Many Dead In Paris Tonight

[HenryNisental]

To ejcot: if you do not what I am talking about, please do not make such comments. You should read the book MORE GUNS;LESS CRIME from John Lott.
Since liberalizing CCW in the US, violent crime has been reduced by 50% or more.
Today there are more than 12 million Americans with CCW licences in the 50 States.
Basically, one of every 20 adults in the USA packs heat.If you read Spanish, I will send a free copy of my own book in the subject: LA PORTACION OCULTA

 

[GMXam]

Beirut had a terrorist attack on Thursday, too. I'm glad you could reach your family and that they are fine, Nikad. So sorry for those who have friends/loved ones affected, injured, or killed in either attack.

A very sad day in France. Keep in mind that this can happen anywhere. I have French cousins living in Paris, I managed to get a hold of them and they were fine. Europe seems to be a time bomb

 

[Gringoboy]

What's CCW by the way?
And what exactly has this remotely got to do with the horror of last night in Paris.
Going off topic and ranting about that dead horse 'US gun control' has absolutely nothing to do with this horror.

 

[camberiu]

CCW - Carrying a Concealed Weapon

 

[camberiu]

And the great winner of the tragedy in Paris is......

MARINE LE PEN TOPS ANOTHER FRENCH PRESIDENCY POLL

 

[EJLarson]

It would be very wrong for the French, or anyone else, to get too far ahead of themselves on this.

FIRST: find out who did it and what their affiliations were. The picture is totally different if it turns out that these terrorists, thankfully now dead, were infiltrated as refugees and then directed on this mission, OR, as a poster suggested, native-born radicalized French Muslims (unfortunately there's little doubt that they were Muslims, given ISIS' claim of responsibility).

We know that either scenario is possible, but the response to this outrage should be directed at its specific roots.

 

[camberiu]

FIRST: find out who did it and what their affiliations were.
(...)
We know that either scenario is possible, but the response to this outrage should be directed at its specific roots.

To answer that question is to kill the golden goose of most Western military contractors, French included. To answer that question is to admit that the 1990 Gulf war, which the French gladly joined, and every military action in the region since then has been nothing but a massive racket.

Saudi Arabia has been funding Jihadists since the 1970s. ISIS is funded by Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is aggressively funding the build up of Wahhabist mosques worldwide. Saudi Arabia is one of the largest consumers of Western military hardware in the world. This summer, the French government closed an entire public beach so that the visiting Saudi king could enjoy it in private. The 1990 Gulf war was fought primarily to protect the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. All of this is public knowledge. We simply chose to ignore it. Because to admit it is to admit that our leaders are bought and paid for. it is to admit that we are idiots who fall behind any stupid war as long as someone claims that it is in the name of "freedom", when the war is in reality to protect the interest of a theocratic and absolutist monarchy. So we don't do it. 

 

[thorsten]

FIRST: find out who did it and what their affiliations were. The picture is totally different if it turns out that these terrorists, thankfully now dead, were infiltrated as refugees and then directed on this mission, OR, as a poster suggested, native-born radicalized French Muslims (unfortunately there's little doubt that they were Muslims, given ISIS' claim of responsibility).

How would it be different?

 

[Gringoboy]

It would be very wrong for the French, or anyone else, to get too far ahead of themselves on this.

FIRST: find out who did it and what their affiliations were. The picture is totally different if it turns out that these terrorists, thankfully now dead, were infiltrated as refugees and then directed on this mission, OR, as a poster suggested, native-born radicalized French Muslims (unfortunately there's little doubt that they were Muslims, given ISIS' claim of responsibility).

We know that either scenario is possible, but the response to this outrage should be directed at its specific roots.

Well now we know who did it, as IS has claimed responsibility, as if we didn't suspect them in the first place. The picture will not be totally different at all, whether they are home grown, refugee infiltrators or sent by IS 'command' on this Jihad. The result is the same and the reaction should be the same.
The fact that they may or may not be Muslims is not the issue either. It's the fact that they are prepared to die and kill for their beliefs, whatever religion they attach themselves to.
It just so happens that IS is hell bent on returning Western civilisation (and any other nonconforming culture they come across) to the stone age and they are are a formidable force to deal with.

 

[EJLarson]

How would it be different?

If you're the French, your resources aren't unlimited. In either case, external infiltration or home-grown terrorism, they'll have to set priorities for those resources. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to beef up border security (which they'll probably do anyway) at the expense of investigating local mosque activities if they find that the terrorists are French.

I'm just commenting on likely tactics after the fact for this incident. Camberiu takes the longer historical and political view.