OK then, you say this, assuming this will be a pronounced a 'terrorist" attack, despite the backtracking over the Dortmund attack. But assuming you are right, what is the strategy here? Of course it is a bit much to ask normal people to put themselves inside the heads of fanatics, but
An Islamic terrorist attack assists Le Pen, who is anti-Muslim. What goal does that achieve, from the point of view of the Islamic terrorist?
Perhaps naive of me but perhaps they don't care. Gives them more fuel for the jihad against the infidels as Le Pen marginalises them more.
OK, but how do you get closer to a French Caliphate by voting in a politician with a mandate to take the strongest possible authoritarian steps to prevent that?
They are playing a longer game. The one thing they always need is a steady supply of recruits. Someone like Melenchon talking to disaffected young people of Muslim descent and locating the source of their problems in class relations is a bit of competition for them. The Islamist narrative is one of a clash of civilisations: so is Le Pen's. They both need each other. And while it is speculation at the moment, a targeted attack on police officers is exactly what would boost Le Pen's chances. If Le Pen wins, or does well, it strengthens the narrative of IS that there can be no good life for Muslims in democratic France. IS being stronger, they launch more attacks in France, thus strengthening Le Pen. The cycle goes on as more and more people on either side find they know people who have died at the hands of the other. IS don't need to win they just need to remain in existence and making sure Le Pen (or someone like her) is there reminding potential recruits of how much they are hated by sections of France serves them very well.
Donald Trump reacted to the news during a joint press conference with Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni at the White House. “First of all, our condolences from our country to the people of France,” he said. “Again, it’s happening, it seems. I just saw it as I was walking in, so that’s a terrible thing.
“It’s a very, very terrible thing that’s going on in the world today. But it looks like another terrorist attack and what can you say? It just never ends. We have to be strong and we have to be vigilant and I’ve been saying it for a long time.”
Utter total wanker.
Except that he's actually right.
Is he, now?
ISIS have claimed responsibility for this atrocity.
Donald Trump called it right. You called it wrong.
OK then, you say this, assuming this will be a pronounced a 'terrorist" attack, despite the backtracking over the Dortmund attack. But assuming you are right, what is the strategy here? Of course it is a bit much to ask normal people to put themselves inside the heads of fanatics, but
An Islamic terrorist attack assists Le Pen, who is anti-Muslim. What goal does that achieve, from the point of view of the Islamic terrorist?
Perhaps naive of me but perhaps they don't care. Gives them more fuel for the jihad against the infidels as Le Pen marginalises them more.
OK, but how do you get closer to a French Caliphate by voting in a politician with a mandate to take the strongest possible authoritarian steps to prevent that?
They are playing a longer game. The one thing they always need is a steady supply of recruits. Someone like Melenchon talking to disaffected young people of Muslim descent and locating the source of their problems in class relations is a bit of competition for them. The Islamist narrative is one of a clash of civilisations: so is Le Pen's. They both need each other. And while it is speculation at the moment, a targeted attack on police officers is exactly what would boost Le Pen's chances. If Le Pen wins, or does well, it strengthens the narrative of IS that there can be no good life for Muslims in democratic France. IS being stronger, they launch more attacks in France, thus strengthening Le Pen. The cycle goes on as more and more people on either side find they know people who have died at the hands of the other. IS don't need to win they just need to remain in existence and making sure Le Pen (or someone like her) is there reminding potential recruits of how much they are hated by sections of France serves them very well.
It's not just about Christian Democracies though, is it?
They're busy out there killing anyone or anything regardless of creed, colour or religion, that doesn't agree with their warped sense of how we should all live.
Fundamentalists? Just another way of saying fascist scum.
Thing is everyone's favourite mad politician called it a terrorist act, surely a terrorist is anybody looking to scare or intimidate as well as kill, so by definition he was right in what he said as he didn't mention Islam. We can all assume he was inferring it was ISIS or one of their followers but he didn't say it.
Anyway he and those that oppose him are far less important than those innocents hurt and affected by yet another stupid piece of violence.
OK then, you say this, assuming this will be a pronounced a 'terrorist" attack, despite the backtracking over the Dortmund attack. But assuming you are right, what is the strategy here? Of course it is a bit much to ask normal people to put themselves inside the heads of fanatics, but
An Islamic terrorist attack assists Le Pen, who is anti-Muslim. What goal does that achieve, from the point of view of the Islamic terrorist?
Perhaps naive of me but perhaps they don't care. Gives them more fuel for the jihad against the infidels as Le Pen marginalises them more.
