__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Mr Molins also gave details about the state of the investigation, which he said was at a very early stage.
He said police were focusing on two vehicles. One was a black Seat used by gunmen at two of the attacks and still untraced.
The other is a black Volkswagen Polo with Belgian registration plates found at the concert venue that was targeted.
He said this had been rented by a Frenchman living in Belgium.
He was identified while driving another vehicle in a spot check by police on Saturday morning as he crossed into Belgium with two passengers.
The BBC's Hugh Schofield in Paris says investigators are working on the theory that these three may be another team of attackers who managed to flee the scene.
The Greek authorities say two people under investigation by the French police had registered in Greece as Syrian refugees.
A Syrian passport was found near the body of one the attackers at the Stade de France.
An Egyptian passport has also been linked to the attacks.
Ironically, FW, there is a lot of room for conspiracy theory here. A friend of mine, whom I consider very smart, laid it out for me...
How does ISIS suddenly seize this or that city? It's a bunch of guys in pick up trucks operating in the DESERT. Given the American surveillance capability and strike capability, this seems incongruous.
How is it that ISIS is operating literally miles from the hated Jews, yet there have been no ISIS attacks on Israel or any Israeli strikes on ISIS?
The theory put forward is that the Americans have chosen to back the Sunni side against Iran/Hizbullah/proxies and have tolerated the Saudi protégés (ISIS). There is a tacit understanding the Americans/Israelis will leave ISIS alone as long as ISIS does not attack Israel or the American homeland. There is a bit more to it...
How is that for a conspiracy theory? Thoughts?
I think that is totally true. SA and Israel have a very cozy relationship right now.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Lots of suggestions on what should be done. I sort of agree with all of it.
Strong Military action? Yes
Train local security forces? Yes
Go after states sponsoring or enabling terrorism? Yes
Address root causes of radicalism? Yes
Allow 25,000 refugees? Yes
Carefully screen entrants? Yes
These things do not seem mutually exclusive.
__________________
Trust the snake.
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
Since I grew up in Pakistan, let me share some insights about the radicals that may not be fully understood by the people here in the West.
- Their view of who is a Muslim is very, very narrow. That's why the majority of the casualties have been Muslims. If you so much as believe in voting, you are considered a non-Muslim. They even consider organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah as non-Muslims.
- The one thing they hate more than any other is countries/people in the West showing any sort of caring towards Muslims. The refugee crisis was a huge blow to isis- it showed Westerners accepting refugees and showed that the refugees were either fleeing isis or not going to them for refuge.
- Religion plays a role, but geo-politics plays a bigger one. For example, China has a over a billion non-Muslims and is close by, but you don't hear much chatter about attacking China since China does not "interfere" in the Mid-East.
- Jealousy. This factor is not mentioned much but it is pretty significant. They see the West which is relatively wealthy and successful and contrast that with the pitiful state that most Mid-East countries are in.
-Military action is the only solution. You can have the greatest leader take over in Syria but if he came through via elections they will not accept him. They will continue to target people even if the country's situation improves dramatically until their guy is recognized as the leader.
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to WCW Nitro For This Useful Post:
Of course, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists or sympathetic to terrorists. Equating all Muslims with terrorism is stupid and wrong. But acknowledging that there is a link between Islam and terror is appropriate and necessary.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jets4Life For This Useful Post:
Of course, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists or sympathetic to terrorists. Equating all Muslims with terrorism is stupid and wrong. But acknowledging that there is a link between Islam and terror is appropriate and necessary.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Preparing for someone to come in and tar her as a neocon who supports mass murderers or some similar nonsense.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
That's actually true, I guess, although she doesn't seem to realize that Canadians cannot all vote for Stephen Harper. Nor was that likely to be the deciding issue for like 98% of the populace.
But no, she's been absolutely demonized in certain circles for, well, saying things like the thing Jets4life posted. The Guardian has smeared her multiple times. She also lied about her past on immigration papers into the Netherlands, while fleeing her husband from an arranged marriage and other family members (who ended up finding her anyway, apparently) which I guess means somehow she isn't worth listening to? I don't love her writing style but her story is a fairly astounding one.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Of course, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists or sympathetic to terrorists. Equating all Muslims with terrorism is stupid and wrong. But acknowledging that there is a link between Islam and terror is appropriate and necessary.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
And yet you posted this a few pages back...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jets4Life
And we're going to admit 25,000 of them to Canada in the next few months. Wonderful...
You tend to resort to generalized passionate statements when your don't have a rational argument. That's a sign of poor logical thinking ability. You need to use your brain a little more.
