Paris again?

RobertKK · 03-02-2017 3:45pm

topper75 wrote: »

07/07 was backpacks. If you fully appreciated those circumstances, you will know the officers were simply executing their less than enviable duties that day.

Very tough for that Brazilian lad's family. He had his whole life ahead of him. But all of us as adults are responsible for our actions. When police shout Stop!, the best course of action is...

The police officers should have shouted 'stop' in Portuguese...

topper75 · 03-02-2017 3:45pm

Grayson wrote: »

And to be fair, he had brown skin and that was his own fault.

The melanin levels in his skin inhibited his ability to follow police orders in a high-tension scenario?

Bob24 · 03-02-2017 3:46pm

Grayson wrote: »

And to be fair, he had brown skin and that was his own fault.

Calling for racist behaviour ("brown skin" ...) our of nowhere is not going to win any points ... all it can do is make the discussion less civilised :-/

Jelle1880 · 03-02-2017 3:48pm

topper75 wrote: »

The melanin levels in his skin inhibited his ability to follow police orders in a high-tension scenario?

Which orders were that ?

From the wiki article posted above:

Police initially stated that they challenged Menezes and ordered him to stop outside Stockwell station. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said in a later press conference that a warning was issued prior to the shooting. Lee Ruston, an eyewitness who was waiting on the platform, said the police did not identify themselves. The Times reported 'senior police sources' as saying that police policy would not require a warning to be given to a suspected suicide bomber before lethal action was taken.[102]

The leaked IPCC documents indicated that Menezes was seated on the train carriage when the SO19 armed unit arrived. A shout of 'police' may have been made, but the suspect never really had an opportunity to respond before he was shot. The leaked documents indicated that he was restrained by an undercover officer before being shot.

During the 2008 inquest into Menezes's death, passengers who were travelling in the same carriage also contradicted police accounts, saying that they heard no warnings and that Menezes gave no significant reaction to arrival of the policemen. One passenger said that Menezes appeared calm even as a gun was held to his head and was clear that the police officers did not shout any warnings before shooting him.[103]

In its open verdict on 12 December 2008, the jury decided 8 to 2 that no shouted warning had been given.[104]

Trent Houseboat · 03-02-2017 3:51pm

topper75 wrote: »

07/07 was backpacks. If you fully appreciated those circumstances, you will know the officers were simply executing their less than enviable duties that day.

Very tough for that Brazilian lad's family. He had his whole life ahead of him. But all of us as adults are responsible for our actions. When police shout Stop!, the best course of action is...

That was the official lie that was put out at the time, but it later came to light that he never jumped the barrier and he was in his seat on the train when the police identified themselves, not running away.

RobertKK wrote: »

The police officers should have shouted 'stop' in Portuguese...

It would have been nice if they'd said it in English, but that would interfere with your joke about a innocent dead man.

Grayson · 03-02-2017 3:52pm

Bob24 wrote: »

Implying another poster is racist ("brown skin" ...) when you disagree with them is not going to win any points ... all it can do is make the discussion less civilised :-/

I never implied the poster was. I was implying the police were.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

Unaware the station was closed, the surveillance officers said they believed that Menezes's behaviour suggested that he might have been one of the previous day's failed bomb suspects. Officers claimed that Mr Menezes' behaviour appeared 'suspicious'.[8] They later stated that they were satisfied that they had the correct man, noting that he 'had Mongolian eyes'.

He wasn't challenged. A number of plain clothes police jumped him and then started shooting him. They identified themselves as police after the shooting started.

The firearms officers boarded the train and it was initially claimed they challenged the suspect, though later reports indicate he was not challenged.[12] According to Hotel 3, Menezes then stood up and advanced towards the officers and Hotel 3, at which point Hotel 3 grabbed him, pinned his arms against his torso, and pushed him back into the seat. Although Menezes was being restrained, his body was straight and not in a natural sitting position. Hotel 3 heard a shot close to his ear, and was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage. He shouted 'Police!' and with hands raised was dragged out of the carriage by one of the armed officers who had boarded the train. Hotel 3 then heard several gunshots while being dragged out.[13]
Two officers fired a total of eleven shots according to the number of empty shell casings found on the floor of the train afterwards. Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder at close range, and died at the scene. An eyewitness later said that the eleven shots were fired over a thirty-second period, at three second intervals.[14] A separate witness reported hearing five shots, followed at an interval by several more shots.[15]
Immediately after the shooting, the Metropolitan Police stated that the shooting was 'directly linked' to the investigation of the attempted bombings the previous day. It was revealed that police policy toward suspected suicide bombers had been revised, and that officers had been ordered to fire directly toward suspects' heads, the theory according to British authorities being that shooting at the chest could conceivably detonate a concealed bomb.[16]

If you go back earlier in the story they followed him because he had dark skin and was near where they suspected the bombers to be. At no point did they confirm that he was one of the bombers.