OK, but how do you get closer to a French Caliphate by voting in a politician with a mandate to take the strongest possible authoritarian steps to prevent that?
They are playing a longer game. The one thing they always need is a steady supply of recruits. Someone like Melenchon talking to disaffected young people of Muslim descent and locating the source of their problems in class relations is a bit of competition for them. The Islamist narrative is one of a clash of civilisations: so is Le Pen's. They both need each other. And while it is speculation at the moment, a targeted attack on police officers is exactly what would boost Le Pen's chances. If Le Pen wins, or does well, it strengthens the narrative of IS that there can be no good life for Muslims in democratic France. IS being stronger, they launch more attacks in France, thus strengthening Le Pen. The cycle goes on as more and more people on either side find they know people who have died at the hands of the other. IS don't need to win they just need to remain in existence and making sure Le Pen (or someone like her) is there reminding potential recruits of how much they are hated by sections of France serves them very well.
It's not just about Christian Democracies though, is it?
They're busy out there killing anyone or anything regardless of creed, colour or religion, that doesn't agree with their warped sense of how we should all live.
Fundamentalists? Just another way of saying fascist scum.
I don't disagree. The point is they have different strategies in different places, just as our governments do - opposed to Islamic fundamentalism here, quite happy to sell arms to Saudi Arabia there. And IS/Al Qaeda are very much a creation of Saudi foreign policy, even if they will fight them sometimes.
Donald Trump reacted to the news during a joint press conference with Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni at the White House. “First of all, our condolences from our country to the people of France,” he said. “Again, it’s happening, it seems. I just saw it as I was walking in, so that’s a terrible thing.
“It’s a very, very terrible thing that’s going on in the world today. But it looks like another terrorist attack and what can you say? It just never ends. We have to be strong and we have to be vigilant and I’ve been saying it for a long time.”
Utter total wanker.
Except that he's actually right.
Is he, now?
ISIS have claimed responsibility for this atrocity.
Donald Trump called it right. You called it wrong.
Time to eat some humble pie.
ISIS also claimed responsibility for the Dortmund bombs.
Last week a Pakistani student was brutally beaten to death in Pakistan by his fellow students simply because he had repeatedly expressed secular and liberal views. This sort of incident happens regularly in Pakistan. The attacks have nothing to do with ISIS or terrorism or marginalisation of Muslim youths. They are simply the purest manifestation of modern Islam.
I apologise in advance for posting this link as i got sick of seeing them in the brexit threads (primarily as they are biased) but this one i find shocking.
I've given it a while. Still can't see what trump said in his statement that was so wrong?!
My take on Prague's comment (I repeat my take, Richard is more than capable of explaining himself what he meant) is that the so-called leader of the free world who claims everything other than what he likes to hear as fake news, or indeed any politician, should not portray unsubstantiated conjecture as fact but rather wait until it has been established factually one way or another what the motives were.
I've given it a while. Still can't see what trump said in his statement that was so wrong?!
The knee-jerk assumption, before the facts were ascertained, that the shooting in Paris was "terrorism".
1. What did he have to gain by making a statement to the world's media that the incident was an act of terrorism, before that had been established by due process?
2. Why did he choose to be the only world leader to describe it as an act of terrorism at that stage?
3. His opposition to "fake news" should be enforced by demonstrably only ever discussing confirmed, factual statements.
4. The fact that, as a "leader", his words normalise the conversation that takes place everywhere else. So if the President thinks it's ok not to rely on fact but on prejudice, then others are encouraged to do so too. He should lead by example.
5. By all means express condolences - that's the right thing to do. By all means decry any act of violence - that's the right thing to do. By all means offer support and encouragement to the law enforcement and public prosecution officials - thats the right thing to do. But, for a politician to leap to fact-free conclusions is wrong.
6. You might have drawnt the same conclusions, with the same amount of evidence. You'd be wrong to do so, but it's far less of a problem if you do. Donald Trump is the self-professed leader of the free world. He should not be jumping to conclusions - even if those conclusions turn out not to have been far wide of the mark.
Right now, some of the "facts" about this attack, the one in Westminster and the one in Dortmund have turned out to have been wrong, damaging and unhelpful. The person first named as the perpetrator in Westminster was wholly innocent - that name should never have been broadcast. The "Islamist" attack "claimed" by ISIS in Dortmund seems to have been executed by a disgruntled shareholder looking to make a fast Euro. And this, most recent attack in Paris seems not to have been committed by a Belgian resident as had originally been broadcast.
