|
Keep the discussion ON TOPIC. This thread is for discussing the terror attacks in Paris. |
On November 17 2015 12:44 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 12:19 kwizach wrote:On November 17 2015 11:42 cLutZ wrote:On November 17 2015 11:33 kwizach wrote:On November 17 2015 11:26 cLutZ wrote:On November 17 2015 11:15 farvacola wrote:
If authorities having found multitudes of firearms in ghettos changes your understanding of ghettos, perhaps you need to reconsider your original position. And who are these people who are attempting to paint these places as anything other than poverty stricken, insular breeding grounds for radicalism? Hell, did you watch the Democratic debate? 3 candidates onstage doing exactly that 1 day later, saying these populations are merely misunderstood. Did you watch the Democratic debate? Because that's not at all what was said. Indeed, its where I learned terrorism is caused by global warming, poverty, and systemic racism. And George W. Bush. First, that's irrelevant to your original statement that I was disputing, second you're obviously caricaturing the arguments that were made, and third, like Rebs said, you apparently did learn something. Actually, if you hold any of those views, it is your position that they are misunderstood. They are victims of forces outside their control, etc.
No, it's not. Analyzing factors that contribute to radicalization and increased violence is not the same as saying that terrorists are "misunderstood". That's a completely dishonest misrepresentation of the arguments that were made in the Democratic debate, and you know it.
|
Saying they are factors is not what they did, because those are the factors they mentioned. The primary factor, is the beliefs of the radicalizers (typically a highly educated, Upper-middle-class or upper-class Muslim). I don't deny that those things can make someone more vulnerable to ideas, but focusing on those things is foolish. The problem is the ideology, which, like I said is taught by recruiters such as Osama Bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al-Baghdadi, and others.
You are intentionally asking and answering questions that are essentially irrelevant like, "Why did that Japanese sniper on Iwo Jima choose to fight on that day?" Or "Why did a footsoldier in the Red Army kill his fellow Russians during the revolution?" This, on top of the continuous sidestepping that the goals stated by the above idea-makers is essentially the system of government in majority-Muslim countries not run by a secular dictator.
|
On November 17 2015 13:24 cLutZ wrote:
Saying they are factors is not what they did, because those are the factors they mentioned. The primary factor, is the beliefs of the radicalizers (typically a highly educated, Upper-middle-class or upper-class Muslim)
Where is this coming from ?
|
On November 17 2015 13:24 cLutZ wrote:
Saying they are factors is not what they did, because those are the factors they mentioned. The primary factor, is the beliefs of the radicalizers (typically a highly educated, Upper-middle-class or upper-class Muslim). I don't deny that those things can make someone more vulnerable to ideas, but focusing on those things is foolish. The problem is the ideology, which, like I said is taught by recruiters such as Osama Bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al-Baghdadi, and others.
You are intentionally asking and answering questions that are essentially irrelevant like, "Why did that Japanese sniper on Iwo Jima choose to fight on that day?" Or "Why did a footsoldier in the Red Army kill his fellow Russians during the revolution?" This, on top of the continuous sidestepping that the goals stated by the above idea-makers is essentially the system of government in majority-Muslim countries not run by a secular dictator.
Again, you are deliberately misrepresenting the arguments that were made. Contrary to what you originally claimed, nobody in the Democratic debate said that the terrorists were merely "misunderstood". You made a false assertion. They also did not pretend that ideology was not the main issue.
|
On November 17 2015 07:12 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 04:04 Banaora wrote:On November 17 2015 03:18 oneofthem wrote:
the u.s. never directly trained talibans during the soviet invasion. it was a case of proxy turned rogue, like all the situations in the ME are. the long term consideration is still try to get out of the area for the u.s.
but given the population mobility this is not a choice that the EU can make.
it is also important to not ignore the independent and quite meaningful political and social movements of the 'victim states.' islamicism is not a direct and inevitable product of u.s. or western moves. it has active state and private enterprising individuals leading the movement.
this tendency to treat 'problematic' states and people as infants is just not going to work. there is some reflexive desire to not blame the 'oriental' but this in turn leads to simplification.
