Another day, another killing (split from US shootings topic)

[gameoverDude]

The borders need locked down hard. Good move, Poland. Refusing refugees may block some good people, but more importantly it keeps the scumbags out. Safety is more important than diversity.

USA really needs to follow that example. Thinking further back, why couldn't we have espoused a policy of armed neutrality ala Switzerland? And why for fuck's sake did we have to get involved with this Israel Vs. Palestine situation? IMO, we belong on neither Israel's NOR Palestine's side. It would likely be better if we butt out and allow I & P to settle it between theirselves.

[quash]

When we can we expect France to arm its citizens? I don't closely follow the politics there, so give me a rough estimation.

[Skykid]

When we can we expect France to arm its citizens? I don't closely follow the politics there, so give me a rough estimation.

Because that really made all the difference on 9/11.

[ED-057]

It's also not as if there aren't plenty of rich, oil producing countries in the region with a history of funding radical Sunni groups(or maybe they're just doing the U.S.' bidding too).

You mean like US "ally," Saudi Arabia?

Also plots about the CIA funding Islamic groups are so 1980s anyway.

What are you talking about? The US openly admits to funding (and arming, and training) Islamic groups at this very moment. You know, the so-called "moderate" Syrian rebels. The ones that the US wants to keep the war going against Assad. The war that created all these refugees that people have been whining about.

The idea that ISIS was created by Western powers is dumb.

Perhaps, but just like in the '80s, we know that the US isn't afraid to slap the bee hive and look the other way, as long as the swarm goes after someone they don't like.

ISIS are a bunch of overhyped hicks anyhow

Why are they being overhyped? Maybe there is a reason for this.

Either way, it should be obvious that it doesn't take much military capability to spread terror.

(we probably have been funding them, whenever Western powers send funds to "moderates" they're likely to end up in the hands eventually of people who will make better use of the weapons).

Purely accidental though, of course. Silly government, they're so incompetent. Haha.

You know the Houthis, Boko Haram, Hezbollah, the PKK, all guerilla, resistance, and/or terrorist groups need funding too. Maybe the CIA is funding them all as well. Why not?

Dunno, do they have oil in their countries? Are the governments going to piss off rich people by nationalizing something?

[MintyTheCat]

Well done, ED-057.

For the rest of you: spend some bloody time understanding the situation instead of harping on about what to my ear sounds like blind patriotism's lazy analysis.

These are complex, involved situations with a lot of history and taking the "purge all Muslims" or "arm everyone up to protect ourselves" kinds of arguments are naive, backwards and wholely missing the point.

The reason that terrorism works so well is that applying brute force amounts to very little. The terrorist is the proverbial needle in the haystack and he does not pop and say: "catch me if you can!" so that you chaps can shoot him.

Most wars these days and involved situations are won through intelligence and the subtler methods that involve espionage. Brute force only gets you past the basics I' afraid and using your head gets you more milage

[Xyga]

When we can we expect France to arm its citizens? I don't closely follow the politics there, so give me a rough estimation.

When you stop being stupid (rough estimate: never)

[MintyTheCat]

When we can we expect France to arm its citizens? I don't closely follow the politics there, so give me a rough estimation.

When you stop being stupid (rough estimate: never)

Don't be silly - deary me.

[Xyga]

The silly thing is to suggest to arm civilians here in Europe and France in particular, this is the one thing that would make things much, much worse.
Those who suggest that have absolutely no idea what they're talking about and obviously don't know the first thing about my country and its people and what the situation here is.

The problem lies elsewhere: we don't have the police/military/border forces necessary for our basic security needs anymore, and at times we're at war with another country/group it's clearly showing how weak our defenses are.
Because of the so-called 2007 crisis and the austerity plans that followed, we have consideraby reduced our police and military forces.
Now it's like anyone can buy AK's and explosives and walk in, no one's here to stop them because the undermanned police and military are too busy writing reports.
That is simply unacceptable.

[MintyTheCat]

Xyga, I understand that comparatively many european countries have had cuts and money taken out of services but understand that France, like the UK and Germany and many others are relatively rich countries on the world scale of things. They may cut back but absolute defence is not something that the french government will any time soon run out of resources and plus you are surrounded by allies such as the UK and Germany as your neighbours and both those countries have considerable resources allotted to defence.

[Xyga]

Useless defence, we allocate the most to sending troops away to participate in sterile conflicts abroad (where both the UK and French troops fail hard), and France even more so than the UK spends pharaonic amounts for developing and maintaing its startegic nuclear arsenal, which we don't need, even our army thinks so.
In a few years here in france we have reduced the police forces by over -10,000, and the military over -54,000 (-80,000 planned), and completely suppressed any remaining inner-EU borders control.

