Trump also suggested that France is actually being terrorised by these actions. I am in Paris. People have shrugged and carried on as usual, quite unterrified. Trump's reflexive idiocy brings comfort only to the terrorists.
Not sure this mess can be solved by just getting on with life and pretending it doesn't exist.
I disagree. Do you think there's a better response than simply to carry on doing the things that terrorists are trying to disrupt?
Ordinary people in London, Stockholm, Paris and Nice going about their daily lives undeterred, the day after the terrorist attacks is exactly the response we should see.
Not sure this mess can be solved by just getting on with life and pretending it doesn't exist.
I disagree. Do you think there's a better response than simply to carry on doing the things that terrorists are trying to disrupt?
Ordinary people in London, Stockholm, Paris and Nice going about their daily lives undeterred, the day after the terrorist attacks is exactly the response we should see.
You mean pretend it isn't happening? That would be insane and stupid.
Not sure this mess can be solved by just getting on with life and pretending it doesn't exist.
I disagree. Do you think there's a better response than simply to carry on doing the things that terrorists are trying to disrupt?
Ordinary people in London, Stockholm, Paris and Nice going about their daily lives undeterred, the day after the terrorist attacks is exactly the response we should see.
Exactly. The security forces continue their work of taking these people down, and our part is to show that we're not going to let the wankers trouble us in our daily lives.
The USA has an endemic rate of violent death far higher than these inadequate thugs will ever cause in Europe. Trump should look at that, but he won't.
Not sure this mess can be solved by just getting on with life and pretending it doesn't exist.
I disagree. Do you think there's a better response than simply to carry on doing the things that terrorists are trying to disrupt?
Ordinary people in London, Stockholm, Paris and Nice going about their daily lives undeterred, the day after the terrorist attacks is exactly the response we should see.
You mean pretend it isn't happening? That would be insane and stupid.
No, I don't mean pretend it isn't happening. I mean avoid being cowed. Keep shopping in Stockholm. Carry on enjoying the sunshine in Nice. Celebrate the freedom of being in Paris. Keep using the public spaces in Westminster.
Be vigilant. Be aware of your surroundings. Make sure you know where exits are when you're in public buildings. But, most importantly, carry on with what you were going to do anyway.
Terrorists win when free people make decisions based on terror.
Not sure this mess can be solved by just getting on with life and pretending it doesn't exist.
I disagree. Do you think there's a better response than simply to carry on doing the things that terrorists are trying to disrupt?
Ordinary people in London, Stockholm, Paris and Nice going about their daily lives undeterred, the day after the terrorist attacks is exactly the response we should see.
You mean pretend it isn't happening? That would be insane and stupid.
No, I don't mean pretend it isn't happening. I mean avoid being cowed. Keep shopping in Stockholm. Carry on enjoying the sunshine in Nice. Celebrate the freedom of being in Paris. Keep using the public spaces in Westminster.
Be vigilant. Be aware of your surroundings. Make sure you know where exits are when you're in public buildings. But, most importantly, carry on with what you were going to do anyway.
Terrorists win when free people make decisions based on terror.
Terrorists win when free people are afraid to openly question and scrutinise the belief systems that motivate and justify these acts of violence.
So nearly 24 hours on, we have learnt quite a lot more.
We have learnt that the perpetrator of last night's atrocity was a French National and a low-life scumbag (like so many "terrorist" operatives) who first attempted to murder a policeman in 2001.
So my question for Donald Trump is: What is the difference between last night's attack and the one he committed in 2001? Why exactly did you bracket last night's as terrorism, whereas 2001's attack was patently not?
We have also learnt that the perpetrator of the Dortmund attack was a German-Russian citizen motivated by greed. . He was a financial speculator. Who on here, as the news came in, remotely considered such a motive? Not me, for sure, even though I wondered why ISIS would attack a club team bus, and why that one.
In both cases ISIS quickly claimed the perpetrators were "their soldiers". It would appear that in neither case was this true.
So I stick by my criticism of Trump which I wrote here last night. But I will refine it a little. I now regard Trump's remarks as a deliberate attempt to encourage the French electorate to believe that these events strengthen the case for a vote for Le Pen. It is as far from statesmanship as you can get, it is cynical, opportunist and more than a little sinister.
So nearly 24 hours on, we have learnt quite a lot more.
We have learnt that the perpetrator of last night's atrocity was a French National and a low-life scumbag (like so many "terrorist" operatives) who first attempted to murder a policeman in 2001.
So my question for Donald Trump is: What is the difference between last night's attack and the one he committed in 2001? Why exactly did you bracket last night's as terrorism, whereas 2001's attack was patently not?