It was a cluster fcuk of massive proportions.

Mr. Incognito · 03-02-2017 3:52pm

topper75 wrote: »

I remember that case differently. Was he not running from police who shouted at him to stop at a high-tension time in a south London tube station (high tension as in the immediate aftermath of the 07/07/05 tube bombings)?

Still tragic mind you, but not exactly in the 'going about his day' ballpark.

Wow.

It's actually incredible the misinformation that sticks around. He wasn't running away. He was shot on the train at close range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

Menezes entered the Tube station at about 10:00am, stopping to pick up a free newspaper. He used his Oyster card to pay the fare, walked through the barriers, and descended the escalator. He then ran across the platform to board the newly arrived train. Menezes boarded the train and found one of the first available seats.

Three surveillance officers, codenamed Hotel 1, Hotel 3 and Hotel 9, followed Menezes onto the train. According to Hotel 3, Menezes sat down with a glass panel to his right about two seats in. Hotel 3 then took a seat on the left with about two or three passengers between Menezes and himself. When the firearms officers arrived on the platform, Hotel 3 moved to the door, blocked it from closing with his left foot, and shouted 'He's here!' to identify the suspect's location.
Shooting

The firearms officers boarded the train and it was initially claimed they challenged the suspect, though later reports indicate he was not challenged.[12] According to Hotel 3, Menezes then stood up and advanced towards the officers and Hotel 3, at which point Hotel 3 grabbed him, pinned his arms against his torso, and pushed him back into the seat. Although Menezes was being restrained, his body was straight and not in a natural sitting position. Hotel 3 heard a shot close to his ear, and was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage. He shouted 'Police!' and with hands raised was dragged out of the carriage by one of the armed officers who had boarded the train. Hotel 3 then heard several gunshots while being dragged out.[13]

Two officers fired a total of eleven shots according to the number of empty shell casings found on the floor of the train afterwards. Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder at close range, and died at the scene. An eyewitness later said that the eleven shots were fired over a thirty-second period, at three second intervals.[14] A separate witness reported hearing five shots, followed at an interval by several more shots.[15]

The jury in the case after hearing the Evidence decised that the Police statements were a pack of lies.

03-02-2017 3:53pm

topper75 wrote: »

07/07 was backpacks. If you fully appreciated those circumstances, you will know the officers were simply executing their less than enviable duties that day.

Very tough for that Brazilian lad's family. He had his whole life ahead of him. But all of us as adults are responsible for our actions. When police shout Stop!, the best course of action is...

So the Police were found to have failed in their duty of care but hey, **** happens I guess? Link to where the cops shouted stop? Because they allowed him to get onto the train (despite orders apparently given not to, having tailed him on a bus jounrey) and the people there said there was no warning given.

Felix Jones is God · 03-02-2017 3:57pm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

One said it never happens in Real life.

And it doesn't in an instantaneous situation, it's actively discouraged. look it up there for yourself

Mary63 · 03-02-2017 4:00pm

The Police are so brave putting their lives on the line for the rest of us.Mistakes happen in times of heightened security.The people who caused the terror alert in London that day are responsible for the Brazilian man death and not Police who have seconds to stop mass carnage.

Also if he had stayed in the seat and not advanced towards the officers he would still be alive, it was a panic situation and caused by terrorists.

Grayson · 03-02-2017 4:01pm

Mary63 wrote: »

The Police are so brave putting their lives on the line for the rest of us.Mistakes happen in times of heightened security.The people who caused the terror alert in London that day are responsible for the Brazilian man death and not Police who have seconds to stop mass carnage.

Also if he had stayed in the seat and not advanced towards the officers he would still be alive, it was a panic situation and caused by terrorists.