We need forces for self-defence and control, where we live. And I don't see what help the UK or Germany or any other of our neighbor's forces come into any help if there aren't laws and actions taken to stop the illegal dealing and circulation of firearms.
The cooperation is BS as long as these things continue to happen, inform yourself about it and you'll see there isn't any real working European self-defence organization.
Yes European defence is a myth.

And FIY this is by those grey market channels we more or less tolerate in the EU that the Kouachi brothers and coulibaly got their AK's.
And this time apparently it got through fucking Belgium again.

Ironically enough just before the attacks our ministry of internal affairs published a report saying we don't have enough control over the circulation of firearms and need to build something concrete against it.

[caincan]

certainly more complex than you think. France is very near bankrupt (and i'm polite once again..). we didnt go as Greece, but these international Banksters (Goldman sachs & co) made pay us the infamous AAA stupidity.

[Xyga]

Yeah we are in deep shit, all the more reasons to stop throwing the money away into useless and dangerous/hazardous crap.
We're paying the incompetence, ignorance and selfishness of our national and european (and world) elites with out last euros...and now our blood too.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

When we can we expect France to arm its citizens? I don't closely follow the politics there, so give me a rough estimation.

Because that really made all the difference on 9/11.

There's that comforting fantasy of "IF ONLY THEY HAD MORE GUNS" again. In a crowded theatre filled with panicked people, you'd just as likely shoot a bystander as you would an attacker. Or, you could be confused for one of the attackers because you've just pulled out a gun and get shot yourself. Then there's the issues that generally face any country with unbelievably easy access to guns, particularly ones with irresponsibly lax gun laws like the US: many more unnecessary accidental deaths, more crime due to gun thefts (they're a desirable target), more gun violence in general, etc.

Instead of fantasizing about how nice it'd be if it were the wild west again, society should work towards actually productive goals towards world peace, such as tighter immigration, and extreme sanctioning of middle eastern countries to force them to improve their society's education and reform their more abhorrent laws (apostasy being punishable by death, sharia law in general). Anything that helps clean up their mess from within and spurs a permanent revolution among its people, rather than simply going in guns blazing, which is simply not working. Until Islam is tamed and rendered impotent to the extent Christianity or Judaism have been (the vast majority of Christians barely follow the Bible, let alone its more violent tenets), i.e. become 'reformed', we need to stop being politically correct and recognize it as a threat. Islamic leaders are preaching for and motivating a lot of this violence, and viewing it as a threat to peace is not 'islamophobia', it's recognizing it for what it is. How else should we treat a religion whose vocal leaders actively call for the death of writers and cartoonists for mere criticism of the religion?

Of course, Christianity is equally stupid, but the majority of its followers nowadays have no idea what's actually in the Bible, or they conveniently (and thankfully) ignore the bits they find distasteful, such as not murdering people every time God mandates it for a minor transgression, and its leaders don't currently have the same kind of sway, or at least aren't getting away with demanding death to everyone who disagrees with them.

[evil_ash_xero]

I'll agree with one thing. Being armed wouldn't help, the French.

It rarely does shit, in the U.S.. Also, the gunmen were running out of bullets, and 2 of them didn't have guns. If it was the U.S., they'd have ammunition for days.

Now, something like this may happen in the U.S. (gun attacks), so it will be interesting to see if people are able to stop it, due to being armed.

But I hope none of this happens, in the first place.

[trap15]

lol judaism tamed. I'm sure the palestinians would love to hear that.

[Specineff]

Of course, Christianity is equally stupid, but the majority of its followers nowadays have no idea what's actually in the Bible, or they conveniently (and thankfully) ignore the bits they find distasteful, such as not murdering people every time God mandates it for a minor transgression, and its leaders don't currently have the same kind of sway, or at least aren't getting away with demanding death to everyone who disagrees with them.

For the sake of clarity, one of the basic tenets of Christianity is that its followers are not bound by such laws thanks to the sacrifice in the cross. That people forget about mercy is a well-known fact, but please don't assume that from the stereotypical-ah pastor-ah that becomes-ah, filthy rich-ah from their flock-ah to those who sincerely practice what they believe, and everyone in between think that it's okay to stone adulterers and wizards to death, being one passage reading away from doing so.

Sorry for the derail.

[Xyga]

I'll agree with one thing. Being armed wouldn't help, the French.

Not just us, if you knew more about our countries, people and circumstances here in Europe you'd realize in many places this would be as disastrous as throwing free crack cocaine over the streets or making rape legal.

We're in a lot of trouble with our economies and societies already, challenged in every area, so doing something like giving firearms to people at this moment in our history would mean "fuck you all we're no nations nor a union, make your own justice, give up on the civilized, advanced and prosperous Europe we dreamt about and pass your anger on whoever you believe is responsible for this mess".
THE END.
Yes, with people all accross Europe carrying guns, islamist terror would be the least of our problems.