Conjecture is unnecessary. Conjecture by the President of the United States is unhelpful. Conjecture broadcast by the president, live, on camera to the rest of the world is potentially very dangerous.
Last week a Pakistani student was brutally beaten to death in Pakistan by his fellow students simply because he had repeatedly expressed secular and liberal views. This sort of incident happens regularly in Pakistan. The attacks have nothing to do with ISIS or terrorism or marginalisation of Muslim youths. They are simply the purest manifestation of modern Islam.
A horrific attack that I would condemn. This also happens in Bangladesh where Humanists are regularly killed simply for not being Muslim. However, your implication is that this is part of modern Islam, rather than a particular feature of Sunni Islam in the Indian subcontinent. If you're right, why are there not similar atrocities from other Muslim countries? There are atheists and Humanists in most Muslim countries after all. In both Pakistan and Bangladesh, the authorities do not take crimes against religious minorities or atheists seriously and are therefore complicit in making these crimes permissible. But I can't imagine the authorities in Malaysia, Morocco, Senegal or even Iran allowing this to happen.
If killing people randomly because they don't share your beliefs is unique to modern Islam, and I don't think that it is true, what do you think is the correct response? Attack all Muslims because there are scumbags who happen to be Muslim? And who do you think would benefit most if that is what happens?
I apologise in advance for posting this link as i got sick of seeing them in the brexit threads (primarily as they are biased) but this one i find shocking.
What point were you trying to make by posting this, Chippy?
Were you making the point that there are lots of terrorist acts? Or that there are only a very small proportion that take place in Western Europe (so far this month four out of 87)? Or that there is a vanishingly small chance of a civilian being killled by a terror attack in WEstern Europe (four)?
Or were you reinforcing your view that these lists "are biased" or at least unreliable? (For reference, the list currently (at the time of writing) includes one attack dated 22 April).
Last week a Pakistani student was brutally beaten to death in Pakistan by his fellow students simply because he had repeatedly expressed secular and liberal views. This sort of incident happens regularly in Pakistan. The attacks have nothing to do with ISIS or terrorism or marginalisation of Muslim youths. They are simply the purest manifestation of modern Islam.
A horrific attack that I would condemn. This also happens in Bangladesh where Humanists are regularly killed simply for not being Muslim. However, your implication is that this is part of modern Islam, rather than a particular feature of Sunni Islam in the Indian subcontinent. If you're right, why are there not similar atrocities from other Muslim countries? There are atheists and Humanists in most Muslim countries after all. In both Pakistan and Bangladesh, the authorities do not take crimes against religious minorities or atheists seriously and are therefore complicit in making these crimes permissible. But I can't imagine the authorities in Malaysia, Morocco, Senegal or even Iran allowing this to happen.
If killing people randomly because they don't share your beliefs is unique to modern Islam, and I don't think that it is true, what do you think is the correct response? Attack all Muslims because there are scumbags who happen to be Muslim? And who do you think would benefit most if that is what happens?
So, you think it is something inherent in Islam to lead Muslims to kill people randomly, despite the fact that this is not something that happens in most places where Muslims live. The flip-side of the Dawkins piece could equally be "regressive celebrity atheists giving cover for Racist terror". The refusal to see people as anything other than a monolith is part of the problem. The only Muslim I've ever met who was approving of some of the stuff done by IS was far more bothered by Shias and Ahmadis than the West. The fact that Saudi Arabia is committing war crimes in Yemen against Shiites is testament to Islam not being the monolith that you and Dawkins seek.
Of course the Quran does have loads of dodgy passages in it. So does the Bible, but by and large most Christians don't do that sort of thing (though some killers do claim to act in the name of the Christian God such as the ones who attack abortion clinics in the US). Buddhist texts don't have anything much in them that includes killing people, yet Buddhist monks have been instrumental in violence against Muslims in Burma and Hindus in Sri Lanka. So, why is it that uniquely Muslims will do this and not the others? (They don't is the answer).
To take somewhere closer to home, repression against Catholics was regularly cited by the IRA as their best "recruiting sergeant". So, on that basis, if all Muslims are somehow complicit in all Muslim terror, at what point do the measures taken against them specifically flip over into growing support for Islamists? And why is it only Muslims that this applies to? Should all Norwegians be held to account for Breivik? All share-traders for the attack on the Dortmund team bus? All white Americans for Dylan Roof? All white Englishmen for the killing of Jo Cox? Of course not; but it is the logic of the position you hold.
For the record, I am a card-carrying atheist and have spent a fair amount of time arguing against religion. But I will not divorce people's beliefs from their behaviour or their context.