*cough* Bullsh1t *cough*

He walked towards people he didn't know were police so it's his fault he was shot 7 times in the head over a 30 second period.

Shurimgreat · 03-02-2017 4:07pm

Unfortunate, but the average person has far more chance of being a victim of choking or being hit by a bus crossing the road. Its important to keep all this in context. Terrorism is nothing new, its been around for thousands of years in one shape or another.

The problem the French have however is there are thousands of radicalised citizens and you can't keep track of them all. The French seem to be getting better at the intelligence side of things but bar technology that read minds, you can't predict when and where the next terrorist will act.

Mr. Incognito · 03-02-2017 4:08pm

Mary63 wrote: »

The Police are so brave putting their lives on the line for the rest of us.Mistakes happen in times of heightened security.The people who caused the terror alert in London that day are responsible for the Brazilian man death and not Police who have seconds to stop mass carnage.

Also if he had stayed in the seat and not advanced towards the officers he would still be alive, it was a panic situation and caused by terrorists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

What terrorists? What panic situation exactly? This was two weeks after the London bombings.

It was an execution carried out by misinformed police.

This happens all the time. In the US, in Britain, In Brazil, in any country you have armed police.

We do not know the suspect, his identity, his motives, the facts.

Anything the police say until this is established should not be treated as the whole truth and nothing but the truth based on experiences of the media so far. They almost always get it wrong initially.

On Friday, 12 December 2008 the inquest into Jean Charles' death returned an open verdict.[94] Their answers to the specific questions and contributory facts were as follows. In the latter portion, the answers 'yes', 'no', and 'can't decide' were determined by the jury while answering the broader question 'which of these other factors, if any, contributed to the death.'[95]
Questions of fact
Did firearms officer C12 shout 'armed police'? No
Did Mr Menezes stand up from his seat before he was grabbed in a bear hug by officer Ivor? Yes
Did Mr Menezes move towards C12 before he was grabbed in a bear hug by Ivor? No

Mary63 · 03-02-2017 4:11pm

Did anyone else in the carriage get up and walk towards the Police, they were putting their lives on the line too and they are extremely brave.

Again that death is the responsibility of the people who caused the terrorist situation and not on the Police whose duty it is to protect the public.

Its very easy for jurists who are never in the front line of madmen with hatchets to decide the facts after the events.

ETA, fifty two people had been murdered in London two weeks previously so the city was under a terror alert.Its always under a terror alert and if it wasn't for the security services an awful lot more people would be murdered too.We all own these people a debt of gratitude for our freedom to go where we please and not be murdered by mad ISIS terrorists filled with hate and high on drugs.

Mr. Incognito · 03-02-2017 4:20pm

Mary63 wrote: »

Did anyone else in the carriage get up and walk towards the Police, they were putting their lives on the line too and they are extremely brave.

Again that death is the responsibility of the people who caused the terrorist situation and not on the Police whose duty it is to protect the public.

Its very easy for jurists who are never in the front line of madmen with hatchets to decide the facts after the events.

I would suggest that you read the actual facts of the case.

Your response to everything seems to be Ah sure they're very brave and its not their fault they shot an innocent man in the head seven times without warning because of their own incompetance.

The police have a job to do. It's a hard job. It's a tough job. They deal with actual terrorists and murderers and criminals and all sorts of crap. But that power cannot be absolute. It must be tempered by intelligence, and restraint. In general it is not however.

One thing about cops thought is they protect their own. If this lad turns out to be a terrorist then fair play and god bless them.

If he turns out to be a tourist or a local parisian who was pissed off they wouldnt let him in with his bags and he advanced on one soilder giving out and he was shot by another (as appears to be the account) and turned out to have a swiss army knife on his keyring then the media frenzy, and Islamaphobic tweet that the Donald has put out is more sensationalist nonsense. At present I cant tell which it is but I find the latter more likely. I dont think a "terrorist" is going to be strolling around with two bag packs and getting cranky when he is not allowed in. I would think they'd be slightly more organised than that.

Butters1979 · 03-02-2017 4:21pm

The terrorist apologists have managed to deflect to a police shooting in London from 10 years ago.
We're not sure if this incident in Paris is terrorism yet, but can we talk about the incident and what facts we have instead of trump and other unrelated ****e?

RobertKK · 03-02-2017 4:22pm

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

It would have been nice if they'd said it in English, but that would interfere with your joke about a innocent dead man.