Is this what you want ?

For fuck's sake once again we're not the USA with it's gigantic centralized dominating power and means holding maybe over half the planet in respect, long-unified territory aministration and laws, speaking the same language and praying that damn godjesus and freakish patriotism/jingoism every day.
You have the cohesion and strenght we don't have, even if that might sound absurd to you because of your own country's issues, remember we in Europe have less, much less than you do, to tie us together.
And you want to give us guns ? Try remembering our history a little maybe.

Your American Way of Life, I'm okay with it, I'm not criticizing the USA in a way that would mean you guys are worse than other nations, in my eyes people are equally good or assholes all over the world, each in their own fashion.
But please, PLEASE stop thinking everything that's the norm in the US would work for every other country and culture.
Just. Stop. With. That.

I don't hate you ash, I realize this is quite the agressive post I just wrote, but I'm so sick about this stuff right now after what happened - again - that I feel like crushing the teeth and nose of anyone vomiting the usual guns dealer BS.

And do that to Trump now please.
For decency that retard should have shut his stinking trap, he's definitely and for good a total asshole, I'm done joking about him.

[quash]

Yes European defence is a myth.

All that really needs to be said. I was tongue in cheek in suggesting that France would legally arm its civilian population, but something is going to happen. I predict increased procurement of arms through illegal means and the expansion of the French military (and possibly neighboring nations, as well).

What's killing me is all the praise for France closing its borders in response. Could you imagine if the US did the same after 9/11? Talk about double standards.

Yes, with people all accross Europe carrying guns, islamist terror would be the least of our problems.

This can be interpreted many different ways

[Wenchang]

You mean like US "ally," Saudi Arabia?

Yes I mean allies like Saudi Arabia, what do you think I slipped in the sarcastic "or maybe they're just doing the U.S.' bidding too" remark for? Did that go over your head? You think you've made a zinger with this quoted sentence?

What are you talking about? The US openly admits to funding (and arming, and training) Islamic groups at this very moment. You know, the so-called "moderate" Syrian rebels. The ones that the US wants to keep the war going against Assad. The war that created all these refugees that people have been whining about.

*makes sarcastic remark concerning claim about ISIS being created by CIA*
*receives response saying nothing about ISIS or the CIA

I don't need leftist numbskulls to tell me Saudi Arabia is a U.S. ally or that the U.S. has been funding anti-Assad Islamic groups. This isn't news. You didn't understand the point of my mocking conspiracy theories about the CIA creating ISIS(in 2012 no less!), and how innocently, implausibly retro they are. Why not have theories about George Soros' Open Society Foundation being responsible instead? More up to date, more hilarious, more plausible(which isn't saying much). Get with the times.

Perhaps, but just like in the '80s, we know that the US isn't afraid to slap the bee hive and look the other way, as long as the swarm goes after someone they don't like.

This is not evidence by any standard. Besides, picking examples from the past and saying they must represent U.S. policy now doesn't get you anywhere. Hey, the U.S. has been opposed to Hamas for a long time, maybe that's proof that the U.S. is dedicated to fighting Sunni Muslim terrorist groups. Hey the U.S. fought in WW2, that must mean it's opposed to fascism at all times. Stupid. You cannot base analysis of foreign events on selective examples that fit your own prejudices.

Why are they being overhyped? Maybe there is a reason for this.

You are free to post your own theories about why that is. I would say part of the reason is that ISIS knows the importance of media coverage and aren't shy about filming their atrocities and getting them out there. ISIS are good propagandists. All that over the top violence(mass beheadings, not to mention blowing shit up) tends to attract media attention.

Of course, if I may go on a tangent, not a lot of Westerners seem to get that ISIS are good at promoting themselves and seem to think all those bloody videos are an accident or something. They seem to think ISIS relies on attracting Muslims with hurt feelings or something, rather than attracting the sort of bored, testosterone-filled, young, low IQ males, who find violence(including raping underage girls) exciting. One would think a cursory glance at European history would make this all easy to understand, but nope. Some people in this thread seem to think Islamophobia and mean Western propaganda are to blame. Haha. Western Islamophobia is rather tame compared to the things Muslims all over the world do to each other.

Either way, it should be obvious that it doesn't take much military capability to spread terror.

Right.

Purely accidental though, of course. Silly government, they're so incompetent. Haha.

Is there clear evidence that the United States is deliberately funding al-Nusra Front? I wouldn't put it past them, but if this has already been proven I would like to see the evidence. Personally I make no assumptions either way. But if I have overlooked this news go ahead and show me my errors. Of course, I don't think it makes much difference, whether the U.S. is deliberately funding them, accidentally and unknowingly funding them, or is accidentally funding them but doesn't really care much. The U.S. doesn't have a real strategy in Syria.