We have also learnt that the perpetrator of the Dortmund attack was a German-Russian citizen motivated by greed. . He was a financial speculator. Who on here, as the news came in, remotely considered such a motive? Not me, for sure, even though I wondered why ISIS would attack a club team bus, and why that one.
In both cases ISIS quickly claimed the perpetrators were "their soldiers". It would appear that in neither case was this true.
So I stick by my criticism of Trump which I wrote here last night. But I will refine it a little. I now regard Trump's remarks as a deliberate attempt to encourage the French electorate to believe that these events strengthen the case for a vote for Le Pen. It is as far from statesmanship as you can get, it is cynical, opportunist and more than a little sinister.
I think some held you here with quite high regard and are always backing you despite what you say. Last night your support from the rat pack wasnt here, as i think they wanted to distance themselves from your comments.
It would have been better had you stayed away for another few days. I dont think his comments and his interview which was edited was bad at all. Why didnt the media post other leaders comments as soon after. Sadly some posters are so quick to jump on comments by trump and farage as it suits them.
So nearly 24 hours on, we have learnt quite a lot more.
We have learnt that the perpetrator of last night's atrocity was a French National and a low-life scumbag (like so many "terrorist" operatives) who first attempted to murder a policeman in 2001.
So my question for Donald Trump is: What is the difference between last night's attack and the one he committed in 2001? Why exactly did you bracket last night's as terrorism, whereas 2001's attack was patently not?
We have also learnt that the perpetrator of the Dortmund attack was a German-Russian citizen motivated by greed. . He was a financial speculator. Who on here, as the news came in, remotely considered such a motive? Not me, for sure, even though I wondered why ISIS would attack a club team bus, and why that one.
In both cases ISIS quickly claimed the perpetrators were "their soldiers". It would appear that in neither case was this true.
So I stick by my criticism of Trump which I wrote here last night. But I will refine it a little. I now regard Trump's remarks as a deliberate attempt to encourage the French electorate to believe that these events strengthen the case for a vote for Le Pen. It is as far from statesmanship as you can get, it is cynical, opportunist and more than a little sinister.
I think some held you here with quite high regard and are always backing you despite what you say. Last night your support from the rat pack wasnt here, as i think they wanted to distance themselves from your comments.
It would have been better had you stayed away for another few days. I dont think his comments and his interview which was edited was bad at all. Why didnt the media post other leaders comments as soon after. Sadly some posters are so quick to jump on comments by trump and farage as it suits them.
Never mind the personal stuff, Chippy. Do you dispute the facts I have listed about the perpetrators of both last night's and the Dortmund attack? Yes, or no? If no, then you can move on to my comments about Trump. I have made a conclusion about Trump's remarks based on the facts now available to all of us. You are free to argue differently. Be my guest.
I think whoever kills another human being is despicable and yes the world is at tenterhooks whenever there is an atrocity to first blame muslims isis or whoever is attached to them. Of course its wrong
Trump is an expert at manipulating the working class, Chippy - don't be fooled by him.
Anybody with influence, money and power is the same I am just not into those who keep picking up on everything he does and makes meals out of it. What did they want him to say yesterday..... Errr nothing then he would be criticised by the same for having no opinion.
Some comments issues soon after the shooting suggest Trump was not alone in calling it a terrorist attack....
''France's President Francois Hollande said said in a late Thursday address he is convinced the attack is a terrorist act.''
''Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says Australia's prayers are with the family of the police officer shot dead on Paris' Champs Elysees. He said the shooting had all of the hallmarks of a terror attack.''
''French Presidential Favourite Macron: Terrorism ‘Part of Our Daily Lives for Years to Come’ After Paris Shooting''
The British government released an official statement saying it “strongly condemns the appalling terrorist attack in Paris.”
Speaking to reporters in the early hours of Friday, Paris Prosecutor Francois Molins. called the attacker a "terrorist," saying that his identity had been established but was not going to be released amid an ongoing investigation.
A police arrest warrant issued earlier on Thursday, which was seen by Reuters after the attack, warned of a dangerous individual who had come into France by train from Belgium on Thursday
Some comments issues soon after the shooting suggest Trump was not alone in calling it a terrorist attack....
''France's President Francois Hollande said said in a late Thursday address he is convinced the attack is a terrorist act.''
''Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says Australia's prayers are with the family of the police officer shot dead on Paris' Champs Elysees. He said the shooting had all of the hallmarks of a terror attack.''
''French Presidential Favourite Macron: Terrorism ‘Part of Our Daily Lives for Years to Come’ After Paris Shooting''
The British government released an official statement saying it “strongly condemns the appalling terrorist attack in Paris.”
Speaking to reporters in the early hours of Friday, Paris Prosecutor Francois Molins. called the attacker a "terrorist," saying that his identity had been established but was not going to be released amid an ongoing investigation.