I was not joking, I mean if I was in a foreign country where the language is not English, how am I exp0ected to know what stop is in a froeign language, how am I to obey if I don't know what was being said?

I was just pointing out that the man may not haven know the word stop, the last thing I would do about him is make it into a joke.

Mr. Incognito · 03-02-2017 4:25pm

Butters1979 wrote: »

The terrorist apologists have managed to deflect to a police shooting in London from 10 years ago.
We're not sure if this incident in Paris is terrorism yet, but can we talk about the incident and what facts we have instead of trump and other unrelated ****e?

Its impossible to talk about the incident yet becase we dont have the facts.

All we can do is surmise likely causes.

1. Unhinged Terrorist
2. Police over reaction to aggrivated person.

Seems to be the jist of it.

Just because people are contemplating number 2 based on past actual experiences doesnt make them "terrorist apologists"- (what does that even mean btw). It just means they are capable of rational thought which sadly a lot of bigots are not as they cling to irrational thought and hatred and fear like our friend Donald who, without knowing the identity of the shot individual has already named him as Islamic.

Will he care if it turns out to be a white Christian?

Butters1979 · 03-02-2017 4:32pm

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Its impossible to talk about the incident yet becase we dont have the facts.

All we can do is surmise likely causes.

1. Unhinged Terrorist
2. Police over reaction to aggrivated person.

Seems to be the jist of it.

Just because people are contemplating number 2 based on past actual experiences doesnt make them "terrorist apologists"- (what does that even mean btw). It just means they are capable of rational thought which sadly a lot of bigots are not as they cling to irrational thought and hatred and fear.

There is history of terroist attacks
There is history of police unlawful killings
There is history of lone nut cases

None of these prove what this is. Only time will tell with that. But everything that happens now certain posters come on to tell us how anyone assuming it's a terrorist attack is been racist and stupid and then goes on to argue it's something else.

A terrorist apologised is someone who tries to blame the society that is targeted to absolve the perpetrators. This, as much as terrorism in the first place, helps push people to the right.

learn_more · 03-02-2017 4:33pm

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Wow.

It's actually incredible the misinformation that sticks around. He wasn't running away. He was shot on the train at close range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

The jury in the case after hearing the Evidence decised that the Police statements were a pack of lies.

Yes but you can forgive ppl for thinking that that was the case because that was the story that the British put out at the time in a deliberate attempt to conceal what really happened knowing full well that when the real story emerged the story would not be so much in the public eye. Absolutely despicable what they did.

seamus · 03-02-2017 4:36pm

learn_more wrote: »

Yes but you can forgive ppl for thinking that that was the case because that was the story that British put out at the time in a deliberate attempt to conceal what really happened knowing full well that when the real story emerged the story would not be so much in the public eye. Absolutely despicable what they did.

Which is a perfect example of why we should always be cautious about taking initial reports of any incident as gospel.

These reports are virtually always grains of truth rolled up in extrapolation or sometimes pure lies depending on who reported it. And contrary to popular belief, eyewitnesses are often the least reliable sources of information in the immediate aftermath.

Trent Houseboat · 03-02-2017 4:39pm

RobertKK wrote: »

I was not joking, I mean if I was in a foreign country where the language is not English, how am I exp0ected to know what stop is in a froeign language, how am I to obey if I don't know what was being said?

I was just pointing out that the man may not haven know the word stop, the last thing I would do about him is make it into a joke.

OK, because I read that as "He had it coming for running away from the police, you don't need to know the language to not do that".
But you're now sincerely claiming that they should have told him to stop in Portuguese?

Butters1979 wrote: »

A terrorist apologised is someone who tries to blame the society that is targeted to absolve the perpetrators. This, as much as terrorism in the first place, helps push people to the right.

No one here is trying to do that. It's a strawman entirely of your creation, so I don't know how it's pushing people to the right. Unless people are pretending it is happening in order to recruit people to far right ideals.

Mr. Incognito · 03-02-2017 4:42pm

Butters1979 wrote: »

A terrorist apologised is someone who tries to blame the society that is targeted to absolve the perpetrators. This, as much as terrorism in the first place, helps push people to the right.

Really?

Well according to that definition I am a terrorist apologist.