Dunno, do they have oil in their countries? Are the governments going to piss off rich people by nationalizing something?

In other words, so long as it fits wit ED-057's theories(which you can find in any leftist tract), it must be true.

What's funnier is that you earlier mocked the idea that the U.S. government is incompetent, yet by the own standards of your argument(which is about oil), they must be. Have you taken a look at Iraqi oil production? Where exactly are the great benefits of that war that was supposed to be for oil? Barely any of it goes to the U.S., but that's fine if your theory is that the U.S. just wants to control oil production. Of course, there's a problem there as well, since the rights to hand out contracts for Iraqi oil were held by the Iraqi Ministry of Oil. Worse, they handed them out mostly to a bunch of Malaysian, Russian, Chinese, Angolan, etc. companies. Pretty strange way of going about securing U.S. interests. I sure would love to hear how the War in Iraq was all a U.S. plot to help out Malaysia. This isn't getting into the few years after the invasion where oil production was down in Iraq.

Besides, even if you explain away these details, you would be left with the question of why the hell the UN under U.S. urging went through all those years of sanctions in the 90s which left the Iraqi oil industry underdeveloped and caused oil production to go down. If they really cared so much about oil they could have got friendly with Saddam again and went through the exact same process of handing out oil contracts to foreign companies, no different than all those countries in the Gulf. Sure seems to me U.S. policy isn't very consistent, and it sure looks to me like if oil is very important, the people crafting U.S. policy don't know what they're doing. I could go on with examples.

Why the hell did the U.S. support the Shah of Iran? I remember leftists tracts making so much of Mossadegh nationalizing Iranian oil. So the U.S. restored the Shah(only after much British begging, but let's ignore that) which was supposed to do put a stop to that, and he did the same thing(plus a bunch of agrarian reforms and other things) and rules the country for another 2 decades. The Shah of Iran was also at the forefront of OPEC quadrupling oil prices in the 1970s which did so much damage to the U.S. economy. But of course, all of this was really part of a much deeper plot to country world oil production. Sure.

Right now there are large underdeveloped areas in Africa and Central Asia with oil and natural gas with no military force so to speak of. They should be easy pickings, yet the U.S. is barely interested in those region at all. I could go on with more obscure examples, like how a tiny group of Californian Armenian-Americans managed to get Congress to change from being neutral in the Nagorno-Karabakh War to instituting an embargo on all aid to Azerbaijan, despite the fact that U.S. multinationals were in Azerbaijan trying to make oil and natural gas deals. (Naturally if I was on the opposite side of the political spectrum from ED-57 but at the same level of sophistication, I would use this case as an example of how the U.S. is dedicated to freedom and democracy, and protecting the rights of oppressed peoples like the ethnic Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh, as well as preventing militaristic countries from imposing blockades against their neighbors etc.)

Frankly I don't think your half-baked theories make any sense, except and unless the U.S. government is totally incompetent in its foreign policy(well, at least the theories are made a little less ridiculous). Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to sneer at the idea that the U.S. government is incompetent. Maybe you think the U.S. government is filled with brilliant planners with an in-depth knowledge of the Middle East and an incorruptible desire to help the U.S. dominate world affairs, but I think that idea is patently absurd. You know, sometimes I wish the kind of people who read Noam Chomsky and the like and base their views on foreign conflicts on only those types of sources(we'll put aside that most of those types of leftists thinkers don't know squat about the foreign countries they're talking about, which goes pretty far in explaining why they think everything is about the U.S. or Western countries) would come to realize their perspective is just as shallow and naïve as the ones who think the U.S. is out there trying to protect "freedom and democracy."

The United States, or the "West," or any other bogeyman is not monolithic. Most of these conflicts, including the one in Syria are primarily results of domestic problems in those countries, other countries just move in and fuck things up worse. The idea that the U.S. is out there successfully creating ISIS or starting conflicts just by funding some people in what were otherwise peaceful, happy countries is a laughable, crude idea. U.S. ethanol production probably makes more of a difference in leading to the overthrow of leaders in the Middle East than do the methods armchair leftists imagine, and no I'm not kidding there either.

and extreme sanctioning of middle eastern countries to force them to improve their society's education and reform their more abhorrent laws (apostasy being punishable by death, sharia law in general).

Since when do sanctions ever accomplish any of that? What exactly did the post-Desert Storm U.N. sanctions against Iraq accomplish? (besides killing a bunch of people of course). The West should stop being militarily involved or otherwise trying to politically influence countries in that region of the world.

[Skykid]

What's killing me is all the praise for France closing its borders in response. Could you imagine if the US did the same after 9/11? Talk about double standards.