the core motivation or drive may be quasi-nationalistic etc and that plays into the logic of regional imbalances, but there is absolutely no credence to the notion that, if only we leave them alone, terrorist acts would not happen. at least not after the whole mvoement has alraedy been started. The U.S. led the Soviet Union into a trap in Afghanistan. They wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan to weaken them significantly. The whole operation was a success from U.S. point of view. That's what Zbigniew Brzezinski said 1998 (Januar) in Nouvel Observateur in an interview. He was security advisor to Jimmy Carter and various other presidents. English translation of the interview in French: http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/Read the interview! There is also some info on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski#AfghanistanThe Taliban developed from the mujahideen. i've read more than that on the subject. i suggest you do the same.
Care to give me pointers? When I make posts in this forum I always provide links to back up what I write. The interview in itself is pretty clear.
@DeepElemBlues:
thanks for your post, yet when you read the interview - it's just a translation on counterpunch, the original was in French magazine Nouvel Observateur and never published in the U.S. - it is clearly stated that what you say is the official version of the U.S. and it's not true.
The operation supporting the mujahideen began half a year before the Soviets started the war. So the U.S. was there first with the help of its close allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. In the end they had about 100k well trained fighters against the Soviets.
It's people who know how to fight and when the war there ended these people were looking for a new job. Many of them became the Taliban. That's why I wrote deleloped into the Taliban.
[Edit]
Original interview in French: http://www.voltairenet.org/article165889.html
University of Arizona page of David N. Gibbs about the interview: http://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/brzezinski_interview
|
On November 17 2015 05:09 Elizar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2015 04:51 RuiBarbO wrote:
So anti-refugee movements in Europe in the U.S. get stronger in the wake of that thing this thread is supposed to be about. My question: is denying entry to all refugees really going to guarantee long-term security, or might it foster increased anti-Western sentiment of the sort from which ISIS draws strength? The second part. It won't guarantee anything. The nations can work security for refugees coming in, but denying all of them is pretty much exactly what ISIS wants. The refugees are fleeing ISIS. While I do wish to completely agree with you, there was one argument that made me thinking: Very often terrorists who act in western countries are recruited from locals. (See the bombings in Paris.) Those are people who hardly have real chances in life, being unemployed or have very little access to education. Normally, these are not the refugees right now that try to reach europe at the moment, but the second or third generations of immigrants. That said, there is the sad truth that closing the borders, as bad as this sounds, might limit these problems as less migrants means less future second or third generation immigrants who might be susceptible to recruition by extremists. I conclude the need for proper integration is now greather than ever. We Europeans need to do that better than in the past.
immigrants do a wonderful job integrating into the wellfare system. not so much with the culture though. maybe one has to do with other? who knows...
|
On November 17 2015 14:10 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 05:09 Elizar wrote:On November 17 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2015 04:51 RuiBarbO wrote:
So anti-refugee movements in Europe in the U.S. get stronger in the wake of that thing this thread is supposed to be about. My question: is denying entry to all refugees really going to guarantee long-term security, or might it foster increased anti-Western sentiment of the sort from which ISIS draws strength? The second part. It won't guarantee anything. The nations can work security for refugees coming in, but denying all of them is pretty much exactly what ISIS wants. The refugees are fleeing ISIS. While I do wish to completely agree with you, there was one argument that made me thinking: Very often terrorists who act in western countries are recruited from locals. (See the bombings in Paris.) Those are people who hardly have real chances in life, being unemployed or have very little access to education. Normally, these are not the refugees right now that try to reach europe at the moment, but the second or third generations of immigrants. That said, there is the sad truth that closing the borders, as bad as this sounds, might limit these problems as less migrants means less future second or third generation immigrants who might be susceptible to recruition by extremists. I conclude the need for proper integration is now greather than ever. We Europeans need to do that better than in the past. immigrants do a wonderful job integrating into the wellfare system.