Terrorism isn't born in a cave and hatched. It is created by Global injustices where we drop bombs on foreign countries, marginalise sections of society based on race or religion and commit state sanctioned murder where innocent civilians are bombed on Live Tv and military incursions are given snappy names like Shock and Awe and some how we act surprised when people get upset about it and become radicalised in our own societies. Most of these terrorist attacks are carried out by national radicalised persons rather than foreign terrorists.

But that's not what you really mean though.

A Terrorist Apologist by its constructoin would point to someone who condones or indeed supports terrorism. Whilst you might only support one side I support neither. I don't condone terrorism. Be it state sanctioned or Islamic nutjobs.

Both are equally wrong. Both are equally stupid.

And writing these attacks off as some sort of dumb morons who "hate freedom" is the worst type of flat out dumbing down I have ever seen. But then again, most people are pretty stupid when they are afraid and the media is spoon feeding people a constant diet of lies and fear.

Where's all the coverage about the radical muslum attack in Quebec last Monday who also shouted Allah Akbar with his buddy with an AK-47 and the same nonsense is being spoon fed five days later.

Forgive me if I am a non believer for now.

learn_more · 03-02-2017 4:44pm

seamus wrote: »

Which is a perfect example of why we should always be cautious about taking initial reports of any incident as gospel.

These reports are virtually always grains of truth rolled up in extrapolation or sometimes pure lies depending on who reported it. And contrary to popular belief, eyewitnesses are often the least reliable sources of information in the immediate aftermath.

Absolutely. That's why I believe that no matter how democratic a country is you can never trust the police or the secret services in matters like these.

Widdershins · 03-02-2017 4:44pm

Not just initial report. Be cautious about taking all report as gospel. Affixing the Mentally Ill label to terrorists is not unheard of and does a disservice to victims and their families. And stigmatises people with actual mental illneses. After all, few people with common mental illnesses are violent people.

darkpagandeath · 03-02-2017 4:45pm

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Really?

Well according to that definition I am a terrorist apologist.

Terrorism isn't born in a cave and hatched. It is created by Global injustices where we drop bombs on foreign countries, marginalise sections of society based on race or religion and commit state sanctioned murder where innocent civilians are bombed on Live Tv and military incursions are given snappy names like Shock and Awe and some how we act surprised when people get upset about it and become radicalised in our own societies. Most of these terrorist attacks are carried out by national radicalised persons rather than foreign terrorists.

But that's not what you really mean though.

A Terrorist Apologist by its constructoin would point to someone who condones or indeed supports terrorism. Whilst you might only support one side I support neither. I don't condone terrorism. Be it state sanctioned or Islamic nutjobs.

Both are equally wrong. Both are equally stupid.

And writing these attacks off as some sort of dumb morons who "hate freedom" is the worst type of flat out dumbing down I have ever seen. But then again, most people are pretty stupid when they are afraid and the media is spoon feeding people a constant diet of lies and fear.

Where's all the coverage about the radical muslum attack in Quebec last Monday who also shouted Allah Akbar with his buddy with an AK-47 and the same nonsense is being spoon fed five days later.

Forgive me if I am a non believer for now.

If I recall Trump got blamed for that. Even though La pen was involved also.

Widdershins · 03-02-2017 4:46pm

When will the latest statistics be compiled, to reflect the attacks over the past year and two years, I wonder..

Oh, here's a video about the 'mainstream' news!

It's slightly sweary

https://www.facebook.com/consumeitall/videos/634005273421716/

Butters1979 · 03-02-2017 4:52pm

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Really?

Well according to that definition I am a terrorist apologist.

Terrorism isn't born in a cave and hatched. It is created by Global injustices where we drop bombs on foreign countries, marginalise sections of society based on race or religion and commit state sanctioned murder where innocent civilians are bombed on Live Tv and military incursions are given snappy names like Shock and Awe and some how we act surprised when people get upset about it and become radicalised in our own societies. Most of these terrorist attacks are carried out by national radicalised persons rather than foreign terrorists.

But that's not what you really mean though.

A Terrorist Apologist by its constructoin would point to someone who condones or indeed supports terrorism. Whilst you might only support one side I support neither. I don't condone terrorism. Be it state sanctioned or Islamic nutjobs.

Both are equally wrong. Both are equally stupid.

