At Least 120 Dead in Paris Attacks

The Times notes that " Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who had been scheduled to visit France this weekend, had issued no comment at the time of publication." (4 hours after the attack)
 
So I just read that Hollande stated France will "lead the fight and it will be merciless" in his address to the French people. Can any French posters here tell me what they think this means? Will France actually be going to war over this? Will we just see airstrikes and maybe some commando action against ISIS, or would we see large scale military operations maybe even reaching the point of all-out invasion of ISIS territory?
 
TV just quoted Paris Police that all 4 attackers are killed near Bataclan and no one is at large now. How can it be possible? Only 4 people pulled 7 nearly simultaneous attacks?


Did they mean that "all 4 attackers" committed all the attacks or that "all 4 attackers responsible for the attack at Bataclan were dead"? (and the attackers for the other sites are still lose).
 
I was just talking to my colleagues earlier about how huge, coordinated terrorist attacks are no longer possible due to better intelligence. Then I read about how 160 people are dead in many locations. Who screwed up and missed any sign of coordination of these attacks?
 
Why is it whenever someone says "I [really] x, but y..." the y always ends up rendering the x completely disingenuous?

Oh, yes. It only seems that way because you don't agree with people and their point of view at such times. In this particular case, if you valued your own countrymen more than any number of foreigners, you would not take issue with the statement, but as it were, you would rather condemn your own country (and others) to endless terror attacks for the sake of being an ineffective humanitarian.

Glad I could help.
 
So I just read that Hollande stated France will "lead the fight and it will be merciless" in his address to the French people. Can any French posters here tell me what they think this means? Will France actually be going to war over this? Will we just see airstrikes and maybe some commando action against ISIS, or would we see large scale military operations maybe even reaching the point of all-out invasion of ISIS territory?

I'm not sure the rational response to terrorist attacks in Paris would be to condemn thousands, or even tens of thousands, of French soldiers to death in the sands of the Middle East, especially since it will likely produce little or no result.
 
While I respect your good intentions, I can't help but point out the fact that if you choose to continue accepting of masses of Muslims into western countries, events such as these will certainly result from it. Sometimes, there is no good answer to a problem. There is just the one that is the least unappealing. As I said before, I sympathize with the plight of refugees, but I would not trade 158 Frenchmen or any westerners for the lot of them.
Why is this fatuous rubbish allowed in the thread but I'm not allowed to talk about the actual history of the Iraq invasion that led to chaos, strongerxand emboldened radical Islsmists, ISIS, and radicalised blowback in the West?

Moderator Action: Please don't engage in PDMA or trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
I was just talking to my colleagues earlier about how huge, coordinated terrorist attacks are no longer possible due to better intelligence. Then I read about how 160 people are dead in many locations. Who screwed up and missed any sign of coordination of these attacks?

Our governments and judicial systems have decided that it's more important to safeguard their boring internet and phone conversations than prevent such attacks. In many cases, the intelligence that we used to rely on to protect us from such things is no longer available.
 
An awful and inhuman attack. MSNBC is reporting that 7 of the 8 terrorists that are accounted for dead, 7 died via suicide bombing and one other killed by authorities. I am praying for the families of all those involved
 
This is nonsense. Islamic extremism wasn't born out of nowhere. The seeds for an extremists and violent understanding of Islam were planted only in the last what 60 or something years. If what you are saying is true then it makes no sense that Islam ever thrived as a culture for the other odd 1300 years or so, since I'd guess according to you they don't do anything but think about murdering infidels.

Does this attack even have anything to do with all the refugees that have been coming into Europe? Other than it's consequences for them I suppose..
Indonesia is the only major Muslim country where Islam arrived largely by trade rather than sword. Killing subjugated infiedels is haram, religious tax on gyaurs is a better alternative, again proscribed by scripture, and not by statesmen.
 
