Hostage/Siege in French Supermarket - Islamic State angle

JenovaProject

Some prick of a left wing politician tweeted celebrating the police officers death.
Happily he's been arrested and hopefully the book is thrown at him the scumbag.

https://www.rte.ie/amp/950106/

baylah17

JenovaProject wrote: »

Some prick of a left wing politician tweeted celebrating the police officers death.
Happily he's been arrested and hopefully the book is thrown at him the scumbag.

https://www.rte.ie/amp/950106/

What an utter prick
Beyond comprehension that anyone could celebrate the death of this man.

Gravelly

JenovaProject wrote: »

Some prick of a left wing politician tweeted celebrating the police officers death.
Happily he's been arrested and hopefully the book is thrown at him the scumbag.

https://www.rte.ie/amp/950106/

Amazed that he did that, the extreme left, unlike the extreme right, rarely say what they actually believe. I'd imagine most of those on the hard left think exactly the same, but wouldn't say it publicly, so as to avoid isolating the media, which is mostly sympathetic (if not outright supportive) of them.

seenitall

Gravelly wrote: »

Amazed that he did that, the extreme left, unlike the extreme right, rarely say what they actually believe. I'd imagine most of those on the hard left think exactly the same, but wouldn't say it publicly, so as to avoid isolating the media, which is mostly sympathetic (if not outright supportive) of them.

The clue to his refreshing honesty is in the second last paragraph of the article. There is little in life that will make a dickish and bitter man an even more dickish and bitter one as thoroughly as a failed political ambition!

FTA69

Deleted User wrote: »

First off, where did I seek to excuse British or any other western imperialism/colonialism?

You didn't perhaps excuse it but you certainly trivialised it by insinuating that the countries would have remained "poor and uneducated anyway" regardless of colonialism when in fact imperialism rendered previously wealthy and sophisticated places into something far worse entirely.

All I did was point out that many countries weren't that wonderful before the Western powers arrived.

Nobody is suggesting that they were paradise, but pretty much as a rule colonialism had a negative impact socially and economically on the countries which suffered it.

Worse quality of life? After colonialism? Hardly. Perhaps for the ruling classes, but the poor were still poor and still treated badly by those above them.

Absolutely there was. And I'll give you two examples. The first is that of the Congo, an excellent book on this is King Leopold's Ghost which details how the population of the Congo was ravaged due to colonial rule. Agriculturally based kingdoms collapsed as the populace was forced into de facto slavery into collecting first ivory and other resources and then into collecting wild rubber. Life expectancy of the people was reduced dramatically and millions perished due to hardship or else by having to flee into the forest to escape. Tribal animosity was exacerbated as the Belgians recruited the Force Publique to maintain order.

The second is India. Before colonisation India accounted for 40% of the world's GDP and its industries were the envy of the world. After independence Indian GDP was around 3% of the world's total. Indian textiles, steel and ships (critical industries back in those days) were world leaders and employed millions of craftsmen and artisans and supporting industries. These were systematically destroyed by the British in the name of free trade (lol), sometimes with the weavers having their thumbs cut off. Even when the Indians began to produce locomotives in the early 20th century that was banned. Where once towns had a varied economy supporting artisans, they were reduced to beggars or labourers. Famine was far more widespread than it had been previously and millions of people starved to death as the British exported food stuffs and cash crops, most famously in the Bengal Famine of the 1940s.

Perhaps more importantly divisions between Muslim and Hindu were formally solidified by the Raj as was caste with the British actually classing entire castes as "criminal tribes" and others as "martial" e.g. The Sikhs. Colonialism itself took a very fluid system and turned it into the rigid codified divisions we have today. Divide et Impera. Shashi Tharoor wrote a fabulous book on this called Inglorious Empire.

Although I'm not sure why you would bring up China since they weren't victims of colonialism, and brought about their own destruction all by themselves.

Colonialism no but imperialism definitely. France, the USA, Britain and others presided over a looting of China with Britain even initiating wars against the Chinese for the right to sell the people of China loads of debilitating opium.