And writing these attacks off as some sort of dumb morons who "hate freedom" is the worst type of flat out dumbing down I have ever seen. But then again, most people are pretty stupid when they are afraid and the media is spoon feeding people a constant diet of lies and fear.

Where's all the coverage about the radical muslum attack in Quebec last Monday who also shouted Allah Akbar with his buddy with an AK-47 and the same nonsense is being spoon fed five days later.

Forgive me if I am a non believer for now.

tl;dr

darkpagandeath · 03-02-2017 4:53pm

Butters1979 wrote: »

tl;dr

Victim blaming as far as I can see.

Mr. Incognito · 03-02-2017 4:54pm

I've seen a few online reports stating that the backpacks had paint balls in them.

Seems a strange thing for a "terrorist" to be carrying. Are they paint balls or just Paint, at the Lourve. Hmmm

Some pics emerging. Might just be me but this guy looks white from his neck and arm which appear to be visible in the pics.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4187460/Lovre-evacuated-Paris.html

HONKEY TONK · 03-02-2017 4:54pm

topper75 wrote: »

It borrows on money markets that will not cease to exist after the EU's demise.

Moreover, the main driver behind govt revenue in Ireland (FDI due to tax concessions) would have the spectre of EU meddling ("tax harmonisation" and back payment threats) removed from the stage.

Again, I dont think you get why Ireland are able to Borrow on the Markets at the current rate

Ireland Credit rating will be listed as Junk very quickly

Also Ireland will have to set up trade deals with every country individually.

Sure It'll be grand.

Wez dont need no EU

Mr. Incognito · 03-02-2017 4:55pm

Butters1979 wrote: »

tl;dr

That's fair enough.

I don't expect you to read anything. Most people with entrenched views don't want to. In fact they seem to like to burn books for some reason historically.

That's the problem with having a dogma I guess as opposed to an opinion which can be changed.

Mary63 · 03-02-2017 4:56pm

If those so radicalised and upset by whats happening are prepared to kill friends and neighbours then can I respectfully suggest they pack their bags and return to their "homeland".That solves the problem for us and them.

Gamb!t · 03-02-2017 4:57pm

Can ye not start a seperate thread for the london shooting and keep this one on topic please ?

Bob24 · 03-02-2017 4:58pm

Summary of the events from Le Figaro's live feed based on a statement from the Paris police chief:

Vers 10h00, dans un escalier qui descend dans la galerie marchande du Carrousel du Louvre qui donne accès au musée mais situé en amont des contrôles de sécurité, un homme "armé d'une machette au moins, peut-être d'une deuxième arme" s'est avancé vers quatre militaires de la force Sentinelle en proférant des "menaces" et en criant "Allah Akbar", a déclaré le préfet de police de Paris Michel Cadot.

"Le militaire le plus proche, semble-t-il, a tiré pour se défendre face à l'agression", tirant cinq balles, "blessant sérieusement l'assaillant", notamment au ventre, selon le préfet de police. A la mi-journée, il était au bloc opératoire, son pronostic vital engagé, selon une source proche de l'enquête.

Un militaire, légèrement blessé au cuir chevelu, a, lui, été pris en charge à l'hôpital militaire Percy à Clamart. L'identité et les motivations de l'auteur restent à déterminer. Aucun explosif n'a été retrouvé dans les sacs à dos que portait l'assaillant. Le parquet antiterroriste a ouvert une enquête de flagrance pour "tentatives d'assassinats aggravées en relation avec une entreprise terroriste et association de malfaiteurs terroriste criminelle".

So at 10AM the guy attacked 4 solidiers on the stairs leading to the underground shopping centre besides the museum, at least with a machete ans possibly with another weapon. He was shouting "Allah Akbar". The soldiers shot him 5 times to stop him, and he is currently at the hospital with possibly deadly injuries.

One of the soldiers was slightly injured but nothing life threatening.

The identity of the man is currently unknown but the anti-terrorist judicial authorities have officialy started an inquiry.

Butters1979 · 03-02-2017 5:02pm

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

That's fair enough.

I don't expect you to read anything. Most people with entrenched views don't want to. In fact they seem to like to burn books for some reason historically.

That's the problem with having a dogma I guess as opposed to an opinion which can be changed.

