BREAKING: Paris Attack 6-6-17.

Nice Squirrel

Contributor
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/europe/notre-dame-incident-paris-france/index.html

Police in Paris shot and injured a man who attacked officers with a hammer at the Notre-Dame cathedral in the center of the city.

The attacker was wounded and taken to hospital, and the situation brought under control, police said.

This is the worst attack ever! I am so glad this made the international news. Now we should BAN MUSLIMS.

Europe submits voluntarily:

Nice Squirrel

Contributor
In April, a gunman killed an officer on Champs-Elysees

Be afraid people.

barbos

Contributor
the guy is exactly 11 years late.

Derec

Contributor
While this particular terrorist attack was luckily relatively minor, it is part of a cumulative picture. Islamic terrorist attacks are now a very regular occurrence and most are much deadlier than this one. The reason for it is the large-scale mass migration of Muslims, mostly from countries where very conservative and extremist forms of Islam (such as Afganistan, Pakistan, Somalia etc.) are very prevalent. For example, 99% of Afghans believe in the Sharia Law.

Now we should BAN MUSLIMS.
Well, we certainly should not import them wholesale without any limits or vetting like Europe is doing.

And if you think these maritime invaders are "refugees" or legitimate "asylum seekers", think again:
Why Bangladeshis Are Taking Boats to Italy
Al Rousan said agencies in Bangladesh are charging migrants between $7,000 and$10,000 to facilitate the journey to Europe, the majority of which they keep for themselves. While there are no direct commercial flights from Bangladesh to Libya, non-stop flights from Istanbul to Tripoli start at about 200 euros. From Dubai, the price is roughly 500 euros.
Once in Libya, migrants must still pay smugglers for the perilous journey across the Mediterranean, where 1,569 people have lost their lives so far this year.
[...]
Mehedi, a teenager who arrived in Sicily a few months ago, flew from Dhaka to Tripoli via Istanbul on a fake work visa issued by a Bangladeshi agency.
When he arrived in Libya, he was met at the airport by an intermediary and taken to a safe house. From there he called his parents who, having confirmed his arrival, paid the agency 6,000 euros. But shortly afterwards, he was picked up by police in Tripoli and jailed for six months. Asked about conditions in detention, Mehedi only frowned.
Numerous organizations, including MSF, have highlighted the appalling conditions and levels of abuse inside Libya’s migrant detention centers.
Eventually, Mehedi was released and his family wired him over 800 euros to pay a smuggler for an Italy-bound boat. After being rescued at sea and brought to Sicily, he was sent to a state-run reception centre where he applied for asylum.
Applications are decided on a case-by-case basis that could take years, given the volume of claims Italy is dealing with. In the meantime, those migrants who make efforts to learn Italian and integrate themselves into the local economy are more likely to be allowed to stay.
So it is pretty much admitted that these fakefugees are making fraudulent asylum applications, but despite that, most are allowed to stay (deportations are few and far between). Europe needs to get its migration system in order and finally start deporting these economic migrants. Why should Europe finance their weddings?
A low-income nation with high levels of unemployment, Bangladesh has a long history of labor migration to the Gulf states, Malaysia and Singapore. In 2015, 7.2 million of Bangladesh’s 165 million citizens were living abroad, according to the U.N. Migrant workers play an important role in the Bangladesh economy, sending home more than \$15 billion in remittances last year alone.
“Bangladeshis have been working abroad since the 1970s,” explained Benjamin Etzold, a senior researcher at the Bonn International Center for Conversion and an expert on Bangladeshi migration.
“It’s a normal part of life, and families in Bangladesh depend on [remittances] … If you are young man who wants a wife and wants to raise a family … it’s almost expected that you, at some point in your career, go to another country to earn the money to do that.”
Not being able to afford to marry is not a legitimate reason to seek asylum.

Last edited:

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Using a hammer to attack a policeman who has a firearm isn't terrorism. Who the fuck would be terrorized by such an attack? It's obviously an attack by a lunatic; And the French police are to be commended for subduing him without shooting him dead, and getting him into hospital, where (once his physical trauma has been addressed) he should stay, under secure psychiatric care.

Derec

Contributor
Using a hammer to attack a policeman who has a firearm isn't terrorism.
I think the key is intent, not competency.
It's obviously an attack by a lunatic;
Well, one could argue that (radical) Islam is a mental disorder.
And the French police are to be commended for subduing him without shooting him dead,
You can't reliably shoot somebody not-dead. Outside of movies of course.

and getting him into hospital, where (once his physical trauma has been addressed) he should stay, under secure psychiatric care.
No. He should be deported. Let Algeria deal with him.

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
I think the key is intent, not competency.
It's obviously an attack by a lunatic;
Well, one could argue that (radical) Islam is a mental disorder.
And the French police are to be commended for subduing him without shooting him dead,
You can't reliably shoot somebody not-dead. Outside of movies of course.

and getting him into hospital, where (once his physical trauma has been addressed) he should stay, under secure psychiatric care.
No. He should be deported. Let Algeria deal with him.