A police arrest warrant issued earlier on Thursday, which was seen by Reuters after the attack, warned of a dangerous individual who had come into France by train from Belgium on Thursday
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.
Interesting point about Germans given the revenge taken by Soviet forces and the mass expulsion of ethnic Germans from Central and Eastern Europe. Is expressing your contempt enough? Would you advocate the proscription of religions?
If there is anyone who *doesn't* think Trump would like to make political gain from the shooting in Paris, here's his latest tweet. You'll notice he finds room to mention Sunday's election.
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.
Interesting point about Germans given the revenge taken by Soviet forces and the mass expulsion of ethnic Germans from Central and Eastern Europe. Is expressing your contempt enough? Would you advocate the proscription of religions?
Absolutely not. But when it is warranted people in the free post medieval world should be free to condem and ridicule those specific religious beliefs and practices that are no longer acceptable. Much as Scientology today is subject to endless scrutiny and redicule.
In addition, every child in state education systems in Europe should be taught the science of evolution and the history of how primitive man embraced many thousands of myths and religions to help him understand the world around him, every week from the age of 11 until they leave school.
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.
Interesting point about Germans given the revenge taken by Soviet forces and the mass expulsion of ethnic Germans from Central and Eastern Europe. Is expressing your contempt enough? Would you advocate the proscription of religions?
Absolutely not. But when it is warranted people in the free post medieval world should be free to condem and ridicule those specific religious beliefs and practices that are no longer acceptable. Much as Scientology today is subject to endless scrutiny and redicule.
In addition, every child in state education systems in Europe should be taught the science of evolution and the history of how primitive man embraced many thousands of myths and religions to help him understand the world around him, every week from the age of 11 until they leave school.
You'd be too late, the Jesuits used to claim (17th Century I think) that if they we're given the child by the age of seven, they'd have the adult for life.
Sciences should begin to be taught in primary school.
Comments
I think here lies the problem.
Not sure this mess can be solved by just getting on with life and pretending it doesn't exist.
Ordinary people in London, Stockholm, Paris and Nice going about their daily lives undeterred, the day after the terrorist attacks is exactly the response we should see.
The USA has an endemic rate of violent death far higher than these inadequate thugs will ever cause in Europe. Trump should look at that, but he won't.
Be vigilant. Be aware of your surroundings. Make sure you know where exits are when you're in public buildings. But, most importantly, carry on with what you were going to do anyway.
Terrorists win when free people make decisions based on terror.
You have to break eggs to make an omelette.
We have learnt that the perpetrator of last night's atrocity was a French National and a low-life scumbag (like so many "terrorist" operatives) who first attempted to murder a policeman in 2001.
So my question for Donald Trump is: What is the difference between last night's attack and the one he committed in 2001? Why exactly did you bracket last night's as terrorism, whereas 2001's attack was patently not?
We have also learnt that the perpetrator of the Dortmund attack was a German-Russian citizen motivated by greed. . He was a financial speculator. Who on here, as the news came in, remotely considered such a motive? Not me, for sure, even though I wondered why ISIS would attack a club team bus, and why that one.
In both cases ISIS quickly claimed the perpetrators were "their soldiers". It would appear that in neither case was this true.
So I stick by my criticism of Trump which I wrote here last night. But I will refine it a little. I now regard Trump's remarks as a deliberate attempt to encourage the French electorate to believe that these events strengthen the case for a vote for Le Pen. It is as far from statesmanship as you can get, it is cynical, opportunist and more than a little sinister.
It would have been better had you stayed away for another few days. I dont think his comments and his interview which was edited was bad at all. Why didnt the media post other leaders comments as soon after. Sadly some posters are so quick to jump on comments by trump and farage as it suits them.
''France's President Francois Hollande said said in a late Thursday address he is convinced the attack is a terrorist act.''
''Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says Australia's prayers are with the family of the police officer shot dead on Paris' Champs Elysees.
He said the shooting had all of the hallmarks of a terror attack.''
''French Presidential Favourite Macron: Terrorism ‘Part of Our Daily Lives for Years to Come’ After Paris Shooting''
The British government released an official statement saying it “strongly condemns the appalling terrorist attack in Paris.”
Speaking to reporters in the early hours of Friday, Paris Prosecutor Francois Molins. called the attacker a "terrorist," saying that his identity had been established but was not going to be released amid an ongoing investigation.
A police arrest warrant issued earlier on Thursday, which was seen by Reuters after the attack, warned of a dangerous individual who had come into France by train from Belgium on Thursday
Is expressing your contempt enough? Would you advocate the proscription of religions?
In addition, every child in state education systems in Europe should be taught the science of evolution and the history of how primitive man embraced many thousands of myths and religions to help him understand the world around him, every week from the age of 11 until they leave school.
Sciences should begin to be taught in primary school.