Paris Attacks

dignin said:

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

Nanou said:

The problem was/is that the owner of the Bataclan was giving his club to organise gala events to raise funds for the Israeli borders police. This group came to inform that they wouldn't tolerate this anymore. Also, they said that this Mygdal organisation was constantly insulting Palestinians, Muslims and Arabs, without giving any further details. They needed to hide their faces...
It is not enough to link the attacks to the BDS directly (although the S stands for sanctions), but we cannot say the Bataclan was randomly chosen.

There was no violence at that protest. Violent words? Maybe. I didn't say that the Bataclan was randomly chosen. It looks to me that they were very well planned in their attacks, so not random at all. But they also attacked, or tried to attack the soccer stadium, and a restaurant. What do they all have in common? They are soft targets with a lot of civilians. That's all we know right now. So unless we see some sort of manifesto or some other evidence clearly indicating these attacks were made in part because of the BDS movement....we have no idea.

Willful ignorance.

Willful ignorance or due diligence?

I get it, you don't like the BDS.

I also get that you are a one trick pony. Come back to me with actual evidence.

bootlegger10 said:

dignin said:

How ISIS benefits from anti-refugee sentiment

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/paris-attacks-why-keystone-was-a-powerful-symbol-and-robot-doctors-1.3316988/how-isis-benefits-from-anti-refugee-sentiment-1.3319618

The author is making some assumptions for sure. He could be right, or he could be wrong. There are plenty of articles talking about the refugees coming to Europe is exactly what ISIS wants as it allows terrorists to easily enter and expands their territory.

To me it makes more sense to send 100,000 troops to the Middle East rather than take in 10 million refugees and have to have 100,000 more troops in Europe to defend against the terrorists that came as part of the 10 million.

I don't know what the right answer is. But history tells me that sending in troops almost never works in that region. I don't think we can fix the problems there through the barrel of a gun.

The mess there now is the direct result of the west sending in troops en masse.

BDS makes common cause with awful people and when those awful people pop off the movement wipes their hands of all culpability. Sorry sir but there's blood on dem hands.

dignin said:

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

Nanou said:

The problem was/is that the owner of the Bataclan was giving his club to organise gala events to raise funds for the Israeli borders police. This group came to inform that they wouldn't tolerate this anymore. Also, they said that this Mygdal organisation was constantly insulting Palestinians, Muslims and Arabs, without giving any further details. They needed to hide their faces...
It is not enough to link the attacks to the BDS directly (although the S stands for sanctions), but we cannot say the Bataclan was randomly chosen.

There was no violence at that protest. Violent words? Maybe. I didn't say that the Bataclan was randomly chosen. It looks to me that they were very well planned in their attacks, so not random at all. But they also attacked, or tried to attack the soccer stadium, and a restaurant. What do they all have in common? They are soft targets with a lot of civilians. That's all we know right now. So unless we see some sort of manifesto or some other evidence clearly indicating these attacks were made in part because of the BDS movement....we have no idea.

Willful ignorance.

Willful ignorance or due diligence?

I get it, you don't like the BDS.

I also get that you are a one trick pony. Come back to me with actual evidence.

bootlegger10 said:

dignin said:

How ISIS benefits from anti-refugee sentiment

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/paris-attacks-why-keystone-was-a-powerful-symbol-and-robot-doctors-1.3316988/how-isis-benefits-from-anti-refugee-sentiment-1.3319618

The author is making some assumptions for sure. He could be right, or he could be wrong. There are plenty of articles talking about the refugees coming to Europe is exactly what ISIS wants as it allows terrorists to easily enter and expands their territory.

To me it makes more sense to send 100,000 troops to the Middle East rather than take in 10 million refugees and have to have 100,000 more troops in Europe to defend against the terrorists that came as part of the 10 million.

I don't know what the right answer is. But history tells me that sending in troops almost never works in that region. I don't think we can fix the problems there through the barrel of a gun.

The mess there now is the direct result of the west sending in troops en masse.

I don't know the right answer either. It sucks to send troops to the Middle East and put their lives at risk and have their families deal with it as well. I think the troops will need to stay for at least a generation (50-60 years). We need young people to grow up in a somewhat safe/stable place where they can get education. But some will view this as an occupation and the young people will become radicalized. I don't know!

The USA gets a lot of blame and deserves some of it, but a lot of the blame should be with Russia for actively propping up Assad and Iran and putting no pressure on these regimes. China could do a lot more too. These evil regimes are not going to dissappear on their own, and if you don't want war, then we need a global community that is in agreement on putting pressure on these regimes with whatever sanctions are appropriate or the fact that they all agree to put military action on the table if necessary. Right now it is like two parents who are disagreeing how to raise their kids and the kids are running wild knowing that they won't get punished.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/11/letter-beirut-bomb-151115074258067.html

France bombing Isis hot spots