FTA69

FTA69 wrote: »

You didn't perhaps excuse it but you certainly trivialised it by insinuating that the countries would have remained "poor and uneducated anyway" regardless of colonialism when in fact imperialism rendered previously wealthy and sophisticated places into something far worse entirely.

Which countries? India was wealthy for the the upper classes, not the common person. Trade craft workers were still poor. Farmers were still poor. etc. Under both the Mughal and the local princes the normal people were used as a resource, and considered far below that of the "elevated".

When the British conquered the Zulus, the Zulus had for centuries cut an huge area for themselves, destroying any tribes that came within reach. They were the ultimate military nation of the area and used that power without consideration of being nice, or humane. They didn't hesitate to burn, or small the heads of babies off walls.

The point being that European colonialism didn't destroy something wonderful. It was another ****ty system of ruling in a period of other ****ty power systems.

Nobody is suggesting that they were paradise, but pretty much as a rule colonialism had a negative impact socially and economically on the countries which suffered it.

Yup. Agreed. Although eventually the British did manage to end Slavery in all their colonies, which would have had a negative effect on so many economies. once again, I'm not advocating or supporting the system of colonization... However, I'm also not defending the systems that were in place before colonialisation occurred, which you seem to be trying to do.

Absolutely there was. And I'll give you two examples. The first is that of the Congo, an excellent book on this is King Leopold's Ghost which details how the population of the Congo was ravaged due to colonial rule. Agriculturally based kingdoms collapsed as the populace was forced into de facto slavery into collecting first ivory and other resources and then into collecting wild rubber. Life expectancy of the people was reduced dramatically and millions perished due to hardship or else by having to flee into the forest to escape. Tribal animosity was exacerbated as the Belgians recruited the Force Publique to maintain order.

You do like to jump around. Yup, I'm fully aware of the Belgian behavior in the Congo. I've been there. The Belgians behaved as barbarians and stripped the country massacring the population.

The second is India. Before colonisation India accounted for 40% of the world's GDP and its industries were the envy of the world. After independence Indian GDP was around 3% of the world's total. Indian textiles, steel and ships (critical industries back in those days) were world leaders and employed millions of craftsmen and artisans and supporting industries. These were systematically destroyed by the British in the name of free trade (lol), sometimes with the weavers having their thumbs cut off. Even when the Indians began to produce locomotives in the early 20th century that was banned. Where once towns had a varied economy supporting artisans, they were reduced to beggars or labourers. Famine was far more widespread than it had been previously and millions of people starved to death as the British exported food stuffs and cash crops, most famously in the Bengal Famine of the 1940s.

I'm not arguing that the British didn't destroy India's commerce. I'm not even arguing that the British didn't outrageously mismanage the region causing so many deaths.

What I am arguing is that the ruling classes prior to British entry did just as bad to the common person. All your examples of prosperity relate to the wealthy, and educated. Who died in the wars between the princes? Who paid for the wars? Why did most of the princes have massive fortunes but their subjects lived in squalor? etc.

And TBH, I've read so many commentaries talking about how great India was before the British came, but they were still conquered by a much smaller force, due to 'weaknesses' of their own people.

Perhaps more importantly divisions between Muslim and Hindu were formally solidified by the Raj as was caste with the British actually classing entire castes as "criminal tribes" and others as "martial" e.g. The Sikhs. Colonialism itself took a very fluid system and turned it into the rigid codified divisions we have today. Divide et Impera. Shashi Tharoor wrote a fabulous book on this called Inglorious Empire.

You might want to look a bit further into genocides and invasions by 'Islam' into India, to see the divisions and hatreds regarding the religions/faiths. And the caste system was anything but fluid, but a rigid system of oppression to keep the majority of the population down in the dirt.

Colonialism no but imperialism definitely. France, the USA, Britain and others presided over a looting of China with Britain even initiating wars against the Chinese for the right to sell the people of China loads of debilitating opium.

And why did they succeed? Because of the corruption, and political/imperial infighting that was already present within China. China was already starting to fall apart before the Europeans came along... Just as Japan was. Just as any empire that became isolationist during that period. Empires that stop growing/expanding collapse on their own greed and corruption.