Therefore, no matter what creed, colour, religion or race the perpetrators and victims are, a policeman being killed in a city centre is terrorism, correct?
I've given it a while. Still can't see what trump said in his statement that was so wrong?!
The knee-jerk assumption, before the facts were ascertained, that the shooting in Paris was "terrorism".
1. What did he have to gain by making a statement to the world's media that the incident was an act of terrorism, before that had been established by due process?
2. Why did he choose to be the only world leader to describe it as an act of terrorism at that stage?
3. His opposition to "fake news" should be enforced by demonstrably only ever discussing confirmed, factual statements.
4. The fact that, as a "leader", his words normalise the conversation that takes place everywhere else. So if the President thinks it's ok not to rely on fact but on prejudice, then others are encouraged to do so too. He should lead by example.
5. By all means express condolences - that's the right thing to do. By all means decry any act of violence - that's the right thing to do. By all means offer support and encouragement to the law enforcement and public prosecution officials - thats the right thing to do. But, for a politician to leap to fact-free conclusions is wrong.
6. You might have drawnt the same conclusions, with the same amount of evidence. You'd be wrong to do so, but it's far less of a problem if you do. Donald Trump is the self-professed leader of the free world. He should not be jumping to conclusions - even if those conclusions turn out not to have been far wide of the mark.
Right now, some of the "facts" about this attack, the one in Westminster and the one in Dortmund have turned out to have been wrong, damaging and unhelpful. The person first named as the perpetrator in Westminster was wholly innocent - that name should never have been broadcast. The "Islamist" attack "claimed" by ISIS in Dortmund seems to have been executed by a disgruntled shareholder looking to make a fast Euro. And this, most recent attack in Paris seems not to have been committed by a Belgian resident as had originally been broadcast.
Conjecture is unnecessary. Conjecture by the President of the United States is unhelpful. Conjecture broadcast by the president, live, on camera to the rest of the world is potentially very dangerous.
Surely a lot of this assumes Trump is restricted to the same sources of information as we are, I think that's highly unlikely.
I've given it a while. Still can't see what trump said in his statement that was so wrong?!
The knee-jerk assumption, before the facts were ascertained, that the shooting in Paris was "terrorism".
1. What did he have to gain by making a statement to the world's media that the incident was an act of terrorism, before that had been established by due process?
2. Why did he choose to be the only world leader to describe it as an act of terrorism at that stage?
3. His opposition to "fake news" should be enforced by demonstrably only ever discussing confirmed, factual statements.
4. The fact that, as a "leader", his words normalise the conversation that takes place everywhere else. So if the President thinks it's ok not to rely on fact but on prejudice, then others are encouraged to do so too. He should lead by example.
5. By all means express condolences - that's the right thing to do. By all means decry any act of violence - that's the right thing to do. By all means offer support and encouragement to the law enforcement and public prosecution officials - thats the right thing to do. But, for a politician to leap to fact-free conclusions is wrong.
6. You might have drawnt the same conclusions, with the same amount of evidence. You'd be wrong to do so, but it's far less of a problem if you do. Donald Trump is the self-professed leader of the free world. He should not be jumping to conclusions - even if those conclusions turn out not to have been far wide of the mark.
Right now, some of the "facts" about this attack, the one in Westminster and the one in Dortmund have turned out to have been wrong, damaging and unhelpful. The person first named as the perpetrator in Westminster was wholly innocent - that name should never have been broadcast. The "Islamist" attack "claimed" by ISIS in Dortmund seems to have been executed by a disgruntled shareholder looking to make a fast Euro. And this, most recent attack in Paris seems not to have been committed by a Belgian resident as had originally been broadcast.
Conjecture is unnecessary. Conjecture by the President of the United States is unhelpful. Conjecture broadcast by the president, live, on camera to the rest of the world is potentially very dangerous.
Surely a lot of this assumes Trump is restricted to the same sources of information as we are, I think that's highly unlikely.
Considering the individual who was killed in the gunfight was known to the security services, and his identity was verified at the scene, I think this is most likely the case.
It's pure conjecture on my part, but I would presume that embassies and diplomatic staff are kept informed of all developments during incidents like that.
The response to Trump's comments is really quite puzzling. He did not allege any motive, nor did he assume the race, colour, or creed of the attackers. At worst he accidentally confirmed it was terrorism, which although should've been announced in a more structured way.. it was hardly a surprise.