How do you know what the majority of Canadians share? A much more logical and fair assumption would be that, perhaps, half of Canadians would share my view. An even more logical and rational assumption would be that the majority of taxpaying Canadians would share my views on this subject.
I base my opinion on what Canadian's value from polling results such as these:
Quote:
Seven in 10 Canadians support increasing the number of refugees from Syria, and a majority agree with the idea of airlifting Syrian refugees at Canada’s expense, according to a new poll conducted by Nanos Research for CTV News and The Globe and Mail.
Canadians want more to be done about the refugee crisis and are willing to take in a substantially larger number of refugees than the country is currently admitting, polls suggest.
You mistakenly believe that Conservative values represent those of most Canadians. Thankfully that is not the case.
Quote:
More than half (54 per cent) of people surveyed by the Angus Reid Institute think the Canadian government should take in more refugees. But that view varied widely by party affiliation:
62 per cent of NDP supporters
62 per cent of Liberal supporters
39 per cent of Conservative supporters
And more than twice as many Tory supporters said they think the migrants are “bogus: criminals or economic opportunists looking to jump the immigration queue for a better life.”
Much of the violence and instability in the middle east is a direct result of western intervention. Our governments and corporations have spent a century ravaging the middle east for their own benefit (which happens to be the exact same amount of time that they've been aware of the middle east's massive oil reserves, I wouldn't call that a coincidence). To spend a hundred years exploiting a region and spilling an ocean of blood, then to walk away and say "it's your problem now"... That doesn't sound like justice or a path to peace to me.
This is historically inaccurate as it relates to the stated goals of ISIS. They seek to re-establish a caliphate that was defeated in Europe back in the 1500s. The moors were the original invaders. So really they are attempting a
re-conquest of the west, an event that happened to be an eastern
intervention on western affairs. Invoking historical justifications for terrorist acts is problematic anyway, even so when you weave them in the sands of time, they become even less valid.
Last edited by Flamenspiel; 11-14-2015 at 09:56 PM.
I would wager those numbers are substantially different after yesterdays events. Particularly since one of the terrorists has been directly linked as being given refugee status out of Syria through Greece.
Also when those poll numbers were taken, there was a pretty heated election campaign ongoing that had emotions running high.
maybe I'm wrong but I would think that the desire for allowing such a large number of them all at once without proper vetting has dropped substantially. Though that wont stop the Liberals with following through regardless.
The Following User Says Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
I would wager those numbers are substantially different after yesterdays events. Particularly since one of the terrorists has been directly linked as being given refugee status out of Syria through Greece.
If so, that seems like a ridiculous, knee-jerk reaction. The new government's method of addressing the refugee crisis was either right or wrong before this atrocity and remains so afterwards, the identity of one of the attackers changes nothing except peoples' emotional inclinations. Which is an awful basis on which to rest a position on a political issue.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
If so, that seems like a ridiculous, knee-jerk reaction. The new government's method of addressing the refugee crisis was either right or wrong before this atrocity and remains so afterwards, the identity of one of the attackers changes nothing except peoples' emotional inclinations. Which is an awful basis on which to rest a position on a political issue.
I'm not going to judge people who may have changed their minds on the issue as things are different today than they were in September.
Wanting to help refugees after seeing drowned kids on the beach and the disgusting conditions of the camps etc....makes the emotional side of people feel like helping no matter what.
When it is revealed that there is a real possibility that danger exists in that decision, they will sometimes change their minds particularly after seeing it play out in the carnage we saw in Paris yesterday.
Not sure where the problem lies....things change all the time, even in regards to policy of governments. that's a good thing when there are fluid situations and different information is presented...no?
The Following User Says Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
I completely agree that if you have changed your mind from September because the reasons you relied on for your position in September no longer seem convincing upon reflection, or some information you didn't have that is pertinent has caused you to change your mind, you absolutely should. Despite many peoples' apparent inclination to the contrary, there's nothing laudable about sticking to your convictions; if you thought something but it turns out you're wrong, stop being wrong.
However, if in response to a horrifying event like this you're reacting out of fear, and let's face it that's all a change of position as a result of this news would be... that's not a rational re-examination of your perspective. It's not considered and it should be discouraged.
And to address your third paragraph, the danger existed before and was weighed as a risk factor in the overall cost-benefit analysis. That risk has not changed simply because it has materialized elsewhere. If this was a good idea before in spite of that risk, however remote or not remote, it's still a good idea. If it wasn't a good idea before, it hasn't become a worse one.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