Thanks for the personnel insult.
Oh I have opinions that can be changed. See I used to be liberal all for open borders and multi culturalism and against government and police powers. Then the last 10 years happened. See some apologist on boards won't change my opinion any more than some lad down the pub who said yadda yadda.
What changes opinions are political and economic events on a global scale. Ever ask yourself why it's only those who disagree with you who are 'incapable of changing their opinion' as you judge it?

Don't confuse a difference of opinion with someone incapable of forming the correct opinion in your eyes.

Mr. Incognito · 03-02-2017 5:02pm

Mary63 wrote: »

If those so radicalised and upset by whats happening are prepared to kill friends and neighbours then can I respectfully suggest they pack their bags and return to their "homeland".That solves the problem for us and them.

I think you miss the point. Most of them have no "homeland" but the one they were born in.

The London Bombings were carried out by radicalised Brits, same as the Paris Attacks - Mainly radicalised French.

Oklahoma Bombings, Joker Masscre, School shootings in the states. Radicalised Americans.

It's not "them" foreigners. It's actually your friends and neighbours who are killing you. There are other ways to tackle radicalisation which doesnt resort to trying to believe that the problem is imported. It's home grown.

Mr. Incognito · 03-02-2017 5:06pm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Victim blaming as far as I can see.

Which "victims" do you refer to ?

Mary63 · 03-02-2017 5:09pm

They aren't particularly happy living in the Western world, well the men anyway because Sharia Law suits men.They also don't like women, they hate women more than Donald Trump does, he hasn't murdered any of his daughters for shaming the family by marrying someone not approved of.They don't like homosexuals much either so why live in a society where gay people have equal rights and are considered legitimate targets to be massacred, i.e. Florida night club.

Do you think these people will evolve into rational beings at any time in the future or will they forever be stuck in the sixteenth century.They won't drag us all back there no matter how many of them move to the West and then become terrorists because they are stuck in ghettoes of their own making.

There are plenty of Middle Eastern countries they can apply to move too though no more than the States they have to go through immigration and Security and that will be decided by the Middle Easten countries themselves, same as president Trump is deciding at the moment what immigration he is allowing.

The problem is homegrown and thats exactly why we want a limit put on anymore people coming in who are likely to be radicalised in the future, that is exactly what Donald Trump is doing and he is totally correct.The French let far too many in and then put the problem out of sight and out of mind and now their country is being destroyed by nut jobs whose utterings are pure nonsense and whose thinking is medieval.

Mr. Incognito · 03-02-2017 5:09pm

Butters1979 wrote: »

Thanks for the personnel insult.
Oh I have opinions that be changed. See I used to be liberal all for open borders and multi culturalism and against government and police powers. Then the last 10 years happened. See some apologist on boards won't change my opinion any more than some lad down the pub who said yadda yadda.
What changes opinions are political and economic events on a global scale. Ever ask yourself why it's only those who disagree with you who are 'incapable of changing their opinion' as you judge it?

Don't confuse a difference of opinion with someone incapable of forming the correct opinion in your eyes.

I'd love to know what your opinion is. Instead of any sort of discussion you decide to engage with some sort of too long, didnt read, dismissal.

I'd expect if from a stroppy teenager (maybe you are, that's the beauty of Boards I guess) but you seem to be older if you have had ten years to form views. Political and Economic Events have changed your opinions. That's quite interesting. What's your view. How was it shaped by political and economic events.

Mr. Incognito · 03-02-2017 5:11pm

Mary63 wrote: »

They aren't particularly happy living in the Western world, well the men anyway because Sharia Law suits men.They also don't like women, they hate women more than Donald Trump does, he hasn't murdered any of his daughters for shaming the family by marrying someone not approved of.They don't like homosexuals much either so why live in a society where gay people have equal rights and are considered legitimate targets to be massacred, i.e. Florida night club.

Do you think these people will evolve into rational beings at any time in the future or will they forever be stuck in the sixteenth century.They won't drag us all back there no matter how many of them move to the West and then become terrorists because they are stuck in ghettoes of their own making.

There are plenty of Middle Eastern countries they can apply to move too though no more than the States they have to go through immigration and Security and that will be decided by the Middle Easten countries themselves, same as president Trump is deciding at the moment what immigration he is allowing.

Mary, who are "they" and "These people". The first step to hate is dehumanising people so I find this language fascinating. Can you point me to anyone who has these opinions.