I suspect if anyone else made the same comments, even if they held the office of POTUS, there would be a lot less made of this. Once again - focus on the legitimate reasons to criticise the man, there's enough to choose from without inventing more.
Edit: He didn't even say it was terrorism. I've just looked at the quote and he says "it looks like another terrorist attack".
Clearly though Trump only condemns things that serve his own agenda, otherwise he would have condemned the recent attack on Syrian refugees getting on the bus, as well as Dylan Roof's attack on black churchgoers.
I apologise in advance for posting this link as i got sick of seeing them in the brexit threads (primarily as they are biased) but this one i find shocking.
What point were you trying to make by posting this, Chippy?
Were you making the point that there are lots of terrorist acts? Or that there are only a very small proportion that take place in Western Europe (so far this month four out of 87)? Or that there is a vanishingly small chance of a civilian being killled by a terror attack in WEstern Europe (four)?
Or were you reinforcing your view that these lists "are biased" or at least unreliable? (For reference, the list currently (at the time of writing) includes one attack dated 22 April).
The amount of terrorist incidents. Do you mind me asking why you always ask people to explain themselves.
I've given it a while. Still can't see what trump said in his statement that was so wrong?!
The knee-jerk assumption, before the facts were ascertained, that the shooting in Paris was "terrorism".
1. What did he have to gain by making a statement to the world's media that the incident was an act of terrorism, before that had been established by due process?
2. Why did he choose to be the only world leader to describe it as an act of terrorism at that stage?
3. His opposition to "fake news" should be enforced by demonstrably only ever discussing confirmed, factual statements.
4. The fact that, as a "leader", his words normalise the conversation that takes place everywhere else. So if the President thinks it's ok not to rely on fact but on prejudice, then others are encouraged to do so too. He should lead by example.
5. By all means express condolences - that's the right thing to do. By all means decry any act of violence - that's the right thing to do. By all means offer support and encouragement to the law enforcement and public prosecution officials - thats the right thing to do. But, for a politician to leap to fact-free conclusions is wrong.
6. You might have drawnt the same conclusions, with the same amount of evidence. You'd be wrong to do so, but it's far less of a problem if you do. Donald Trump is the self-professed leader of the free world. He should not be jumping to conclusions - even if those conclusions turn out not to have been far wide of the mark.
Right now, some of the "facts" about this attack, the one in Westminster and the one in Dortmund have turned out to have been wrong, damaging and unhelpful. The person first named as the perpetrator in Westminster was wholly innocent - that name should never have been broadcast. The "Islamist" attack "claimed" by ISIS in Dortmund seems to have been executed by a disgruntled shareholder looking to make a fast Euro. And this, most recent attack in Paris seems not to have been committed by a Belgian resident as had originally been broadcast.
Conjecture is unnecessary. Conjecture by the President of the United States is unhelpful. Conjecture broadcast by the president, live, on camera to the rest of the world is potentially very dangerous.
Surely a lot of this assumes Trump is restricted to the same sources of information as we are, I think that's highly unlikely.
If he has access to more information than is available to the public, it would be for good reasons. And if that is the case, he shouldn't break that confidence.
Either way, it was careless, stupid and/or plain wrong.
So, you think it is something inherent in Islam to lead Muslims to kill people randomly, despite the fact that this is not something that happens in most places where Muslims live. The flip-side of the Dawkins piece could equally be "regressive celebrity atheists giving cover for Racist terror". The refusal to see people as anything other than a monolith is part of the problem. The only Muslim I've ever met who was approving of some of the stuff done by IS was far more bothered by Shias and Ahmadis than the West. The fact that Saudi Arabia is committing war crimes in Yemen against Shiites is testament to Islam not being the monolith that you and Dawkins seek.
Of course the Quran does have loads of dodgy passages in it. So does the Bible, but by and large most Christians don't do that sort of thing (though some killers do claim to act in the name of the Christian God such as the ones who attack abortion clinics in the US). Buddhist texts don't have anything much in them that includes killing people, yet Buddhist monks have been instrumental in violence against Muslims in Burma and Hindus in Sri Lanka. So, why is it that uniquely Muslims will do this and not the others? (They don't is the answer).
To take somewhere closer to home, repression against Catholics was regularly cited by the IRA as their best "recruiting sergeant". So, on that basis, if all Muslims are somehow complicit in all Muslim terror, at what point do the measures taken against them specifically flip over into growing support for Islamists? And why is it only Muslims that this applies to? Should all Norwegians be held to account for Breivik? All share-traders for the attack on the Dortmund team bus? All white Americans for Dylan Roof? All white Englishmen for the killing of Jo Cox? Of course not; but it is the logic of the position you hold.