Why is that preferable to keeping him in a secure mental hospital? Algeria seems rather less likely to keep him secure than France.

Derec

Contributor
Why is that preferable to keeping him in a secure mental hospital? Algeria seems rather less likely to keep him secure than France.
Well caring for mental patients costs money. Let he be Algeria's problem. Otherwise, countries will have a big incentive to send all their crazies to Europe. Just load them on a dinghy and let idiotic NGOs do the rest like with the rest of mass migrants.
All that assuming he is actually crazy. By which I mean crazier than your average Islamic extremist and/or terrorist.

thebeave

Veteran Member
So, what is the theme of this thread (and the other one like it)? To minimize the impact of Islamic terrorism? These threads always kind of amuse me, in that we're constantly told that this is a non-event, more people die of the flu, people get shot every day around country, the country "can absorb it" (yes, that's been said), everyone move along....

But what if we have a different set of victims and perpertrators? Do we adopt the same sort of "meh" attitude? Let's say instead of ISIS killing random people, its white supremecists killing blacks? Or MRAs killing random women? Or some guy shooting (or maybe "only" hitting them with hammers) kids in schools, just cause he hates kids? Do we mock that? Are the lives of innocent people worth more or less just because of the race or ideology of the killers?

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
So, what is the theme of this thread (and the other one like it)? To minimize the impact of Islamic terrorism? These threads always kind of amuse me, in that we're constantly told that this is a non-event, more people die of the flu, the country "can absorb it" (yes, that's been said), everyone move along....

But what if we have a different set of victims and perpertrators? Do we adopt the same sort of "meh" attitude? Let's say instead of ISIS killing random people, its white supremecists killing blacks? Or MRAs killing random women? Or some guy shooting (or maybe "only" hitting them with hammers) kids in schools, just cause he hates kids? Do we mock that? Are the lives of innocent people worth more or less just because of the race or ideology of the killers?
I disagree with you thebeave. We shouldn't be minimizing the impact of terrorism. It is really bad that you'd even suggest it.

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
I think the key is intent, not competency.

Well, one could argue that (radical) Islam is a mental disorder.
You argue all sorts of shit. Doesn't make it true. And seeing you have no qualification to say what is a mental disorder, you should really shut up about such statements.

Derec

Contributor
You argue all sorts of shit. Doesn't make it true. And seeing you have no qualification to say what is a mental disorder, you should really shut up about such statements.
Neither does bilby to claim that attacking police with a hammer and two knives proves that assailant is "a lunatic". But I do not see you attacking him, even though my post was a tongue-in-cheek response to his remote mental health diagnostics.

Nice Squirrel

Contributor
So, what is the theme of this thread (and the other one like it)? To minimize the impact of Islamic terrorism?
The original theme of the thread was to point out an incident on reported on the front page of CNN was being played up like a full-blown threat. Not to downplay real threats, but to criticize the media. These types of incidents play out in America everyday, but are seldom newsworthy. Why was this incident chosen?

Are the lives of innocent people worth more or less just because of the race or ideology of the killers?
But no one was killed in this incident. So was this newsworthy enough to be on the front page of CNN?

funinspace

Don't Panic
The original theme of the thread was to point out an incident on reported on the front page of CNN was being played up like a full-blown threat. Not to downplay real threats, but to criticize the media. These types of incidents play out in America everyday, but are seldom newsworthy. Why was this incident chosen?

Are the lives of innocent people worth more or less just because of the race or ideology of the killers?
But no one was killed in this incident. So was this newsworthy enough to be on the front page of CNN?
Obviously then, you aren't even real people. Why do you hate Merika?

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Using a hammer to attack a policeman who has a firearm isn't terrorism. Who the fuck would be terrorized by such an attack? It's obviously an attack by a lunatic; And the French police are to be commended for subduing him without shooting him dead, and getting him into hospital, where (once his physical trauma has been addressed) he should stay, under secure psychiatric care.

With surprise on your side hammer vs gun has a reasonable chance of success. You're thinking of the situation where the cop knows it's an attacker, in which case obviously the gun wins.

Elixir

Obviously hammers need to be outlawed.
And substance abuse is such a problem... substance needs to be outlawed.

laughing dog

Contributor
So it is pretty much admitted that these fakefugees are making fraudulent asylum applications,
Nothing in that quote indicates that. If you had bothered to read your own link, it argues that one can divide the migrants from Libya into two groups - one that is fleeing the conditions in Libya, and one whose destination is Europe. The latter group includes people who are fleeing their home country and people who simply wish to improve their well-being by moving to Europe.

whichphilosophy

Contributor
Obviously hammers need to be outlawed.
And substance abuse is such a problem... substance needs to be outlawed.

A cop with a pistol at hand if faced with a madman with a hammer may have no choice. In such instances that is up to an inquiry determine the circumstances leading up to the shooting.

Elixir

Obviously hammers need to be outlawed.
And substance abuse is such a problem... substance needs to be outlawed.