It comes down to this. I don't like colonialism... but I'm not going to pretend that the systems/environments before the Europeans arrived were much better. In some cases, they actually were. The Native Indians in North America being the best example. A wonderful series of cultures that provided extremely well for their people, and their neighbors. For the most part.

But then you have parts of Africa where superstition and extreme tribalism held sway. You'd have rival tribes marching in to wipe other tribes out, or to sell them to the "Arabs" as slaves, which they'd sold to the Egyptians before that. Or keeping the slaves themselves, and sacrificing them in the name of their witch-doctors to suit whatever mad fancy they believed to be true.

I'm not defending colonialism. I'm pointing out that in many cases, European colonialism simply occupied the space of something equally bad.

jmayo

baylah17 wrote: »

What an utter prick
Beyond comprehension that anyone could celebrate the death of this man.

Lots of people no doubt as speak are celebrating this mans slaughter.
And a fair chunk of them share the same citizenship.

The number of people in the UK who have admitted that they would not inform on a relative if they knew they were involved with fundamentalists and the fact a suburb of Brussels hid a mass murderer says it all.

BTW I was not trying to derail this thread above, but stating the clear fact as to the obvious lack of some posters thanking a particular post lauding this poor officer.
I do note you did acknowledge this mans sacrifice unlike some who have remained rather quiet.

Odhinn

Deleted User wrote: »

Which countries? India was wealthy for the the upper classes, not the common person. Trade craft workers were still poor. Farmers were still poor. etc. Under both the Mughal and the local princes the normal people were used as a resource, and considered far below that of the "elevated".

When the British conquered the Zulus, the Zulus had for centuries cut an huge area for themselves, destroying any tribes that came within reach. They were the ultimate military nation of the area and used that power without consideration of being nice, or humane. They didn't hesitate to burn, or small the heads of babies off walls.

The point being that European colonialism didn't destroy something wonderful. It was another ****ty system of ruling in a period of other ****ty power systems.
.

It replaced something bad with something far worse.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yup. Agreed. Although eventually the British did manage to end Slavery in all their colonies, which would have had a negative effect on so many economies. once again, I'm not advocating or supporting the system of colonization... However, I'm also not defending the systems that were in place before colonialisation occurred, which you seem to be trying to do. .

Slavery is ultimately damaging to economic progress, and this was known at the time.

Deleted User wrote: »

And TBH, I've read so many commentaries talking about how great India was before the British came, but they were still conquered by a much smaller force, due to 'weaknesses' of their own people.

India was not a single state. Thus rulers were played off against each other over an extended period of time. The same tactic was employed in latin america by the spanish.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not defending colonialism. I'm pointing out that in many cases, European colonialism simply occupied the space of something equally bad.

And you'd be wrong.

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

BTW I was not trying to derail this thread above, but stating the clear fact as to the obvious lack of some posters thanking a particular post lauding this poor officer.
I do note you did acknowledge this mans sacrifice unlike some who have remained rather quiet.

For many of us, clicking a "like" on someones post is not a sign of respect for the deceased. We're fully capable of appreciating the sacrifice that this man made without seeking social proof.

Odhinn, I'll respond later. No time right now. gtg.

Sand

Odhinn wrote: »

It replaced something bad with something far worse.

One critique of Irish nationalism I saw was that there was a class of Irish patriot who highly objected to foreigners exploiting the native Irish when there was plenty of locals willing to do it themselves.

That's all colonialism ever was: a stronger exploitative force, able to despose or co-opt the local exploitative rulers. It was not some uniquely evil act. It was the same thing human beings have done to each other since the beginning of time. It was extremely brief in places like Africa (from the late 19th century to the end of the second world war). And 70 years after the departure of the British from India...well, there is still untold misery in that country after 3-4 generations of rule by the Indian elite.

Slavery is ultimately damaging to economic progress, and this was known at the time.

Damaging for whose economic progress? Not the slave owners. People cant have it both ways on the economic effects of slavery.

The British banned the slave trade in 1807, slavery as an institution in 1833. Long, long before voting rights were extended to the lower class workers who economic interests were hindered by slavery.

And you'd be wrong.