For the record, I am a card-carrying atheist and have spent a fair amount of time arguing against religion. But I will not divorce people's beliefs from their behaviour or their context.
If Norwegians started killing people across Europe do you seriously think Norwegians would not be held accountable? Should all Germans living through the Nazi atrocities be held accountable? Many people think they should. Many people think not. The important thing is the debate about whether they should be held accountable, to this day, never gets shut down for fear of offending the sensibilities of the German people. Like you I am an atheist. But, unlike you I am no longer willing to hide my contempt for all religions, particular blood thirsty violent ones that think I should be hacked to death because of my views. And in the free secular European country in which I live I have the right to express that contempt.
I apologise in advance for posting this link as i got sick of seeing them in the brexit threads (primarily as they are biased) but this one i find shocking.
What point were you trying to make by posting this, Chippy?
Were you making the point that there are lots of terrorist acts? Or that there are only a very small proportion that take place in Western Europe (so far this month four out of 87)? Or that there is a vanishingly small chance of a civilian being killled by a terror attack in WEstern Europe (four)?
Or were you reinforcing your view that these lists "are biased" or at least unreliable? (For reference, the list currently (at the time of writing) includes one attack dated 22 April).
The amount of terrorist incidents. Do you mind me asking why you always ask people to explain themselves.
Because that's the sort of thing that leads people to think about, and research why they feel/think the way they do about a subject. There isn't enough of that in the world today - whcih is why every discussion on an emotive issue anywhere just descends into two echo chambers shouting at each other. Explaining yourself in a debate - of any description - should be the very least you do when attempting to get your point across - otherwise, you're just screaming into the ether at nothing.
OK then, you say this, assuming this will be a pronounced a 'terrorist" attack, despite the backtracking over the Dortmund attack. But assuming you are right, what is the strategy here? Of course it is a bit much to ask normal people to put themselves inside the heads of fanatics, but
An Islamic terrorist attack assists Le Pen, who is anti-Muslim. What goal does that achieve, from the point of view of the Islamic terrorist?
Perhaps naive of me but perhaps they don't care. Gives them more fuel for the jihad against the infidels as Le Pen marginalises them more.
OK, but how do you get closer to a French Caliphate by voting in a politician with a mandate to take the strongest possible authoritarian steps to prevent that?
They are playing a longer game. The one thing they always need is a steady supply of recruits. Someone like Melenchon talking to disaffected young people of Muslim descent and locating the source of their problems in class relations is a bit of competition for them. The Islamist narrative is one of a clash of civilisations: so is Le Pen's. They both need each other. And while it is speculation at the moment, a targeted attack on police officers is exactly what would boost Le Pen's chances. If Le Pen wins, or does well, it strengthens the narrative of IS that there can be no good life for Muslims in democratic France. IS being stronger, they launch more attacks in France, thus strengthening Le Pen. The cycle goes on as more and more people on either side find they know people who have died at the hands of the other. IS don't need to win they just need to remain in existence and making sure Le Pen (or someone like her) is there reminding potential recruits of how much they are hated by sections of France serves them very well.
It is vital that western democracies formulate strategies to minimise the impact of these extremists. And that requires a sober, mature response from the political leadership. On March 16th there was a letter bomb sent to the French headquarters of the IMF. Politicians who attack the IMF or EU and build up this anti establishment picture are not exactly helping, are they?
They want to have their cake and eat it! As above, extremists take actions and politicians at the extreme feed off of the reaction. It matters not to them that the perpetrators come from Bradford (as in 7/7) or Luton or Kent. Nor that they reside in a suburb of Brussels or Paris for months or years before a strike. The populists like an oversimplification for it plays well on Twitter!
Neither Le Pen nor Melenchon have described practical solutions for France. Instead they focus on blame and anti-establishment populism. Where they come unstuck is that the majority of the French electorate are neither anti-Euro nor anti-EU. It's unlikely that Macron in the centre will fail to make the second round so he needs to be very well advised and sure footed to get to the finish line in first or second.
Later on today the final polls will be released for the first round as they have an embargo after midnight tonight. We will all see whether this attack (and the televised debate with which it coincided) has had a material impact. Up until yesterday it was a four horse race which was starting to stabilise with a Le Pen vs Macron 2nd round the most likely outcome. It is assumed that Le Pen is not going to take votes off of Macron and Fillon looks unlikely to break through 20%.
But the margin of error plus unpredictability of who will actually votes and who will change their minds means that any two might win through.