If you had any idea how open the borders were in the UK and Europe you may think differently. It's a free-for-all. England is so multicultural its new national ethnic identity is multiculturalism.

Useless defence, we allocate the most to sending troops away to participate in sterile conflicts abroad (where both the UK and French troops fail hard), and France even more so than the UK spends pharaonic amounts for developing and maintaing its startegic nuclear arsenal, which we don't need, even our army thinks so.
In a few years here in france we have reduced the police forces by over -10,000, and the military over -54,000 (-80,000 planned), and completely suppressed any remaining inner-EU borders control.

We need forces for self-defence and control, where we live. And I don't see what help the UK or Germany or any other of our neighbor's forces come into any help if there aren't laws and actions taken to stop the illegal dealing and circulation of firearms.
The cooperation is BS as long as these things continue to happen, inform yourself about it and you'll see there isn't any real working European self-defence organization.
Yes European defence is a myth.

And FIY this is by those grey market channels we more or less tolerate in the EU that the Kouachi brothers and coulibaly got their AK's.
And this time apparently it got through fucking Belgium again.

Ironically enough just before the attacks our ministry of internal affairs published a report saying we don't have enough control over the circulation of firearms and need to build something concrete against it.

While I completely agree with you, I'm thinking that the increasing of defense and security will have little to no effect whatsoever against these kind of attacks. That's what's scary. You limit availability of firearms on the black market, but you can't force the black market out of existence. And considering there are six million ways to murder someone, building bombs and suiciding yourself in public places is fairly rudimentary and not easily quelled by CCTV.

The other options are simple, and I don't like any of them. One, you form a UN alliance and go to war against ISIS proper, ground storming Syria and weeding them out in a MacCarthay witch hunt style operation on a domestic level. Of course this will give rise to future retaliation and create new recruits to radical Islam and the cycle will eventually begin again.

The other thing is to go 1984 fascist/totalitarian/racist/Children of Men and eject every single muslim from your country, regardless of their status or general innocence, and close your borders permanently. That's the only guarantee you will be safe from Islamic terrorism at home, discounting if they ever fly a nuke over your head somehow or if you go on holiday and end up being captured and decapitated - which would be a massively increased likelihood because you'd be a prime target thanks to your government's actions.

TL;DR

It's lose lose.

[quash]

If you had any idea how open the borders were in the UK and Europe you may think differently. It's a free-for-all. England is so multicultural its new national ethnic identity is multiculturalism.

I agree with closing the borders, it was the only course of action. I'm saying that other industrialized nations are held to a different standard from the US, because if we did that the (mostly domestic) political fallout would be insane.

Also, Xyga's view of the US is perhaps even more naive than that of the average American. You confuse our size for our organization. Take it from me: the federal government is a lumbering, inefficient, disjointed monster. So much so that it often contradicts itself, nevermind how often state and local governments act in staunch defiance of the feds and get away with it (see: sanction cities, marijuana legalization, gun control, gay marriage not being recognized after Supreme Court ruling, etc).

[Skykid]

If you had any idea how open the borders were in the UK and Europe you may think differently. It's a free-for-all. England is so multicultural its new national ethnic identity is multiculturalism.

I agree with closing the borders, it was the only course of action. I'm saying that other industrialized nations are held to a different standard from the US, because if we did that the (mostly domestic) political fallout would be insane.

It would mostly be domestic I think. I have a feeling US citizens think the rest of the world care a lot more about the decisions your government makes than they actually do. The only time people get really pissed is when you bomb some brown people to solicit their oil pipelines.

Unfortunately being the world's no.1 power comes not just with great responsibility, but great scrutiny, and there's no way of avoiding the latter.

Also, Xyga's view of the US is perhaps even more naive than that of the average American. You confuse our size for our organization. Take it from me: the federal government is a lumbering, inefficient, disjointed monster. So much so that it often contradicts itself

Actually I think most people know this too. The ruling powers are so heavily corrupted by the corporate I don't think anyone believes there are a lot of rational, moral decisions occurring in government. You guys even incarcerate people for cashflow, it's totally insane.

[Xyga]

When I said the people in the US have more things tying them together, did I just said only the Federal State ?
I've mentioned other things I believe, to express what we don't even have in Europe.
And still, your Federal State is a more real and working entity than the EU.
Talking about naiveté like many Europeans I'm always baffled at the apparently total ignorance of the complexity of the diversity here, and how much different the huge patchwork of systems and people is compared to even all of Northern America in it's entirety.
It's impossible not to offense you saying that I know, but it's so blatant when you speak about Europe or just one of it's countries, I mean really, and it's even funnier when you start comparing the two entities accross the Atlantic, because that's impossible.