Charles Napier on the Indian practise of Sati which the British encountered in India, and banned:

"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

Wise words for the ages when it comes to respecting each others customs.

Odhinn

Sand wrote: »

One critique of Irish nationalism I saw was that there was a class of Irish patriot who highly objected to foreigners exploiting the native Irish when there was plenty of locals willing to do it themselves.

That's all colonialism ever was: a stronger exploitative force, able to despose or co-opt the local exploitative rulers. It was not some uniquely evil act. It was the same thing human beings have done to each other since the beginning of time. It was extremely brief in places like Africa (from the late 19th century to the end of the second world war). And 70 years after the departure of the British from India...well, there is still untold misery in that country after 3-4 generations of rule by the Indian elite.

...despite that, and the legacy of state backed ethnic/religous conflict, there is still progress, that never would have been seen in a colonised state.

Sand wrote: »

Damaging for whose economic progress? Not the slave owners. People cant have it both ways on the economic effects of slavery.

For the entire population. The americans had a war on the issue.

Odhinn

Odhinn wrote: »

It replaced something bad with something far worse.

In some areas, definitely yes. On other areas, not so much.

European empires imposed their own laws, and culture upon their 'subjects' often outlawing barbaric practices, and massive social/economic inequalities. That they held themselves above their subjects isn't being denied, but they often stifled horrible practices which were native to the peoples themselves.

And all you have to do is look around and you'll see Empires, confederacies, and kingdoms, where some people were elevated above the above the majority, and treated the majority like crap.

Slavery is ultimately damaging to economic progress, and this was known at the time.

The British own focus on the destruction of slavery came only in part by the altruistic public movements of private citizens and religious organisations. It also came from the knowledge that destroying the slave trade would weaken Islamic nations in the M.East. Which it did. Quite a few non-european nations were perfectly content in the use of slavery to bolster their economies.

India was not a single state. Thus rulers were played off against each other over an extended period of time. The same tactic was employed in latin america by the spanish.

Indian princes were plotting and fighting against each other long before the British came. They were doing it when the Mughal Emperor was still held as their ruler. It was a form of control that sought to prevent any one prince gaining enough power over the others. You can see the same behavior in the Satraps of Persia, or any number of Eastern Empires.

And you'd be wrong.

In your opinion. :rolleyes:

You're welcome to prove me wrong.

For the entire population. The americans had a war on the issue.

Americans had a civil war due to economic reasons and the growth of the Federal government. Slavery only become a 'serious' subject when they wanted fresh bodies to fill the ranks of their armies, and frankly the behavior of the Federal government towards black people after the war is horrible. Slavery took far longer than that war for the practice to be removed.

Captain Obvious

Omackeral wrote: »

Dunno if it’s really appropriate to say this but look who did and didn’t thank this post. It speaks volumes really.

jmayo wrote: »

It is very noticable who didn't thank that post.

Maybe if the policeman was of an immigrant background of a certain religious background we would see more posters admiring his ultimate sacrifice. :rolleyes:

What a disgusting and pathetic attempt to try turn that hero's death into an ad hominem attack on the people who disagree with you about immigration policy. Absolutely shameful.

conorhal

JenovaProject wrote: »

Some prick of a left wing politician tweeted celebrating the police officers death.
Happily he's been arrested and hopefully the book is thrown at him the scumbag.

https://www.rte.ie/amp/950106/

I disagree, I can't in all good conscience defend Count Dankula and demand this man go to jail for tweet. That's Orwellian and if being a di**head on the internet is made illegal then Boards would turn into a wasteland overnight.

I would imagine he will face some social opprobrium and lord knows he's never going to have a political career now because every time he ran you can bet his opponents will throw his words in his face.
He's entitled to his opinion just as every sane person in the world is entitled to think he's a c$%&t.

Grayson

Gravelly wrote: »

Amazed that he did that, the extreme left, unlike the extreme right, rarely say what they actually believe. I'd imagine most of those on the hard left think exactly the same, but wouldn't say it publicly, so as to avoid isolating the media, which is mostly sympathetic (if not outright supportive) of them.

pretty much no-one thinks that he should have died. I'd think even those with very left politics would either. Sure there are people who have a gripe with the police but that's got little to do with politics. You see it with the extreme right as well.