This matters in respect to the post above and security in France up to and including the poll on Sunday. Anybody can look at the back story of the assailant as it comes out - appears to be a fecker with an AK47 who has a lot of previous. However it is clear that there is an extremely high likelihood of something else happening this weekend. Earlier this week they discovered some high explosives and an ISIS flag in a Marseille apartment which is where Le Pen was due to appear that day.
So Trump is correct to state that this is an ongoing situation. But the range of solutions available is far wider and more sophisticated than 140 characters of which 11 spell out immigration. And perhaps that is not a debate to be held in public? Perhaps we should entrust and empower the establishment to deliver security?
I've given it a while. Still can't see what trump said in his statement that was so wrong?!
The knee-jerk assumption, before the facts were ascertained, that the shooting in Paris was "terrorism".
1. What did he have to gain by making a statement to the world's media that the incident was an act of terrorism, before that had been established by due process?
2. Why did he choose to be the only world leader to describe it as an act of terrorism at that stage?
3. His opposition to "fake news" should be enforced by demonstrably only ever discussing confirmed, factual statements.
4. The fact that, as a "leader", his words normalise the conversation that takes place everywhere else. So if the President thinks it's ok not to rely on fact but on prejudice, then others are encouraged to do so too. He should lead by example.
5. By all means express condolences - that's the right thing to do. By all means decry any act of violence - that's the right thing to do. By all means offer support and encouragement to the law enforcement and public prosecution officials - thats the right thing to do. But, for a politician to leap to fact-free conclusions is wrong.
6. You might have drawnt the same conclusions, with the same amount of evidence. You'd be wrong to do so, but it's far less of a problem if you do. Donald Trump is the self-professed leader of the free world. He should not be jumping to conclusions - even if those conclusions turn out not to have been far wide of the mark.
Right now, some of the "facts" about this attack, the one in Westminster and the one in Dortmund have turned out to have been wrong, damaging and unhelpful. The person first named as the perpetrator in Westminster was wholly innocent - that name should never have been broadcast. The "Islamist" attack "claimed" by ISIS in Dortmund seems to have been executed by a disgruntled shareholder looking to make a fast Euro. And this, most recent attack in Paris seems not to have been committed by a Belgian resident as had originally been broadcast.
Conjecture is unnecessary. Conjecture by the President of the United States is unhelpful. Conjecture broadcast by the president, live, on camera to the rest of the world is potentially very dangerous.
Surely a lot of this assumes Trump is restricted to the same sources of information as we are, I think that's highly unlikely.
Comments
Donald Trump called it right. You called it wrong.
Time to eat some humble pie.
They're busy out there killing anyone or anything regardless of creed, colour or religion, that doesn't agree with their warped sense of how we should all live.
Fundamentalists? Just another way of saying fascist scum.
Anyway he and those that oppose him are far less important than those innocents hurt and affected by yet another stupid piece of violence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_April_2017
1. What did he have to gain by making a statement to the world's media that the incident was an act of terrorism, before that had been established by due process?
2. Why did he choose to be the only world leader to describe it as an act of terrorism at that stage?
3. His opposition to "fake news" should be enforced by demonstrably only ever discussing confirmed, factual statements.
4. The fact that, as a "leader", his words normalise the conversation that takes place everywhere else. So if the President thinks it's ok not to rely on fact but on prejudice, then others are encouraged to do so too. He should lead by example.
5. By all means express condolences - that's the right thing to do. By all means decry any act of violence - that's the right thing to do. By all means offer support and encouragement to the law enforcement and public prosecution officials - thats the right thing to do. But, for a politician to leap to fact-free conclusions is wrong.
6. You might have drawnt the same conclusions, with the same amount of evidence. You'd be wrong to do so, but it's far less of a problem if you do. Donald Trump is the self-professed leader of the free world. He should not be jumping to conclusions - even if those conclusions turn out not to have been far wide of the mark.
Right now, some of the "facts" about this attack, the one in Westminster and the one in Dortmund have turned out to have been wrong, damaging and unhelpful. The person first named as the perpetrator in Westminster was wholly innocent - that name should never have been broadcast. The "Islamist" attack "claimed" by ISIS in Dortmund seems to have been executed by a disgruntled shareholder looking to make a fast Euro. And this, most recent attack in Paris seems not to have been committed by a Belgian resident as had originally been broadcast.
Conjecture is unnecessary. Conjecture by the President of the United States is unhelpful. Conjecture broadcast by the president, live, on camera to the rest of the world is potentially very dangerous.
