Paris shooting: Several 'killed and injured after shootout' in French restaurant

a reply to: somnum

There have been several documented cases where US drone attacks aimed at killing the primary took out civilians (usually relatives--sometimes children) knowingly. I agree that the US would prefer not to wage war in this manner, but it still does. There is always... always some amount of collateral damage in war. Yes, terrorists could claim some moral high ground if they only attacked military installations-- but really there is not much of a moral high ground when it comes to war.

a reply to: slip2break
That's why we need to stop with this "eye for an eye" mentality, before we start yet another war to plunge a country into chaos, after which more terrorist will emerge, which in turn justifies more wars and on & on.
Blind hatred started this massacre in the first place, let's not succumb to it.

How to stop terrorist? nobody knows for sure, i think instead of blaming the islam community , the same islam community should rise and deal with their own extremist, in time this extremist will even put their own people to peril, they dont really care about establishing a better religion or country, they just care to be in charge and do whatever they want in the name of "God" because they think their scriptures said so. So the real muslim should fight this type of extreme radical nonsense if they want their religion to survive, if not then they too will suffer letting the tyrans rule them for long time.

Sad day for France . Hopefully they find who did it.

It is OBVIOUS the west is under attack at this point. It was only a matter of time. How long until others realize Islam is not a religion of peace?

originally posted by: AlexDJ
How to stop terrorist? nobody knows for sure, i think instead of blaming the islam community , the same islam community should rise and deal with their own extremist, in time this extremist will even put their own people to peril, they dont really care about establishing a better religion or country, they just care to be in charge and do whatever they want in the name of "God" because they think their scriptures said so. So the real muslim should fight this type of extreme radical nonsense if they want their religion to survive, if not then they too will suffer letting the tyrans rule them for long time.

They never will fight because others fight for them...they will simply fall in line and do as told.

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: Forensick
No they aren't, them and their religion is the problem. Why on earth would you need to remove rights and watch people if there were no issues in a country?

I think you're a bit naive ... so, ponder on this ... if these "muslims" are so dangerous, that we've had to have our rights removed for the past 14 years for this sake. Then why on earth, give them a warm welcome "refugees welcome" and place a big poster all over the place, not to mention the French, Britain, Germany and US, indicating that "integrate with them, or else ...".

And more to the point, why should "my" rights or "your" rights be removed, because "muslims" are bad people.

This smells bad fish, of the worst kind ...

Sorry but I haven't had any rights removed. When I first went to Germany I had to have "papers" incase stopped by the police, I'm 39 years old, don't have to do that for a long time.

What rights have you have eroded in the last 14 years??

Oh and it's not my rights, my border force and police are not allowed to do certain things anymore, they certainly not allowed to do racial profiling, and yet massacres in public only seem to be caused by Muslim young men, with an ever decreasing police form, profiling should be allowed.

I've nothing to hide so I don't mind being stopped and searched if necessary.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s president, has denounced the attacks, calling them a “crime against humanity”, Agence France-Presse reports.

www.theguardian.com...

He's an atheist then I guess? Or just a sinister B-Liar?

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

What? The killing ain't going to end 'til we close down the mad madrassas proper style

It could more accurately be said....

"The killing ain't going to end 'til the West stays out of the Middle East"

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s president, has denounced the attacks, calling them a “crime against humanity”, Agence France-Presse reports.

www.theguardian.com...

He's an atheist then I guess? Or just a sinister B-Liar?

No idea what he is...fact remains that these attacks happen daily. Islam will never peacefully exist with any other "religion".

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
It is OBVIOUS the west is under attack at this point. It was only a matter of time. How long until others realize Islam is not a religion of peace?

Well, let assume you are right ... just for a moment.

Then, the obvious solution to the problem is the following. Pull out all troops in the middle east, and send all muslims in the west back home. Send them money to rebuild their homes, if need be ... but with their oil supplies, they probably don't need our "welfare" checks. If you're worried about the few Christians, and Jews in the area and some other minorities. Then move them here, instead.

Now, IFF you are correct ... then this is the solution. We don't even have to vacation there ... just leave the muslims to their own territory. And we stay here.

Clean and simple.

But ... I wonder ... which side would not agree to this strategy, ours or theirs ...

a reply to: Tyrion79

Breaking the cycle is what us key at this point. Standing up and taking the blow without retaliating in-kind is what changes things. Not sure the west is ready yet to deviate from their normal operating procedure... but one can hope

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
It is OBVIOUS the west is under attack at this point. It was only a matter of time. How long until others realize Islam is not a religion of peace?

Well, let assume you are right ... just for a moment.

Then, the obvious solution to the problem is the following. Pull out all troops in the middle east, and send all muslims in the west back home. Send them money to rebuild their homes, if need be ... but with their oil supplies, they probably don't need our "welfare" checks. If you're worried about the few Christians, and Jews in the area and some other minorities. Then move them here, instead.

Now, IFF you are correct ... then this is the solution. We don't even have to vacation there ... just leave the muslims to their own territory. And we stay here.

Clean and simple.

But ... I wonder ... which side would not agree to this strategy, ours or theirs ...

Apparently they whole heartedly disagree....if they didn't then what reason for the attack?

F#/K em...eat lead I say.

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
It is OBVIOUS the west is under attack at this point. It was only a matter of time. How long until others realize Islam is not a religion of peace?

Well, let assume you are right ... just for a moment.