So I just read that Hollande stated France will "lead the fight and it will be merciless" in his address to the French people. Can any French posters here tell me what they think this means? Will France actually be going to war over this? Will we just see airstrikes and maybe some commando action against ISIS, or would we see large scale military operations maybe even reaching the point of all-out invasion of ISIS territory?

I'm not a French poster, but I'm pretty sure France has been at "war" with radical terrorists since January 10th.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/world/europe/paris-terrorist-attacks.html
PARIS — Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared Saturday that France was at war with radical Islam after the harrowing sieges that led to the deaths of three gunmen and four hostages the day before. New details emerged about the bloody final confrontations, and security forces remained on high alert.

“It is a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam, against everything that is aimed at breaking fraternity, freedom, solidarity,” Mr. Valls said during a speech in Évry, south of Paris.

I would expect more of whatever has happened since then.
 
So I just read that Hollande stated France will "lead the fight and it will be merciless" in his address to the French people. Can any French posters here tell me what they think this means? Will France actually be going to war over this? Will we just see airstrikes and maybe some commando action against ISIS, or would we see large scale military operations maybe even reaching the point of all-out invasion of ISIS territory?

France was already involved in airstrikes and has some of the world's most effective special forces, they're just not heavily publicized.

Oh, yes. It only seems that way because you don't agree with people and their point of view at such times. In this particular case, if you valued your own countrymen more than any number of foreigners, you would not take issue with the statement, but as it were, you would rather condemn your own country (and others) to endless terror attacks for the sake of being an ineffective humanitarian.

Glad I could help.

False dichotomy.

Our governments and judicial systems have decided that it's more important to safeguard their boring internet and phone conversations than prevent such attacks. In many cases, the intelligence that we used to rely on to protect us from such things is no longer available.

As a cryptography enthusiast, I can confidently say that that's utter nonsense.
 
People know France is already bombing in Syria yeah?
 
Indonesia is the only major Muslim country where Islam arrived largely by trade rather than sword. Killing subjugated infiedels is haram, religious tax on gyaurs is a better alternative, again proscribed by scripture, and not by statesmen.

This is a bit off-topic, but the sahara and sub-sahara muslim influence mostly arrived via trade as well. In the more core muslim countries, conversion took several centuries typically and often occurred more so do to administrative/bureaucratic reasons than by the sword [although it did arrive by the sword, conversion and arrival are a bit different]
=============

I am really wondering what the fallout will be over this. Hopefully these perpetrators were part of a foreign terrorist cell, instead of domestic born terrorist influences. Europe is in a precarious political position as a whole. Its easier to deal with foreign elements for France than domestic
 
Indonesia is the only major Muslim country where Islam arrived largely by trade rather than sword. Killing subjugated infiedels is haram, religious tax on gyaurs is a better alternative, again proscribed by scripture, and not by statesmen.

What's your point?
 
Oh, yes. It only seems that way because you don't agree with people and their point of view at such times. In this particular case, if you valued your own countrymen more than any number of foreigners, you would not take issue with the statement, but as it were, you would rather condemn your own country (and others) to endless terror attacks for the sake of being an ineffective humanitarian.

Glad I could help.

Your statement was in essence:

"I care about the refugees but not enough to actually do anything to help them."

So why even bother with that preface. If you're going to be a racist asshat at least own it.

Moderator Action: Keep the name-calling out of this thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Why is this fatuous rubbish allowed in the thread but I'm not allowed to talk about the actual history of the Iraq invasion that led to chaos, strongerxand emboldened radical Islsmists, ISIS, and radicalised blowback in the West?

I don't know. It might be worth asking a moderator why people are allowed to disagree with you. I suspect it has something to do with not wanting to appear, at least overtly, as a left-wing soundboard.
 
I really hope this doesn't cause more hatred, racism and reprisal attacks.
I doubt it will cause any racism but fear of crazy fundie terrorists, probably.

No sympathy for the victims, just a call for more tolerance of the belief systems that fuel this violence...
 
Back
Top Bottom