Trent Houseboat · 03-02-2017 5:14pm

Butters1979 wrote: »

A terrorist apologised is someone who tries to blame the society that is targeted to absolve the perpetrators. This, as much as terrorism in the first place, helps push people to the right.

Butters1979 wrote: »

See some apologist on boards won't change my opinion any more than some lad down the pub who said yadda yadda.
What changes opinions are political and economic events on a global scale.

I thought online apologists' postings were radicalising people to the right, now you're telling us that posts have no effect.

ceadaoin. · 03-02-2017 5:17pm

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I've seen a few online reports stating that the backpacks had paint balls in them.

Seems a strange thing for a "terrorist" to be carrying. Are they paint balls or just Paint, at the Lourve. Hmmm

Some pics emerging. Might just be me but this guy looks white from his neck and arm which appear to be visible in the pics.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4187460/Lovre-evacuated-Paris.html

Really? You can't tell anything about his skin colour from those grainy photos taken from a distance. What difference does that make anyway? Sounds a bit racist tbh, only non white people can be terrorists?

Mary63 · 03-02-2017 5:25pm

These people are those people who decapitate an elderly man trying to protect priceless arifacts.

These people are those people who decapitate an elderly priest, attackers are in their early twenties.

These people are the ones who drug themselves up to the hilt and then murder people enjoying a concert, reason being the Koran forbids music and dance.

These people are the ones who murder gay people enjoying a night out, reason being the Koran says homosexuality is illegal.

Need I go on, what about all the honour killings of young women who decide that they aren't owned by anyone so they will marry who they please.What about the fifteen year old girl shot in the head because she wanted to go to school.

These people are living back in the sixteenth century and they want to spread their message of hatred of normal civilised people, i.e. murder journalists in cold blood even though the pen is mightier than the sword.

I have no wish to appease anyone like this, no wish to engage in anyway with their twisted illogical thinking so if they want a way of life that is incompatible with Western values then off they go, I will hold the door open for them myself.

Butters1979 · 03-02-2017 5:28pm

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

I thought online apologists' postings were radicalising people to the right, now you're telling us that posts have no effect.

The entire apologist culture that's breeding out from the liberal left. It's everywhere.

Mr. Incognito · 03-02-2017 5:30pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Really? You can't tell anything about his skin colour from those grainy photos taken from a distance. What difference does that make anyway? Sounds a bit racist tbh, only non white people can be terrorists?

His arm looks white to me.

I agree. I just find it interesting that he looks white.

Butters1979 · 03-02-2017 5:30pm

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I'd love to know what your opinion is. Instead of any sort of discussion you decide to engage with some sort of too long, didnt read, dismissal.

I'd expect if from a stroppy teenager (maybe you are, that's the beauty of Boards I guess) but you seem to be older if you have had ten years to form views. Political and Economic Events have changed your opinions. That's quite interesting. What's your view. How was it shaped by political and economic events.

Again with the insults. Stroppy teenager?
I've not interest in discussing political opinions with yourself. You can't speak to anyone who disagrees with you without insults.

Mr. Incognito · 03-02-2017 5:33pm

Butters1979 wrote: »

Again with the insults. Stroppy teenager?
I've not interest in discussing political opinions with yourself. You can't speak to anyone who disagrees with you without insults.

If you feel insulted I apologise.

I just have no idea what your opinions are as you don't consciously read any posts and brag about that fact. Seems a bit petulant but hey, it's a free country. You dont have to express your opinions but would be good to know if you have any.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 03-02-2017 5:36pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Really? You can't tell anything about his skin colour from those grainy photos taken from a distance. What difference does that make anyway? Sounds a bit racist tbh, only non white people can be terrorists?

Islam is a religion not a race. Anyone can become a Muslim just like anyone can become a Christian.

This 'white' thing is a load of bollox anyway, Middle easterners are Caucasian. The same hair texture, facial features, skull, bone structure.

Trent Houseboat · 03-02-2017 5:37pm

Butters1979 wrote: »

The entire apologist culture that's breeding out from the liberal left. It's everywhere.

Where? Most people condemn terrorism. Which global political/economic event (the only ways to move the needle) apologises for or defends Islamic terrorism?

If only you'd let posts on boards sway your opinions you'd see Islamic terror loudly condemned by the majority.

Paris again?

Comments