Senate Terror attacks in Europe

Nope, not clicking on that.

 

It's....a wikipedia article about a massacre

 

Yep, lovely - with or without decapitations?

 

I don't follow, what's your issue with reading wikipedia articles?

 

photos dude. I feel Ben on this. wiki can be very arbitrary as to when they just flat out show brutal violence or not

And frankly still shouldn't be, given that terrorist is just a label we assign to exempt someone from human rights

 

V's picked up on it.

I have no problem with Wikis but, from B's post info alone, there was no way to tell what it was and since the topic discussed was decapitation....

 

I hate you , as I am now down a Wikipedia rabbit hole.

Also, I dearly hope something like this doesn't happen on Election Day here in the states this year.

 

Watto: Muricans
Glitter: Hold my beer
Juliet: clutches pearls

 

Sorry to disappoint... Actually, I really am not.


Not quite our President's words, but the words he forwarded, from a pupil at the middle school of Conflans, and they're worth a listen from us adults (translated with the mistakes and what the colloquialisms mean).

I'm afraid that, here in France, it had been becoming "old news". We've had 31 attacks that caused casualties on our soil (20 of them lethal, killing 265) with similar inspiration in the past 8 years. They're mostly "low-tech" because we have made pulling them off hard - another 300 or so have been foiled in the same timeframe.

I'm sorry to say islamophobia is finding roots here in France, and attacks like that play a part in it (which is intentional, fanning islamophobia through terror attacks to bring the situation to a civil-war state is officially stated Daesh doctrine). Tolerance for Islam is gradually, but surely dropping, and it's beginning to have violent manifestations.

Last year, for the first time since we've had lethal fundamentalist islamic attacks on our soil (the first happened in 1986), we had a terror attack by a white supremacist against a mosque that resulted in injuries. He'd slipped under the net because he was 84 (and died in jail since). Judging how another few have been foiled, and more importantly, how successful terror attacks from jihadists invariably end up being followed by "retaliation", it might be a matter of "when" a Muslim gets killed in a terror attack by a white person (a Muslim getting killed in a terror attack by another Muslim has already happened several times on our soil...), and not a matter of "if".

We're in this for the long haul. Nowadays, three out of four young French Muslims (aged 25 or less) claim that Islamic Law is superior to the state's law; half of the young French Muslims even claim that Shari'a should be the only law in France. We are in for quite a few more very tense years.

 

Given how Trump's been fanning the flames of his racist base in recent days and the fact that at least two plots to kidnap US Governors were uncovered last week (both of whom are Democrats), I don't think this is a completely unreasonable fear.

And I'll leave it there, given that this is taken this off topic to the thread at hand.

 

Wasn't one essentially entrapment?

 

I'm sure that's what the defendants will argue it was.

 

@Juliet316 From an American perspective they certainly are reasonable fears. However, Europe really isn't the USA. And this week-end has taught me that.

 

Hence, why I intended to leave it there in my response to Watto. That really is more appropriate to the US politics thread or US Election thread at this point in time.

 

I've yet to look into it but from what I gather the kidnapping is suggested by the FBI plant. We need a reckoning like the UK did when it comes to undercover agents and entrapment. But instead libs are naming their kids after the guys who entrapped Muslim teenagers with mental disorders and then claimed "we just stopped the next 9/11". all cause they.....marginally talked bad about trump

 

Seeing as how no one was entrapped into cutting someone’s head off, I agree that’s probably a discussion better left for a different thread.

 

How does commitment have bearing on if something is terrorism? I mean a bank robbery requires some serious commitment and dedication......well ok a decent one does. we have all seen the guys with no masks and squirt guns who are probably drunk but you get my point.

 

I think you have to look at the motivation. For a bank robbery the motivation is usually money and loss of life isn't usually the main reason for doing it (though that might happen if it went to a hostage situation).

 

The motivation is pretty clear. Again, we're talking about a murderer who deliberately targetted a teacher for having blasphemed by showing a couple of cartoons of his Prophet, travelled an hour and a half to get to the location, prepared a claiming message, armed himself with a poniard and a cleaver to inflict damage, an airsoft gun he used to push the police in getting him martyred, paid four pupils to identify and acquire his target, tagged the head of state with a picture of a decapitated man with a clear claim that the man had been killed for his sins (“I have executed one of the dogs from hell who dared to put Muhammad down.”) - a message labelled as being sent to the leader of the infidels - so that those cartoons would be never showed again. The murderer was indoctrinated for three years in a radical network, and followed the kind of modus operandi that's being taught by Daesh branches.

Yeah, there was a great deal of commitment into inflicting terror as a political message. It was the intended goal, it was a prepared attack, and the attacker made a great - and gruesome - deal of getting his message of terror through in the most noticeable way he could manage. There's no question whatsoever that he intended to terrorize.

EDIT - There's something rather new tonight: the authorities of Islam in France themselves are now demanding that the terminology of "Islamism, the poison of Islam" be used, and asking why it (Islamism) isn't already banned by law. This attack pissed off a lot of French Muslims.

 

You are a terrible person

 

Vncredleader, for want of a better term, defending someone's kidnap and murder is such a weird hill to. . .die on.

 

ok but that has no bearing on if they are carrying out a robbery or terrorism or a murder. Motives matter yes, commitment does not. Hell by that logic then the younger brother involved in the Boston Marathon bombing wouldn't be a terrorist cause he was pretty much just along for the ride. Qualifying terrorism based on how committed they are to do the thing is an arbitrary metric, you are right about motives to do harm, but again that is a different thing and not what I was challenging.

Just deciding "terrorism energy vs bank robber energy" feels really gross and not funny to me. It supposes there is a platonic ideal of a terrorist with a certain level of commitment and checking certain boxes that have nothing to do with terror let alone being an organized thing. Making that a qualitative element of terrorism is not funny, and I have no clue why people would act like it is. What does and does not count as "terrorism commitment" can decide if someone gets basic human rights or not. That is not a silly little thing to laugh about, "bank robber energy" hahahahaha.......we are talking about arbitrary qualifiers that remove civil liberties. Gitmo is not funny to me, nor is the opposite, the idea that it is not terrorism if the person is not super dedicated, for that matter.

It is like civil liberties are just rhetoric when the people involved are criminals who we all find detestable, but that is the point at which those rights matter most. France has already essentially done its patriot act, and made Muslims feel like second class citizens, with special negative treatment, if commitment becomes cause for a crime being terrorism then that just widens the arsenal of the state.

 

so what's your definition of a terrorist attack ?