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

a reply to: UnBreakable

campaign of terror with thousands of deaths including beheadings, burning and drowning people alive, and shooting children in the head? Shows how clueless you are.

I think your the clueless one, focusing on western soundbytes bought to you by compliant western media. You will note the following is from a Washington based Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility (PRS) -

But these numbers are irrelevant to your mindset - and show that christians have more value for human life


Wednesday 8 April 2015
Unworthy victims: Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990 - See more at:

www.middleeasteye.net...

Landmark research proves that the US-led ‘war on terror’ has killed as many as 2 million people, but this is a fraction of Western responsibility for deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two decades
Last month, the Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility (PRS) released a landmark study concluding that the death toll from 10 years of the “War on Terror” since the 9/11 attacks is at least 1.3 million, and could be as high as 2 million.

The 97-page report by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning doctors’ group is the first to tally up the total number of civilian casualties from US-led counter-terrorism interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The PSR report is authored by an interdisciplinary team of leading public health experts, including Dr. Robert Gould, director of health professional outreach and education at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center, and Professor Tim Takaro of the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University.

Yet it has been almost completely blacked out by the English-language media, despite being the first effort by a world-leading public health organisation to produce a scientifically robust calculation of the number of people killed by the US-UK-led “war on terror”.
- See more at: www.middleeasteye.net...

Denial

According to the figures explored here, total deaths from Western interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan since the 1990s - from direct killings and the longer-term impact of war-imposed deprivation - likely constitute around 4 million (2 million in Iraq from 1991-2003, plus 2 million from the “war on terror”), and could be as high as 6-8 million people when accounting for higher avoidable death estimates in Afghanistan.

Such figures could well be too high, but will never know for sure. US and UK armed forces, as a matter of policy, refuse to keep track of the civilian death toll of military operations - they are an irrelevant inconvenience.
- See more at: www.middleeasteye.net...

a reply to: BrokedownChevy

Are you blind to this?

So a 2007 Youtube is relevant now, showing non-current Iranian thinking...good find /sarcasm

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

It was 8 years ago... Unless you're 15 then that's not a long time.

But you're right. They love us now.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

While reading your reply to UnBreakable about the millions of Muslims killed my thought was -- is all of this violent retribution from IS just tit for tat/an eye for an eye/karmic justice being meted out and it keeps ping-ponging back and forth? Does it all boil down to that? If so, the U.S. is going to be in for it big time while the "leaders" stay protected and cozy in their sheltered lives and homes.

Since the decision makers of the U.S. and these other countries start these wars and apparently (and wrongly) believe they have our approval, it is the citizens who have to bear the repercussions for THEIR actions; what they set in motion. The leaders don't bear it to any great degree, the citizens do.

I hope my comment was clear.

Some how i feel that those 150 00 russian boots will enter Syria very soon. Since NATO now are talking about maning up their game against ISIS.

a reply to: jerico65

It's funny how people still believe this.

Its funny how you are in denial




Winter 2008
Who Joins the Military?: A Look at Race, Class,
and Immigration Status
Amy Lutz
Department of Sociology, Syracuse University

An important predictor to military service in the general population is
family income. Those with lower family income are more likely to join the
military than those with higher family income. Thus the military may indeed be
a career option for those for whom there are few better opportunities. For such
enlistees, military service can open opportunities that would not otherwise be
available. Indeed, research has found that military service often serves as a
positive turning point in the career trajectories of enlistees from disadvantaged
circumstances (Elder 1986, 1987; Sampson and Laub 1996).

a reply to: Indigo5

The USA in Iraq did not make ISIS

a 2 second search would have educated you


www.globalresearch.ca...

Originally published by GR in September 2014

Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region.

The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.

The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side, the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side, Western nations and militant political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.

a reply to: KonigKaos

ISIS should be met with a multi national force so it and it's supporters can be destroyed.

How can the USA fight its own creation? A creation that furthers the instability in the ME that benefits US interests?

a reply to: stargatetravels
Nicely put and true.
While my heart goes out to Paris, let's not forget other tragedies that go by unnoticed.
In the end, war doesn't decide who is right, only who is left.

a reply to: starfoxxx

Has the EU politicians lost their freaking mind?