This guy isn't just an asshole, he's also stupid. Even if you're dumb enough to believe that crap it takes an even dumber person to actually tweet it.

Grayson

jmayo wrote: »

Lots of people no doubt as speak are celebrating this mans slaughter.
And a fair chunk of them share the same citizenship.

The number of people in the UK who have admitted that they would not inform on a relative if they knew they were involved with fundamentalists and the fact a suburb of Brussels hid a mass murderer says it all.

BTW I was not trying to derail this thread above, but stating the clear fact as to the obvious lack of some posters thanking a particular post lauding this poor officer.
I do note you did acknowledge this mans sacrifice unlike some who have remained rather quiet.

Once again.... That survey always comes up. So why don't you actually get the full survey and read it.

The options given were stuff like talk to them, talk to their family, report to the police and do nothing.

They had a control, a group of non muslims that took the same survey and more non muslims said they'd do nothing than muslims. Muslims were more likely to actually so something.

So if you're going to try and make a point, at least research it and don't use a survey that disproves the point you're trying to make.

Now as for the You didn't click like on a post so therefore you support the terrorists/are glad a hero cop died argument... do I really have to tell you how utterly, unbelievable stupid that is. Next you'll tell us that anyone who didn't change their Facebook profile pic to a french flag after the Paris attacks is a secret isis supporter.

RDM_83 again

Grayson wrote: »

Now as for the You didn't click like on a post so therefore you support the terrorists/are glad a hero cop died argument... do I really have to tell you how utterly, unbelievable stupid that is. Next you'll tell us that anyone who didn't change their Facebook profile pic to a french flag after the Paris attacks is a secret isis supporter.

I think your right about that but I also think you can take a look at threads about school shootings in the USA and there will be poster(s) saying that they would never live in the USA, that's it's in love with a violent culture, that it's a toxic place, that their society is messed up.

Those posters would never say the same thing about a country that's suffering from Radical Islamist attacks.

It's not a crazy comparison either, about 300 people have died since 2015 due to these nutters in France, what's the Death count for school shootings in the US for that period (keeping in mind the vastly higher population).

Basically for a sub-set of people, it's ok to make wild sweeping generalities as the perpetrators are "politically correct" yet if the statement is made about a place like France it's all about "over reaction"

take everything

FTA69 wrote: »

France has had a solid Muslim population for over a century and at one stage considered Algeria and other parts of the Maghreb as actual parts of France. This radical jihadi lunacy is a recent thing and has come about as part of a systematic hardening of Islamic orthodoxy across the Muslim world. This sort of thing was barely in existence not so long ago.

Our problem per se isn't "Muslim immigration", we've had that in European countries for decades (and longer) now - it's the radicalisation of a section of young Muslim men. In England you have the bizarre situation of Pakistani fellas who moved here in the early 1970s happy out now dealing with their sons or grandsons who have been radicalised in places like Bradford. It's a deeply complex thing but 'shut the doors' won't make a blind of difference when most of the ones doing the killing are the people born and raised here.

We need to analyse why this version of radical, confrontational religion has gained traction.

Good post.
Why is it so often second or third generation young Muslim men.
That's the analysis that needs to be done.

RDM_83 again

FTA69 wrote: »

Perhaps more importantly divisions between Muslim and Hindu were formally solidified by the Raj as was caste with the British actually classing entire castes as "criminal tribes" and others as "martial" e.g. The Sikhs. Colonialism itself took a very fluid system and turned it into the rigid codified divisions we have today. Divide et Impera. Shashi Tharoor wrote a fabulous book on this called Inglorious Empire.

This type of thing about blaming the British for the caste system is popular with some for "reasons", problem is is simply post colonial revisionism that doesn't match the facts.

Science tells us a rigid caste system existed 1000's of years before the British arrived.

https://www.livescience.com/38751-genetic-study-reveals-caste-system-origins.html

jmayo

Deleted User wrote: »

For many of us, clicking a "like" on someones post is not a sign of respect for the deceased. We're fully capable of appreciating the sacrifice that this man made without seeking social proof.
...