You mean by contributing more to government finances than they take out? Because that's the reality of immigration in Europe, despite what right-wing myths say.
|
On November 17 2015 13:51 Banaora wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 07:12 oneofthem wrote:On November 17 2015 04:04 Banaora wrote:On November 17 2015 03:18 oneofthem wrote:
the u.s. never directly trained talibans during the soviet invasion. it was a case of proxy turned rogue, like all the situations in the ME are. the long term consideration is still try to get out of the area for the u.s.
but given the population mobility this is not a choice that the EU can make.
it is also important to not ignore the independent and quite meaningful political and social movements of the 'victim states.' islamicism is not a direct and inevitable product of u.s. or western moves. it has active state and private enterprising individuals leading the movement.
this tendency to treat 'problematic' states and people as infants is just not going to work. there is some reflexive desire to not blame the 'oriental' but this in turn leads to simplification.
the core motivation or drive may be quasi-nationalistic etc and that plays into the logic of regional imbalances, but there is absolutely no credence to the notion that, if only we leave them alone, terrorist acts would not happen. at least not after the whole mvoement has alraedy been started. The U.S. led the Soviet Union into a trap in Afghanistan. They wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan to weaken them significantly. The whole operation was a success from U.S. point of view. That's what Zbigniew Brzezinski said 1998 (Januar) in Nouvel Observateur in an interview. He was security advisor to Jimmy Carter and various other presidents. English translation of the interview in French: http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/Read the interview! There is also some info on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski#AfghanistanThe Taliban developed from the mujahideen. i've read more than that on the subject. i suggest you do the same. Care to give me pointers? When I make posts in this forum I always provide links to back up what I write. The interview in itself is pretty clear. @DeepElemBlues: thanks for your post, yet when you read the interview - it's just a trasnslation on counterpunch, the original was in French magazine Nouvel Observateur and never published in the U.S. - it is clearly stated that what you say is the official version of the U.S. and it's not true. The operation supporting the mujahideen began half a year before the Soviets started the war. So the U.S. was there first with the help of its close allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. In the end they had about 100k well trained fighters against the russians. It's people who know how to fight and when the war there ended these people were looking for a new job. Many of them became the Taliban. That's why I wrote deleloped into the Taliban.
Check my response to your post. It has links. Brzezinski watered down that statement later, and others in the Carter administration dispute Brzezinski's depiction of the nature of the aid and the expectation thereof. Plus, the Taliban is not directly descended from the Mujahadeen, it has its own backstory, as I linked to as well.
|
Horrible
|
On November 17 2015 14:30 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 13:51 Banaora wrote:On November 17 2015 07:12 oneofthem wrote:On November 17 2015 04:04 Banaora wrote:On November 17 2015 03:18 oneofthem wrote:
the u.s. never directly trained talibans during the soviet invasion. it was a case of proxy turned rogue, like all the situations in the ME are. the long term consideration is still try to get out of the area for the u.s.
but given the population mobility this is not a choice that the EU can make.
it is also important to not ignore the independent and quite meaningful political and social movements of the 'victim states.' islamicism is not a direct and inevitable product of u.s. or western moves. it has active state and private enterprising individuals leading the movement.
this tendency to treat 'problematic' states and people as infants is just not going to work. there is some reflexive desire to not blame the 'oriental' but this in turn leads to simplification.
the core motivation or drive may be quasi-nationalistic etc and that plays into the logic of regional imbalances, but there is absolutely no credence to the notion that, if only we leave them alone, terrorist acts would not happen. at least not after the whole mvoement has alraedy been started. The U.S. led the Soviet Union into a trap in Afghanistan. They wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan to weaken them significantly. The whole operation was a success from U.S. point of view. That's what Zbigniew Brzezinski said 1998 (Januar) in Nouvel Observateur in an interview. He was security advisor to Jimmy Carter and various other presidents. English translation of the interview in French: http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/Read the interview! There is also some info on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski#AfghanistanThe Taliban developed from the mujahideen. i've read more than that on the subject. i suggest you do the same. Care to give me pointers? When I make posts in this forum I always provide links to back up what I write. The interview in itself is pretty clear. @DeepElemBlues: thanks for your post, yet when you read the interview - it's just a trasnslation on counterpunch, the original was in French magazine Nouvel Observateur and never published in the U.S. - it is clearly stated that what you say is the official version of the U.S. and it's not true. The operation supporting the mujahideen began half a year before the Soviets started the war. So the U.S. was there first with the help of its close allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. In the end they had about 100k well trained fighters against the russians. It's people who know how to fight and when the war there ended these people were looking for a new job. Many of them became the Taliban. That's why I wrote deleloped into the Taliban. Check my response to your post. It has links. Brzezinski watered down that statement later, and others in the Carter administration dispute Brzezinski's depiction of the nature of the aid and the expectation thereof. Plus, the Taliban is not directly descended from the Mujahadeen, it has its own backstory, as I linked to as well.