The Globalist Multicultural Migration Agenda

It’s not clear that the comment made by last week by Peter Sutherland, the UN’s special representative for migration, really counts as a “gaffe,” since Sutherland seems to have no sense that what he said might have been disturbing.

Sutherland was speaking to the British House of Lords, according to a BBC report published last Thursday, and said that the European Union should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states, because “the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.”

He also, according to the Beeb, suggested “the UK government’s immigration policy had no basis in international law.” (Kind of a novel interpretation of the authority of international law over a state’s control of its borders, but that wasn’t the worst of it.)

The report goes on:

Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas.

He told the House of Lords committee migration was a “crucial dynamic for economic growth” in some EU nations “however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states”.

Yes, I bet it is hard to explain to those citizens, especially when the UN rep looks like he’s in cahoots with the EU to multiculturalize Europe. Sutherland’s answer, of course, is that this is purely an economic problem (and where have we heard that before?)

An aging or declining native population in countries like Germany or southern EU states was the “key argument and, I hesitate to use the word because people have attacked it, for the development of multicultural states”, he added.

“It’s impossible to consider that the degree of homogeneity which is implied by the other argument can survive because states have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them. Just as the United Kingdom has demonstrated

I just talked with my buddy who's co-worker girl friend is the american that got killed in Paris last night. She was there only a couple months for a semester.

We just got the news from him about an hour ago.

I can't believe it.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: jerico65

It's funny how people still believe this.

Its funny how you are in denial




Winter 2008
Who Joins the Military?: A Look at Race, Class,
and Immigration Status
Amy Lutz
Department of Sociology, Syracuse University

An important predictor to military service in the general population is
family income. Those with lower family income are more likely to join the
military than those with higher family income. Thus the military may indeed be
a career option for those for whom there are few better opportunities. For such
enlistees, military service can open opportunities that would not otherwise be
available. Indeed, research has found that military service often serves as a
positive turning point in the career trajectories of enlistees from disadvantaged
circumstances (Elder 1986, 1987; Sampson and Laub 1996).

Hmmmm a liberal professor says it's from the poor. There are actual statistics that proves her wrong. One being the average age of enlistment being 29 meaning adults are making decisions to join not teenagers. Second may want to read this. The reason many join is training and education. Want to do computer work join the army. Want to learn how to take care of a nuclear reactor join the army. Want to be a doctor join the army it's a great way to start out on a new career while being payed. And it doesn't hurt they give money for college either.

"the Heritage Foundation found that only 11% of enlisted military recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth, or quintile, of American neighborhoods (as of the 2000 Census), while 25% came from the wealthiest quintile. Heritage reported that "these trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, in which 40% of enrollees come from the wealthiest neighborhoods, a number that has increased substantially over the past four years."

www.freerepublic.com...

a reply to: neo96

Then take a left at the crusades, then a right at the muslims conquests.

Then stop at the birth of Mohammad.

History is enlightening.

Sure is...you obviously didnt look hard enough

www.globalresearch.ca... 8

By 1945, the U.S. urgently needs oil facilities to help supply forces fighting in the Second World War. Meanwhile, security is at the forefront of King Abd al-Aziz’s concerns. President Franklin Roosevelt invites the king to meet him aboard the U.S.S. Quincy, docked in the Suez Canal. The two leaders cement a secret oil-for-security pact: The king guarantees to give the U.S. secure access to Saudi oil and in exchange the U.S. will provide military assistance and training to Saudi Arabia and build the Dhahran military base.

U.S. presidents have been extremely close to the Saudi monarchs ever since.

The Progressive notes:

“The ideology of the Saudi regime is that of ISIS even if the foreign policies differ,” California State University-Stanislaus Professor Asad AbuKhalil tells The Progressive.

***

“Wahhabi Islam [the official ideology of the Saudi monarchy] is fully in sync with ISIS.”

But instead of isolating the Saudi regime from the global mainstream, President Obama paid a visit there earlier this year, meeting with King Abdullah. He reportedly did not discuss the regime’s dubious conduct.