Funny how some posters are very damn quick to thank other posts.

To me thanking a post means you agree with it, or a portion of it, and you are displaying your solidarity with the poster and the opinions raised in the post.

An the aim of the original post was to show respect for the bravery and ultimate sacrifice made by the deceased officer.

BTW if I gave a feck about social approval I would be on your side.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

What a disgusting and pathetic attempt to try turn that hero's death into an ad hominem attack on the people who disagree with you about immigration policy. Absolutely shameful.

And once again why haven't any of the usual suspects either thanked the posts lauding this officer.
But then again most of them have avoided this thread, as was mentioned by one poster, because once again it shines a light into the corner with the inconvenient truth.
At least you and a couple of others have hung around to argue your point of view.

Grayson wrote: »

Once again.... That survey always comes up. So why don't you actually get the full survey and read it.

The options given were stuff like talk to them, talk to their family, report to the police and do nothing.

They had a control, a group of non muslims that took the same survey and more non muslims said they'd do nothing than muslims. Muslims were more likely to actually so something.

So if you're going to try and make a point, at least research it and don't use a survey that disproves the point you're trying to make.

Can you provide us with a link to the complete survey?

Or is the one where ...

52% do not believe that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed.

47% do not believe that it is acceptable for a school teacher to be homosexual, compared with 14% of the general population.
...
4% said they sympathised with people who took part in suicide bombings (1% said they completely sympathised and 3% said they sympathised to some extent),
4% said they sympathised with people who committed terrorist actions as a form of political protest generally.
...
23% supported the introduction of sharia law in some areas of Britain,
and 39% agreed that “wives should always obey their husbands”, compared with 5% of the country as a whole
...
32% refuse to condemn those who take part in violence against those who mock the Prophet


And then can you tell us about Molenbeek, which I noticed you refrained from mentioning in your reply ?

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

Funny how some posters are very damn quick to thank other posts.

To me, thanking a post means you agree with it, or a portion of it, and you are displaying your solidarity with the poster and the opinions raised in the post.

Sure, I get that. I thank posts all the time for remarks I agree with or find well written. IMHO, Doing a RIP for someone who has died though doesn't deserve a like. I haven't done it in this thread, or in other threads on boards.

An the aim of the original post was to show respect for the bravery and ultimate sacrifice made by the deceased officer.

I guess I have a different background then. Personally, I don't see thanking someones RIP post on boards as a sign of respect for the deceased. There seems to be a race here sometimes to be the first person to RIP someone and bask in the glow of receiving all those 'likes'.

Now, I get it that some people might value that. I don't.... and I don't appreciate being judged for that silence, considering there is no way to prove whether people who clicked the like... genuinely have any respect for the deceased, or are simply going with the "flow".

Wibbs

take everything wrote: »

Good post.
Why is it so often second or third generation young Muslim men.
That's the analysis that needs to be done.

One could argue it's simply that multiculturalism doesn't work over time. The first generations of people are a) keen to make a place for themselves and their families so keep their heads down.
b) the first generation feels themselves "foreign" so are more likely to accept suspicion, even racism from the indigenous population.
c) the first generation are on average almost always in lower tiers of the the native society doing work the "locals" are less likely to do.
d)The first generation are usually small in number.

The second and third generations feel "local" and on the surface appear to be treated as "local", but they increasingly feel they're not and unlike their parents and grandparents are far less likely to accept that status quo. Their populations are also larger.

WinnyThePoo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sure, I get that. I thank posts all the time for remarks I agree with or find well written. IMHO, Doing a RIP for someone who has died though doesn't deserve a like. I haven't done it in this thread, or in other threads on boards.



I guess I have a different background then. Personally, I don't see thanking someones RIP post on boards as a sign of respect for the deceased. There seems to be a race here sometimes to be the first person to RIP someone and bask in the glow of receiving all those 'likes'.

Now, I get it that some people might value that. I don't.... and I don't appreciate being judged for that silence, considering there is no way to prove whether people who clicked the like... genuinely have any respect for the deceased, or are simply going with the "flow".