I've read everything you linked. With watered down you mean the headline probably, yet in the interview itself he clearly stated that the U.S. increased the probability for the Soviets to intervene by supporting the Mujahideen in advance. What should be new to you is that the U.S. started support for the Mujahideen (with the help of its allies) half a year before the Soviets actually started the war and this is not watered down anywhere. It's an operation signed by Jimmy Carter.
I clarified my statement concerning the taliban in my reply to DeepElemBlues.
|
On November 17 2015 13:24 cLutZ wrote:
Saying they are factors is not what they did, because those are the factors they mentioned. The primary factor, is the beliefs of the radicalizers (typically a highly educated, Upper-middle-class or upper-class Muslim). I don't deny that those things can make someone more vulnerable to ideas, but focusing on those things is foolish. The problem is the ideology, which, like I said is taught by recruiters such as Osama Bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al-Baghdadi, and others.
you, like a lot of dumb people, put way to much emphasis on things that are out of our reach.
it doenst matter that the ideology is the biggest driving factor for idiots to blow themself up, because we can not change an ideology that is formed thousands of kilometers away. we cant change it and we cant even influence it, so why should we waste energy on that? the best thing is ignoring it completely and focus on the things we can influence, mainly making our people more resistant to hostile ideologies.
to make an analogy which shows what an absolutely stupid approach you have:
when it snows, more car accidents happen. its harder to drive, people arent as used to it so more people crash and die horribly. the answer to this is not changing the weather, because the weather is out of our hands. what we do is changing the cars, the drivers and the streets to make them better suited for driving in the snow. cars are safer, drivers get taught how to drive in such conditions and the streets are maintained to keep them ice-free.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On November 17 2015 15:34 hfglgg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 13:24 cLutZ wrote:
Saying they are factors is not what they did, because those are the factors they mentioned. The primary factor, is the beliefs of the radicalizers (typically a highly educated, Upper-middle-class or upper-class Muslim). I don't deny that those things can make someone more vulnerable to ideas, but focusing on those things is foolish. The problem is the ideology, which, like I said is taught by recruiters such as Osama Bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al-Baghdadi, and others.
you, like a lot of dumb people, put way to much emphasis on things that are out of our reach. it doenst matter that the ideology is the biggest driving factor for idiots to blow themself up, because we can not change an ideology that is formed thousands of kilometers away. we cant change it and we cant even influence it, so why should we waste energy on that? the best thing is ignoring it completely and focus on the things we can influence, mainly making our people more resistant to hostile ideologies. to make an analogy which shows what an absolutely stupid approach you have: when it snows, more car accidents happen. its harder to drive, people arent as used to it so more people crash and die horribly. the answer to this is not changing the weather, because the weather is out of our hands. what we do is changing the cars, the drivers and the streets to make them better suited for driving in the snow. cars are safer, drivers get taught how to drive in such conditions and the streets are maintained to keep them ice-free.
Terribly analogy since we can actually reduce the amount of snow.
|
On November 17 2015 05:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 05:01 oBlade wrote:On November 17 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2015 04:51 RuiBarbO wrote:
So anti-refugee movements in Europe in the U.S. get stronger in the wake of that thing this thread is supposed to be about. My question: is denying entry to all refugees really going to guarantee long-term security, or might it foster increased anti-Western sentiment of the sort from which ISIS draws strength? denying all of them is pretty much exactly what ISIS wants. Could you elaborate as to what you're basing this on? They are selling the idea that the west is overwhelming against Muslims and wants to destroy them. A rejection of ALL refugees(per the post I responded to) on the simple bases that they MIGHT be terrorists would play into the narrative. And the rejected people feeling the Syria in droves would be a place for them to recruit. Note: This is not an argument that refugee system shouldn’t be looked at and reviewed. I was responding to the idea of rejecting ALL refugees.
