews (like Liberation). Now some people are insisting on the fact that those people died because they were jew ("not anybody").
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