The reason why arming civilians would be a disater is that we're much, much less uniform and united culturally, politically, economically, socially, religiously, fuck in almost every field compared to you guys in the US.
Would they be religious, political, cultural, historical, economic reasons etc etc, more or less important groups of people all around Europe would find the 'courage' (now that they're 'strong' with their guns) to start fights and attack the establishment, either for imposing their rule, or to secede, or just murder whatever ethnic or influence group they hate.

Nothing is holding us together outside of purely the 'system'. Language may come second in the reasons for people to stay on the same national territory.
Even our currency has become a dead weight for many members of the Eurozone. You ? You still have the #1 reference world currency.
Realize, realize in how many fields the USA is dominant/#1. And where Europe was #2, it's getting overtaken by China.
@evil_ash_xero; this is interesting for you and explaining why I didn't reply to your message;
There's no burst of patriotic feelings nor people in tears holding hands and singing the Marseillaise here, when people actually do it abroad far away in support to us.
I remember after 9/11 I was in university at the time, and US exchange students were doing that, crying, holding hands, praying God...and we here french and other european students were surprised to see that, because it's just not our thing. To many, many people in Europe even taking the huge country-to-country variations into account, neither patriotism nor God are very important things.

One of the core reasons for wanting to build a great European Union, was to replace the religious and nationalist mentalities that drove the politics of Europe for centuries, ultimately leading to those two Great Wars, with other ideals, around culture, science, economics, welfare, arts, no borders, etc etc, some kind of utopia if you think about it now.
Yes we only have those tiny, fragile little things.
I don't know how to explain to people coming from large nations that we are not like them in that aspect, we're very far away from one nation people and cultue, and that implies immense differences.
I've had several opportunities to discuss this topic with US people with no real succes (often just resulting in perplexity or even shock), tried to explain that to Chinese people with even less success (they just wouldn't believe anything we said and just poured more alcohol), or Russians ("Are you insulting Mother Russia!?" even if I never even mentioned it in the conversation, lol, just ran for my life).
I think in our present we're realizing that our Euro Utopia is not working right, and this could be a real disaster, arm the people of Europe now, and in the coming months and years you won't have one civil war, but a dozen all accross Europe.

@SkyKid: naturally our government took the wrong decision and will only increase the bombings, we're sending plenty other jet fighters.
Of course we'll have more attacks on the French soil in the near future, and more dead.

@both of you; My point with self defense was not that we must increase it blindly like we were about to become a closed fascist state under constant martial law, no my point is our basic needs in security/safety area are not even remotely enough fulfilled, especially in these troubled times. Our administration has completely ignored the issue, because 'debt reduction' is the sacred mission.
So we have shrinked the personnel and means to levels so low they've become useless, really, really useless.
I don't expect any major increase in police or army budget in the future, because as caincan said the country is broke, we're covering an actual recession, and again the maintenance of our nuclear force is a money pit, also the actual military budget for the continued army downsizing has been approved many years ago, it's impossible to revert in terms of finances.
On the topic of black market firearms, our security may be low but it's not like hundreds of millions of weapons will suddenly start gushing out from every shadow.
It's when only a small number get through that it's already a big problem, the right objective would be to stop most of the current black market, and it's impossible to do without strict border control to begin.
The idea of borderless EU was super nice, but we are no fucking Disneyland anymore.

[Eaglet]

Xyga, your clear-sightedness on this issue is impressive.
I've discussed this with a lot of people and it's seldom that I find anyone agreeing or understanding what I'm talking about.
The entirety of Western Europe is in dire straits right now. Slavic countries are doing better but have a more pronounced and larger threat to the east.
We (Swedes) might be the most fucked of all though. Defence force and police budget is in the drain, refugees are flooding in with an unpresedented pace, we have at least 250 known returned ISIS fighters in the country and a big bear to the east that really wants control of our territory over the Baltic sea.
All in all I can only see a big ass sinking ship. It feels weak as Fuck to abandon but I don't really see any other possibility if I want my future family to grow up somewhere where things are not looking as grim.

[MintyTheCat]

My goodness there's a lot of negativity in the postings.

Remember: close any border that you want, censor everything but it will not do a great deal.
You cannot police ideology. Some people will always have a take on an ideology that licenses them to take extreme measures such as randomly killing people.

I agree that suppression is the seed for future conflict as Skykid raised.

[Xyga]

Personally I'm only talking about being practical, abandoning the idea of the EU we wanted to build is out of the question, but we have to live in the present.
I'm neither anti-immigration nor racist, nor a far-right supporter, it's the opposite actually.
Many people my age used to be hardcore supporters of the supposed Europe-to-be and its great humanitarian values/principles, but it didn't go as planned, not at all, and those repeated terrorist attacks are revealing some of our weaknesses, stupidity and carelessness.