“I can’t think of a more pernicious actor in the region,” British-Pakistani author Mohsin Hamid told me in an interview last year. “The House of Saud has exported this very pernicious form of militant Islam under U.S. watch

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: neo96

Then take a left at the crusades, then a right at the muslims conquests.

Then stop at the birth of Mohammad.

History is enlightening.

Sure is...you obviously didnt look hard enough

www.globalresearch.ca... 8

By 1945, the U.S. urgently needs oil facilities to help supply forces fighting in the Second World War. Meanwhile, security is at the forefront of King Abd al-Aziz’s concerns. President Franklin Roosevelt invites the king to meet him aboard the U.S.S. Quincy, docked in the Suez Canal. The two leaders cement a secret oil-for-security pact: The king guarantees to give the U.S. secure access to Saudi oil and in exchange the U.S. will provide military assistance and training to Saudi Arabia and build the Dhahran military base.

U.S. presidents have been extremely close to the Saudi monarchs ever since.

The Progressive notes:

“The ideology of the Saudi regime is that of ISIS even if the foreign policies differ,” California State University-Stanislaus Professor Asad AbuKhalil tells The Progressive.

***

“Wahhabi Islam [the official ideology of the Saudi monarchy] is fully in sync with ISIS.”

But instead of isolating the Saudi regime from the global mainstream, President Obama paid a visit there earlier this year, meeting with King Abdullah. He reportedly did not discuss the regime’s dubious conduct.

“I can’t think of a more pernicious actor in the region,” British-Pakistani author Mohsin Hamid told me in an interview last year. “The House of Saud has exported this very pernicious form of militant Islam under U.S. watch

Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black being as Pakistan is another that funds terrorism.

One thing that I have concluded is "it is the US/Western foreign policies that have stirred the hornet's nest in the ME and Islamic world".

On the other hand, the Green buggers do not know anything other than terrorism in order to respond. They will not change their societies, medieval ways of living, corrupt socialist daily practices. Because of these, the glorious Arab Springs in ME have failed miserably.

About time, US/West stops meddling in the ME nations trying to change regimes.

Once this change in foreign policy occurs on the western side, most likely the terrorism from the other sides will also diminish.

US should also abandon its long lasting obsession against Russia. Communism has be shelved for good in Russia.

If US does not bring about these two major changes in its policies, it will prove to be extremely costly to its best interests. US risks getting isolated and shunned by its own best of the friends like UK, France and others in the EU.

a reply to: dollukka




Culture is nothing but a "word" to describe a newer generation than the last. When you said the above,

Culture is also the tool which is used to recruit terrorists

the question is WHO are recruiting these terrorists. Whomever it is has at least a Billion dollars to freely give to ISIS.I don't know anyone in my part of this culture who has that much disposable money. Who could possibly have that much money to fund ISIS with tons of weapons and Nissan trucks?

a reply to: beansidhe

I hope they get back to normal as soon as possible, because it sends a clear message to the terrorists that they won't let them win. People aren't scared of them.
They want us to be afraid, to change our way of life

But they are winning...the West said the same thing during 9/11 "they will not change our way of life"

What they meant by that is that "we Western Govts will do that to you"

Since 9/11 our western democracies and way of life have changed; Patriot Acts, Renditions, NSA snooping, Western Corporations being unaccountable, uncontrolled defense spending

a reply to: neo96

Freeze the assets of Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and other arab states.

Stop their drug trafficking. Stop the sex trafficking.

Sanction the lot of them.

Money makes the world go round, and it's what paid for them 'ak's' and explosives.

And they get that money from oil,drugs, and sex slaves.

Aint gonna happen...ever wonder why Drug production increased in Afghanistan under the Wests intervention?

Ever wonder why US banknotes haven't been replaced with Polymer + holographic to stop counterfeiting?

Ever wonder why the Western banks that act as intermediaries for money laundering are hardly bought to account?

a reply to: tweetie

The leaders don't bear it to any great degree, the citizens do.

I hope my comment was clear

Very clear