Then, the obvious solution to the problem is the following. Pull out all troops in the middle east, and send all muslims in the west back home. Send them money to rebuild their homes, if need be ... but with their oil supplies, they probably don't need our "welfare" checks. If you're worried about the few Christians, and Jews in the area and some other minorities. Then move them here, instead.

Now, IFF you are correct ... then this is the solution. We don't even have to vacation there ... just leave the muslims to their own territory. And we stay here.

Clean and simple.

But ... I wonder ... which side would not agree to this strategy, ours or theirs ...

Lets say your idea works out. How long do you think, it will stay that way. Seperate populations I mean. Your idea was implemented in the past, when the Muslims were removed from Spain and eastern Europe. Then what happened? Back to the old ways. In this day and age of travel your idea cannot be implimented on the long run.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
It is OBVIOUS the west is under attack at this point. It was only a matter of time. How long until others realize Islam is not a religion of peace?

Because the west is not under attack.
Humanity, religious or without, is under attack by wars, terrorism and propaganda on a daily basis.
Why single out one religion, if it's clearly a minority who instigate attacks on innocent people?
You are empowering the war machine in favor of the military industrialist complex by spreading fear and hatred by demonizing a group of people, judged by their religion.
Well done and get in line with all the other hate mongerers, who are too ignorant to see past this obvious scheme.

originally posted by: AlexDJ
How to stop terrorist? nobody knows for sure, i think instead of blaming the islam community , the same islam community should rise and deal with their own extremist, in time this extremist will even put their own people to peril, they dont really care about establishing a better religion or country, they just care to be in charge and do whatever they want in the name of "God" because they think their scriptures said so. So the real muslim should fight this type of extreme radical nonsense if they want their religion to survive, if not then they too will suffer letting the tyrans rule them for long time.

Everyone knows how to stop terrorism but the Western world doesn't have the stomach to do it. If the west decided tomorrow to end it and threw out any moral obligations it would be over. They know the places they hide they know everything they need to however civilian casualties would be enormous. Which means that the west would need to get to the point the risk out weighs the moral obligations. At what point that would occur of if it occurs I don't know.

originally posted by: asen_y2k

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
It is OBVIOUS the west is under attack at this point. It was only a matter of time. How long until others realize Islam is not a religion of peace?

Well, let assume you are right ... just for a moment.

Then, the obvious solution to the problem is the following. Pull out all troops in the middle east, and send all muslims in the west back home. Send them money to rebuild their homes, if need be ... but with their oil supplies, they probably don't need our "welfare" checks. If you're worried about the few Christians, and Jews in the area and some other minorities. Then move them here, instead.

Now, IFF you are correct ... then this is the solution. We don't even have to vacation there ... just leave the muslims to their own territory. And we stay here.

Clean and simple.

But ... I wonder ... which side would not agree to this strategy, ours or theirs ...

Lets say your idea works out. How long do you think, it will stay that way. Seperate populations I mean. Your idea was implemented in the past, when the Muslims were removed from Spain and eastern Europe. Then what happened? Back to the old ways. In this day and age of travel your idea cannot be implimented on the long run.

Tell them to get bent. Bugger off and leave this area they are not meant to live in. Go make a settlement of their own and prosper. Truly I don't care, but if you bomb and kill in an area I love....I will hunt you down and end your world.

a reply to: bjarneorn

It is a bit different than that, Russia is the sole supplier of gas to Europe but the gulf states also want a share of the european market.
Hence they want a pipeline from Qatar to Greece, but the oil pipe needs to cross through Syria which poses a problem because Syria does not give permission.
Moreover Syria, Iran and Iraq already had their own plans for the islamic pipeline to Europe.
If one takes this in mind, suddenly the arab spring makes more sense, weaken the shiite countries and eventually wage war against Iran.
Instigated by the gulf states, Turkey and backed by the US because of their deal with the gulf states (weapons and protection in exchange for the petrodollar).
Many muslims cheer at any attack such as last night because of Iraq, Libya or Syria currently.
But somehow they deliberately discard the role of the gulf states and Turkey.
The countries who have created and funded ISIS.
Isn't it convenient to ignite turmoil to topple shiite regimes in order to gain more sunni control of the middle east, and of course the pipeline from Qatar to Europe in order to enter the european market.
The oil prices did not drop for no reason, this is done intentionally by the gulf states in order to protect their share of the market, to expand their share of the market and to fight against the production of shale oil which is simply to expensive to produce when the price of oil is below $50.
This is all intentional, even the arab spring was intentional, hence the fatwas from so called islamic spiritual leaders against Gaddafi and Assad.

originally posted by: asen_y2k
Lets say your idea works out. How long do you think, it will stay that way. Seperate populations I mean. Your idea was implemented in the past, when the Muslims were removed from Spain and eastern Europe. Then what happened? Back to the old ways. In this day and age of travel your idea cannot be implimented on the long run.

The separation worked very well, until Britain and France wanted a piece of their oil ... if I recall correctly.

If all they want, is to be left alone ... then it's their right, it's their territory not ours. We have no right, to butt in.

But, I'm pretty sure that the majority of people in the middle don't want to be "backwater" religious people, living in the desert. So, no it won't work out ... but maybe it's a starting point, the premise to allow indigenous people to live their own way of life in their own territory, isolated. Until such time, they themselves decide different.

a reply to: asen_y2k

Uggggghhh...... the idea that segregation could be a solution to anything. This worked out well for Palestine and Israel, no? In America? At best it buys you a decade, and then hostilities are renewed. To a greater or lesser extent, I'm not sure. I'm betting on the former, as pent up hostilities have a tendency of exploding in a greater way then if there was a warm simmer all along.....