Right now things are indeed bad on too many levels for too many European countries individually, and the entire Union as an entity.
Whatever each country and its people is seeing as the main problems and priorities, the fact is we're going downhill and instead of fucking around with dirty wars and not caring about our own people while all pillars crumble one-by-one and their lives get shittier by the day, we should just stop, and say "enough with being the idiots".

The day we actually agree to do things together without humiliating each-other as European nations and people, and we get to fix our shit's that's been sitting in our backyards forever, then we'll be strong and ready for the big challenges.
But as we are now every time shit happens we're only screaming impreparation and exposing ourselves to more and more economical and social decay.
Thinking back I just can't believe we agreed to continue the reforms, as well as the expansion of the Union, while jobs were fleeing to China, our welfare getting dismantled bit-by-bit, inequalities soaring, and the masses getting into more and more trouble.

Just to make it clear and to stay on topic with the matter of firearms; to most European people who wanted that modern Europe we believed we were actually building, seeing people in the streets today carrying guns would mean one thing: that we have failed.
On the other hand seeing legitimate police, intelligence, and armed forces having the means and the men to do their job right, which is protecting us where we live = win.
And this has nothing to do with a 'police state', it has to do with not being idiots period.

You know, most of the people responsible for the terrorist attacks were known and 'listed' for 'surveillance'. Our forces let'em free and didn't do a thing because they don't have the means and time.
This was the case of Merah, the other guy that decapitated his boss, the Kouachi, Coulibaly, and several of the 7 or 8 in the Friday's attacks.
Today's news: we have over 10,000 people listed as dangerous for the security of the country or with potential to be, over half being in the radical Islam category.
(yeah that's for France only)

[ED-057]

Yes I mean allies like Saudi Arabia

Very well then, we have established that Saudi Arabia supports Sunni extremists, including ISIS.

You didn't understand the point of my mocking conspiracy theories about the CIA creating ISIS(in 2012 no less!)

That's true, I don't understand the point of such mockery, considering that we already know Saudi Arabia and the US are supplying arms, men, and money to influence events there, and also considering how many past "conspiracy theories" turned out to be reality. Since you are an expert on the CIA, please explain why that specific agency has absolutely nothing to do with ISIS.

This is not evidence by any standard.

No, but I consider it a good reason to ignore people when they dismiss "conspiracy theories" and expect me to take their word for it.

You cannot base analysis of foreign events on selective examples that fit your own prejudices.

No, that's the corporate media's job. My job, as Joe internet commentator, is to look for examples that contradict the official narrative.

You are free to post your own theories about why that is. I would say part of the reason is that ISIS knows the importance of media coverage and aren't shy about filming their atrocities and getting them out there. ISIS are good propagandists. All that over the top violence(mass beheadings, not to mention blowing shit up) tends to attract media attention.

So in your view, it's ISIS that is successfully managing their own hype campaign. I have no doubt that ISIS intends such. What I would question is that the US media is playing along without careful consideration of how it fits their own purposes. The US gov seemed to be pretty adept at using the media as a tool when they were selling the Iraq war. If they are letting ISIS hog center stage, there might be a specific reason. "Never let a good crisis go to waste." Then again, it could be for plain old FUD value.

Is there clear evidence that the United States is deliberately funding al-Nusra Front? I wouldn't put it past them

David Petraeus has publicly suggested that they should do that. And it's been reported in non-mainstream sources that they are doing it already, though this isn't indisputable proof.

The U.S. doesn't have a real strategy in Syria.

I disagree. They are sending arms, men, and money there. I believe their strategy was to keep doing this until Assad was defeated, they obviously have a beef with the guy. And they seem pretty displeased that Russia is now crashing their party.

In other words, so long as it fits wit ED-057's theories(which you can find in any leftist tract), it must be true.

It's possible to consider an idea without either accepting it or automatically dismissing it as "conspiracy theory."

What's funnier is that you earlier mocked the idea that the U.S. government is incompetent, yet by the own standards of your argument(which is about oil), they must be.

What did I say was about oil?

Where exactly are the great benefits of that war

If you look at the big picture, you see that the gov spent an extremely large amount of money, and has approximately nothing to show for it. One might call that incompetence. But that doesn't mean incompetence was the reason it happened. All of that money went somewhere, and some proportion of it went to people who had influence over the course of action that was taken.

Oil companies have influence in the US gov, but they are only one faction among many that do. Maybe they missed the gravy train this time around.

The US miltary-industrial complex is a huge bureaucracy. The number one priority of huge bureaucracies seems to be to sustain themselves.

The United States, or the "West," or any other bogeyman is not monolithic.

Exactly.

Most of these conflicts, including the one in Syria are primarily results of domestic problems in those countries, other countries just move in and fuck things up worse. The idea that the U.S. is out there successfully creating ISIS or starting conflicts just by funding some people in what were otherwise peaceful, happy countries is a laughable, crude idea.