Obsession with likes is just weird. Especially using it to attack posters.

I wonder does jmayo write down lists of the people he thinks should have liked a post.

inforfun

Friday's piece of **** had a girlfriend. A converted to islam French girl who thinks it is a pity not more people died but claims to not have known about her future husbands plans.

I hope they will meet soon again.

(link is in french but when chrome offers to translate, it does do a well enough)

AlekSmart

Just to return to the actual thread topic,the Supermarket Siege itself.

Is there any clarity yet,as to the circumstances of Col.Beltrame's wounding ?
French coverage as yet,understandably,focuses on Col Beltrame's bravery and professionalism,with little known as to the circumstances of the shooting.

Was Col Beltrame shot by the Criminal or was he hit by rounds fired by the Police themselves ?

It is academic really,as this very brave man's life,was ended by the actions of a petty criminal low-life,who was given far to much leeway to act out his deranged quasi-religious violent nonsense.

However,knowing the exact circumstances and learning from them,might just save the life of the next French Gendarme who comes face to face with Religious Inspired Insanity.

fash

AlekSmart wrote: »

Just to return to the actual thread topic,the Supermarket Siege itself.

Is there any clarity yet,as to the circumstances of Col.Beltrame's wounding ?
French coverage as yet,understandably,focuses on Col Beltrame's bravery and professionalism,with little known as to the circumstances of the shooting.

Was Col Beltrame shot by the Criminal or was he hit by rounds fired by the Police themselves ?

It is academic really,as this very brave man's life,was ended by the actions of a petty criminal low-life,who was given far to much leeway to act out his deranged quasi-religious violent nonsense.

However,knowing the exact circumstances and learning from them,might just save the life of the next French Gendarme who comes face to face with Religious Inspired Insanity.

I gather that he was shot by the criminal, the police heard the shots (over the open phone line?), then used that as a cue to enter and neutralise the criminal.

Captain Obvious

jmayo wrote: »

And once again why haven't any of the usual suspects either thanked the posts lauding this officer.
But then again most of them have avoided this thread, as was mentioned by one poster, because once again it shines a light into the corner with the inconvenient truth.
At least you and a couple of others have hung around to argue your point of view.

You're still doing it. You are still using his death to try and attack other posters. Have you no shame at all?

pjohnson

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You're still doing it. You are still using his death to try and attack other posters. Have you no shame at all?

Stop trying to shame him. This abuse is what causes suicides I thought you said?

Captain Obvious

pjohnson wrote: »

Stop trying to shame him. This abuse is what causes suicides I thought you said?

I said shaming people with mental health issues causes suicides. Do you think jmayo has mental health issues?

Mountainsandh

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure, I get that. I thank posts all the time for remarks I agree with or find well written. IMHO, Doing a RIP for someone who has died though doesn't deserve a like. I haven't done it in this thread, or in other threads on boards.



I guess I have a different background then. Personally, I don't see thanking someones RIP post on boards as a sign of respect for the deceased. There seems to be a race here sometimes to be the first person to RIP someone and bask in the glow of receiving all those 'likes'.

Now, I get it that some people might value that. I don't.... and I don't appreciate being judged for that silence, considering there is no way to prove whether people who clicked the like... genuinely have any respect for the deceased, or are simply going with the "flow".

Hey, that's not really fair.
I didn't post this thinking : oh goody goody, I'll get lots of likes, in fact I haven't even been to the post to see if it has lots of likes.

I posted this because I follow the French news and thought that was a suitable update to the thread, and I thought "Dammit, there's a man that should have really survived, he's the real proper type hero, and that picture shows what a simple but nice man he seemed". Plus, all info there was the night before was that he was in hospital injured, but there wasn't much indication of how serious it was.
It just seemed nice to acknowledge the guy.

I didn't put RIP in the post for that reason. I'm not a bit religious, and don't really go for the formality of ritualistic "sorry for your troubles/RIP" set interactions.

If someone dies and I have something to say about them, then I just say it plainly. That people turn it into a RIP post and count thanks is none of my original business and indicative of the tit for tat the thread has become, instead of just an info thread.