A cop with a pistol at hand if faced with a madman with a hammer may have no choice. In such instances that is up to an inquiry determine the circumstances leading up to the shooting.

Staff member

zorq

Veteran Member
So, what is the theme of this thread (and the other one like it)? To minimize the impact of Islamic terrorism? These threads always kind of amuse me, in that we're constantly told that this is a non-event, more people die of the flu, people get shot every day around country, the country "can absorb it" (yes, that's been said), everyone move along....

But what if we have a different set of victims and perpertrators? Do we adopt the same sort of "meh" attitude? Let's say instead of ISIS killing random people, its white supremecists killing blacks? Or MRAs killing random women? Or some guy shooting (or maybe "only" hitting them with hammers) kids in schools, just cause he hates kids? Do we mock that? Are the lives of innocent people worth more or less just because of the race or ideology of the killers?

No, we shouldn't minimize the threat of terrorism, but we shouldn't maximize it either. Both are a problem. If an issue is ignored then no resources will be used to combat it and it is likely to get worse. If an issue is over inflated in publicity compared to its actual impact then the response to it will waste resources and other issues are more likely to go unadressed or underadressed.

Properly calibrating ourselves and the media to a more acurate perspective of the significance and impact of the issues that affect our lives is important.

Elixir

Properly calibrating ourselves and the media to a more accurate perspective of the significance and impact of the issues that affect our lives is important.

Here's a little calibration aid, for your convenience :

Malintent

Veteran Member
nice chart, Elixir. I believe these are contemporary statistics.. do you know the scope of this data?

I heard some interesting statistics regarding death recently. firstly, for every 1 person walking the Earth today, there are 15 corpses in the ground.
If you tally every death that occurred throughout the history of time, you will find something exceptionally surprising;
50% of all human death throughout history, was due to Malaria.

Elixir

nice chart, Elixir. I believe these are contemporary statistics.. do you know the scope of this data?

Confession: I admit to laziness. I didn't either vet the source of that chart nor look up any corroborating data. It agreed with my own confirmation bias, so I posted it.
My point was more that the order seems to be completely inverted for media purposes, rather than to actually submit accurate numbers for deaths caused by "X".

Who cares?

blastula

Contributor
My biggest fear is to die due to undetermined events. The most extreme vetting can't stop it.

funinspace

Don't Panic
Who cares?

The squirrel explained further in this post, for those that were lost to the sarcasm of the opening post...
The original theme of the thread was to point out an incident on reported on the front page of CNN was being played up like a full-blown threat. Not to downplay real threats, but to criticize the media. These types of incidents play out in America everyday, but are seldom newsworthy. Why was this incident chosen?

Are the lives of innocent people worth more or less just because of the race or ideology of the killers?
But no one was killed in this incident. So was this newsworthy enough to be on the front page of CNN?

A word comes to mind...

thebeave

Veteran Member
nice chart, Elixir. I believe these are contemporary statistics.. do you know the scope of this data?

Confession: I admit to laziness. I didn't either vet the source of that chart nor look up any corroborating data. It agreed with my own confirmation bias, so I posted it.
My point was more that the order seems to be completely inverted for media purposes, rather than to actually submit accurate numbers for deaths caused by "X".

In general, I agree with the death statistics regarding terrorism. I'm certainly not worried about dying from that. I guess I'm sorta curious why we don't take the same attitude about, say, school shootings? The odds of a child dying from automatic weapon fire on school grounds is close to zero, but after each incident, no one posts an infographic like you did. Or tries to poo poo or dismiss it. Instead, we talk about banning automatic weapons. Shouldn't we be consistent with our attitudes about statistics and death?

zorq

Veteran Member
Confession: I admit to laziness. I didn't either vet the source of that chart nor look up any corroborating data. It agreed with my own confirmation bias, so I posted it.
My point was more that the order seems to be completely inverted for media purposes, rather than to actually submit accurate numbers for deaths caused by "X".

In general, I agree with the death statistics regarding terrorism. I'm certainly not worried about dying from that. I guess I'm sorta curious why we don't take the same attitude about, say, school shootings? The odds of a child dying from automatic weapon fire on school grounds is close to zero, but after each incident, no one posts an infographic like you did. Or tries to poo poo or dismiss it. Instead, we talk about banning automatic weapons. Shouldn't we be consistent with our attitudes about statistics and death?

Well, banning weapons is such an easy fix that doesn't really hurt anyone and it is practically guaranteed to reduce fatalities in a broad range of categories (including terrorism). It's kind of a no brainer except for the 10% of people with a gun fetish or unrealistic paranoia. Don't you love how the recent terrorists in Europe are using cars and knives to achieve their ends but any punk drug pusher in the US can pick up a semi-automatic handgun on the street and shoot up a park filled with their rivals (and kids)? Don't you think the deathtoll on the London bridge might have been higher if the assholes had jumped out of their truck wielding handguns instead of knives?

Better gun control is easy and extremely productive as proven by the societies who have tried it. It comes up all the time for those reasons, Just like universal health care.