If killing people randomly because they don't share your beliefs is unique to modern Islam, and I don't think that it is true, what do you think is the correct response? Attack all Muslims because there are scumbags who happen to be Muslim? And who do you think would benefit most if that is what happens?
Were you making the point that there are lots of terrorist acts? Or that there are only a very small proportion that take place in Western Europe (so far this month four out of 87)? Or that there is a vanishingly small chance of a civilian being killled by a terror attack in WEstern Europe (four)?
Or were you reinforcing your view that these lists "are biased" or at least unreliable? (For reference, the list currently (at the time of writing) includes one attack dated 22 April).
Of course the Quran does have loads of dodgy passages in it. So does the Bible, but by and large most Christians don't do that sort of thing (though some killers do claim to act in the name of the Christian God such as the ones who attack abortion clinics in the US). Buddhist texts don't have anything much in them that includes killing people, yet Buddhist monks have been instrumental in violence against Muslims in Burma and Hindus in Sri Lanka. So, why is it that uniquely Muslims will do this and not the others? (They don't is the answer).
To take somewhere closer to home, repression against Catholics was regularly cited by the IRA as their best "recruiting sergeant". So, on that basis, if all Muslims are somehow complicit in all Muslim terror, at what point do the measures taken against them specifically flip over into growing support for Islamists?
And why is it only Muslims that this applies to? Should all Norwegians be held to account for Breivik? All share-traders for the attack on the Dortmund team bus? All white Americans for Dylan Roof? All white Englishmen for the killing of Jo Cox? Of course not; but it is the logic of the position you hold.
For the record, I am a card-carrying atheist and have spent a fair amount of time arguing against religion. But I will not divorce people's beliefs from their behaviour or their context.
Therefore, no matter what creed, colour, religion or race the perpetrators and victims are, a policeman being killed in a city centre is terrorism, correct?
What's so bad about Trump calling it what it is?
It's pure conjecture on my part, but I would presume that embassies and diplomatic staff are kept informed of all developments during incidents like that.
The response to Trump's comments is really quite puzzling. He did not allege any motive, nor did he assume the race, colour, or creed of the attackers.
At worst he accidentally confirmed it was terrorism, which although should've been announced in a more structured way.. it was hardly a surprise.I suspect if anyone else made the same comments, even if they held the office of POTUS, there would be a lot less made of this. Once again - focus on the legitimate reasons to criticise the man, there's enough to choose from without inventing more.
Edit:
He didn't even say it was terrorism. I've just looked at the quote and he says "it looks like another terrorist attack".
Clearly though Trump only condemns things that serve his own agenda, otherwise he would have condemned the recent attack on Syrian refugees getting on the bus, as well as Dylan Roof's attack on black churchgoers.
Either way, it was careless, stupid and/or plain wrong.
They want to have their cake and eat it! As above, extremists take actions and politicians at the extreme feed off of the reaction. It matters not to them that the perpetrators come from Bradford (as in 7/7) or Luton or Kent. Nor that they reside in a suburb of Brussels or Paris for months or years before a strike. The populists like an oversimplification for it plays well on Twitter!
Neither Le Pen nor Melenchon have described practical solutions for France. Instead they focus on blame and anti-establishment populism. Where they come unstuck is that the majority of the French electorate are neither anti-Euro nor anti-EU. It's unlikely that Macron in the centre will fail to make the second round so he needs to be very well advised and sure footed to get to the finish line in first or second.
Later on today the final polls will be released for the first round as they have an embargo after midnight tonight. We will all see whether this attack (and the televised debate with which it coincided) has had a material impact. Up until yesterday it was a four horse race which was starting to stabilise with a Le Pen vs Macron 2nd round the most likely outcome. It is assumed that Le Pen is not going to take votes off of Macron and Fillon looks unlikely to break through 20%.
But the margin of error plus unpredictability of who will actually votes and who will change their minds means that any two might win through.
This matters in respect to the post above and security in France up to and including the poll on Sunday. Anybody can look at the back story of the assailant as it comes out - appears to be a fecker with an AK47 who has a lot of previous. However it is clear that there is an extremely high likelihood of something else happening this weekend. Earlier this week they discovered some high explosives and an ISIS flag in a Marseille apartment which is where Le Pen was due to appear that day.
So Trump is correct to state that this is an ongoing situation. But the range of solutions available is far wider and more sophisticated than 140 characters of which 11 spell out immigration. And perhaps that is not a debate to be held in public? Perhaps we should entrust and empower the establishment to deliver security?