Which country is so peaceful and happy that the world's superpower COULD NOT get in there and fuck things up?

and extreme sanctioning of middle eastern countries to force them to improve their society's education and reform their more abhorrent laws (apostasy being punishable by death, sharia law in general).

Since when do sanctions ever accomplish any of that?

The US gov acts as if sanctions against Russia, Iran, and NK could accomplish something. But they seem to be utterly unconcerned with Saudi Arabia's transgressions. Why might that be?

The West should stop being militarily involved or otherwise trying to politically influence countries in that region of the world.

Not a bad idea.

[quash]

Just to make it clear and to stay on topic with the matter of firearms; to most European people who wanted that modern Europe we believed we were actually building, seeing people in the streets today carrying guns would mean one thing: that we have failed.
On the other hand seeing legitimate police, intelligence, and armed forces having the means and the men to do their job right, which is protecting us where we live = win.
And this has nothing to do with a 'police state', it has to do with not being idiots period.

Well clearly you do not have the latter, as has been proven time and time again with attacks in London, Madrid, and now Paris.

So what do you do? Increase military spending like you should have been doing all this time? Allow people to legally purchase firearms for self defense (which according to you is one step away from complete societal meltdown)? Some combination of both? Or perhaps you have some other ideas on how to keep your country safe and functional?

And of course outsiders are going to have a tendency to view Europe as one entity; you officially are one.

Anyone with even a rough understanding of the continent's history knows that it is culturally diverse, but that doesn't necessarily translate to different political or economic interests across the board. If the talking heads on TV are to be believed, you are all, for better or worse, weathering this storm together.

[ED-057]

Oh crap, I almost forgot about this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Q8X60KQ9Q

[Xyga]

So what do you do?

The President made a speech yesterday, detailing a kind of french patriot act.
We revert back to our pre-austerity defense and safety capacity (giving the finger to the EU's sacred -3% deficit limit).
Tighter control on illegal weapons and control over dangerous idividuals (again burn in your mind that we don't want civilians carrying weapons, this is something we reject, that we fight, it will never happen unless everything we are collapses).
Too many measures to tell in details, just find a news article detailing those.
It's really a lot so I doubt even half of it will come into effect, but at least that's not just a stream of empty words like some feared.
We're still sending more troops to Syria though, which is bad IMHO.

And of course outsiders are going to have a tendency to view Europe as one entity; you officially are one.

Well that's ignorance because no, we are not. Each country is its own independant nation-state. The EU is nowhere even near something like a federation and doesn't have any right to override each nation's laws and authority in the end.
Maybe in a century from now if we get over all the shit we'll be something like a 'united states of europe', until that day we're still 28 different nation-states + non-member states, with an outside entitiy trying to make us work together from a backoffice, but is more like a huge extra-national tax collector losing credibility and popularity over time.

Anyone with even a rough understanding of the continent's history knows that it is culturally diverse, but that doesn't necessarily translate to different political or economic interests across the board.

It does. Each country is its own economical, political, legal, ecosystem. All with it's own array of issues, and goals.
This has clearly been put in evidence by the Greek crisis, all of our systems strenghts and weaknesses are different, and we really have a hard time agreeing on a general rule like the one the 'austerity side' forced on all member states because it clearly is made at the advantage of some while punishing the more fragile ones, especially impacting the lives of the people, who have become very bitter.
We can really say we're split into at least two larger parties who don't have the same vision of what the EU, and Europe in the broader sense, should be.
There are even specific xenophobic conceptual ideas on the rise, like building a two-levels EU with the good and bad pupils, two different statuses and rights/privileges.
Some even wish for a smaller Union with only the richest, meaning clearly a Northern EU without the essentialy Latin South.
Eurosceptic and anti-EU far-right parties are on the rise almost everywhere, more and more people want to go-back to their pre-EU lives even getting back their old national currency. They're not the majority, but it's them winning more and more seats, not the 'traditional' parties.

If the talking heads on TV are to be believed, you are all, for better or worse, weathering this storm together.

That remains to be confirmed, because Hollande is going a bit too fast suddenly saying he will ask the UN and the EU to tag along, especially considering what we're doing means we won't fulfill the EU's demands in terms of debt.

EDIT: strayed quit a bit from the main topic, but not completely, since it's related.
If you have watched the video posted by Eaglet on page 3, you'll see what describes well some of the stark differences between countries, and in the case of immigration and minorities, Sweden and France are school cases of failed integration, and that has nothing to do with the EU.
All the killings in France have been perpetrated essentially by French citizens or with the assistance of some, not revealing but rather crystalizing a huge problem of our society, it's the crowning achievement of a franco-french national failure that built-up over decades.