I don't know if you're posting from a phone or something, your sentences get a little weird, but anyway Europe isn't even in the region, and has taken/will take in (mostly Germany, and to a lesser extent, Sweden) less than 10% of 4 million refugees who have left Syria. So it's not like if Europe stopped letting in refugees tomorrow, they would go straight to Raqqa for radicalization.
On November 17 2015 05:34 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 05:01 oBlade wrote:On November 17 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2015 04:51 RuiBarbO wrote:
So anti-refugee movements in Europe in the U.S. get stronger in the wake of that thing this thread is supposed to be about. My question: is denying entry to all refugees really going to guarantee long-term security, or might it foster increased anti-Western sentiment of the sort from which ISIS draws strength? denying all of them is pretty much exactly what ISIS wants. Could you elaborate as to what you're basing this on? Terrorists want to split society so they get a larger pool of potential recruits and the willingness to commit attacks increases. The killing is just a means to an end. Abusing the refugee situation for political issues right now plays into their narrative.
It sounds like the claim is that if Europe cut off or decreased the amount of refugees they were taking in, you think this would lead to more extremism than otherwise, and that this is a pro-refugee argument. You're saying "if we stopped letting refugees in, the 'terrorists' have won, so this is actually a positive reason to do the opposite, we should make sure we don't stop letting refugees in, otherwise there will be more violence." It sounds like extortion, and I don't really buy it because it's ascribing ulterior motives you don't have access to.
I don't know that I buy the speculation as to ISIS motives in Paris apart from wanting to kill people, just like all the people they're responsible for killing every week. Of all the people ISIS has killed in the M.E., was about refugees? That's not to say they aren't capable of being cunning. But assuming they care where refugees are going seems unfounded to me right now. What I'm saying is that shouldn't the serious question of refugees (of which the issue of security is only one aspect) just stand on its own? You might be on one side of it or the other, but this attack isn't an excuse to say you know what "ISIS" want so therefore the answer to the refugee problem is the opposite.
|
Blaming terrorist attacks on religion is like getting hit by a car and blaming it on the gasoline used in the gas tank. Blaming religion is the first refuge of the naive and misinformed.
|
On November 17 2015 16:26 seom wrote:
Blaming terrorist attacks on religion is like getting hit by a car and blaming it on the gasoline used in the gas tank. Blaming religion is the first refuge of the naive and misinformed.
Terrible analogy day today. How about a country were all cars are electric and a company decides to import gasoline cars. The gasoline cars crash more often.
Making generalized statements about the intelligence of other people without any arguments is the first refuge of the simple minded who still want to sound smart.
|
On November 17 2015 16:03 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 05:29 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2015 05:01 oBlade wrote:On November 17 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2015 04:51 RuiBarbO wrote:
So anti-refugee movements in Europe in the U.S. get stronger in the wake of that thing this thread is supposed to be about. My question: is denying entry to all refugees really going to guarantee long-term security, or might it foster increased anti-Western sentiment of the sort from which ISIS draws strength? denying all of them is pretty much exactly what ISIS wants. Could you elaborate as to what you're basing this on? They are selling the idea that the west is overwhelming against Muslims and wants to destroy them. A rejection of ALL refugees(per the post I responded to) on the simple bases that they MIGHT be terrorists would play into the narrative. And the rejected people feeling the Syria in droves would be a place for them to recruit. Note: This is not an argument that refugee system shouldn’t be looked at and reviewed. I was responding to the idea of rejecting ALL refugees. I don't know if you're posting from a phone or something, your sentences get a little weird, but anyway Europe isn't even in the region, and has taken/will take in (mostly Germany, and to a lesser extent, Sweden) less than 10% of 4 million refugees who have left Syria. So it's not like if Europe stopped letting in refugees tomorrow, they would go straight to Raqqa for radicalization. Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 05:34 Nyxisto wrote:On November 17 2015 05:01 oBlade wrote:On November 17 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2015 04:51 RuiBarbO wrote:
So anti-refugee movements in Europe in the U.S. get stronger in the wake of that thing this thread is supposed to be about. My question: is denying entry to all refugees really going to guarantee long-term security, or might it foster increased anti-Western sentiment of the sort from which ISIS draws strength? denying all of them is pretty much exactly what ISIS wants. Could you elaborate as to what you're basing this on? Terrorists want to split society so they get a larger pool of potential recruits and the willingness to commit attacks increases. The killing is just a means to an end. Abusing the refugee situation for political issues right now plays into their narrative. It sounds like the claim is that if Europe cut off or decreased the amount of refugees they were taking in, you think this would lead to more extremism than otherwise, and that this is a pro-refugee argument. You're saying "if we stopped letting refugees in, the 'terrorists' have won, so this is actually a positive reason to do the opposite, we should make sure we don't stop letting refugees in, otherwise there will be more violence." It sounds like extortion, and I don't really buy it because it's ascribing ulterior motives you don't have access to. I don't know that I buy the speculation as to ISIS motives in Paris apart from wanting to kill people, just like all the people they're responsible for killing every week. Of all the people ISIS has killed in the M.E., was about refugees? That's not to say they aren't capable of being cunning. But assuming they care where refugees are going seems unfounded to me right now. What I'm saying is that shouldn't the serious question of refugees (of which the issue of security is only one aspect) just stand on its own? You might be on one side of it or the other, but this attack isn't an excuse to say you know what "ISIS" want so therefore the answer to the refugee problem is the opposite.
I'm not entirely sure I see why this argument (as you've formulated it) sounds like extortion. A catch-22, maybe. But extortion? I do agree that it's hard to know the motives of ISIS or even the US government, I mean none of us are sitting in on those secret meetings. But it's worth noting that there's a difference between "ascribing ulterior motives" and trying to figure out what the consequences of any policy decision - intended, anticipated, accidental, or whatever - might be. Maybe ISIS didn't plan it out this way. Regardless, shutting out the refugees might still wind up bolstering their cause by fomenting anti-Western sentiment. It seems like it could be a worthwhile question, then, to ask how a given policy might impact the position of ISIS in the current conflict.
|
On November 17 2015 16:31 Yuljan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 16:26 seom wrote:
Blaming terrorist attacks on religion is like getting hit by a car and blaming it on the gasoline used in the gas tank. Blaming religion is the first refuge of the naive and misinformed. Terrible analogy day today. How about a country were all cars are electric and a company decides to import gasoline cars. The gasoline cars crash more often. Making generalized statements about the intelligence of other people without any arguments is the first refuge of the simple minded who still want to sound smart.
Not that I find his analogy particularly appealing, but your "how about" was pretty terrible to. Maybe it was just the result of trying to be clever with a terrible analogy.
Also some racist undertones there with gas cars crashing more often, not particularly scandalous but you leave yourself open to the accusation from the PC crowd. Especially considering electric cars crash way more if not as much atleast in North America. We just dont call them crashes, we call them malfunctions.
Edit: Unless you were mocking the analogy, in which case, my bad.
|
Thanks for the links and the information guys, it's very useful 
(I'm sorry if I don't quote you one by one)
I'm reading everything and studying, it's of course very complex but from my point of view (and for my state of knowledge / experience) this is not the time to debate but the time to inform myself better..
This said, living in Paris there is a certain tension, as you would expect.
Yesterday I went to the Fnac to buy LOTV and you have to pass a real inspection to get in (open the bag, open the jacket, metal detector, ...) which is understandable. I work at the university and so far the only restrictions we have (in addition to the increased security control after Charlie Hebdo) is that we cannot stay at the office past 18.30
I wonder if we will see (first person) the real consequences of the state of emergency in our daily lives
|
The surviving terrorist has allegedly been spotted around the football stadium in Brussels. As a result, the friendly game between Belgium and Spain has been cancelled and the security services in Belgium are getting a bit nervous.
Bad times
|
On November 17 2015 17:22 Laurens wrote:The surviving terrorist has allegedly been spotted around the football stadium in Brussels. As a result, the friendly game between Belgium and Spain has been cancelled and the security services in Belgium are getting a bit nervous. Bad times
What? A bomb goes off at the Stadium and France vs Germany plays on but a guy who may or may not be a terrorist is spotted and a game gets canceled? Thats fucked up lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
