tupac chopra
Veteran Member
No but after it happened much tougher gun control was introduced. That is quite a few years ago now, and it hasn't happened since
-
Features
Paris: Dozens Killed In Terrorist Attack
- Thread starter maxparrish
- Start date
barbos
Contributor
So, gun control worked.
angelo
Deleted
Gun control has worked in Australia to a certain degree. But if someone wants to get hold of a firearm, there are ways around the laws from what I hear.
barbos
Contributor
Crazy people are usually too crazy to pass actual background check.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 35,824
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Tasmanian.
But that was in 1996 - almost two decades ago.
And we still have lots of guns - we just don't let any crazy person who feels like it get their hands on one.
So yes, gun control works - and is not the same thing as 'banning guns' (which would be pretty impractical in a country with a huge, sparsely populated outback full of dangerous and/or feral animals).
barbos
Contributor
Not letting crazy people have guns is a good idea and so is not letting crazy people run mosques.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 35,824
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
If you don't allow crazy people to run religious organisations (whether churches, mosques, temples, schools, governments, or whatever), then there wouldn't be many people left to run those things - and nobody to run the mosques, churches and temples at all.
Not that that would necessarily be a bad thing; I would certainly back a proposal for a rationality test that bans anyone who believes in the existence of invisible and undetectable Gods from running anything important. But it might leave us a bit short-handed, and I doubt it would get the popular vote.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
It's probably a bad idea for evolution of the species, too. Religiosity is probably linked to something else that is good for us, like creativity or farming mushrooms. If the species lost its religiosity, then perhaps we'd also lose the ability to write interesting fantasy novels or plant and maintain mushroom farms.
barbos
Contributor
And this is desirable outcome.
I want islam become more like catholic church, insane but not too insane.
Which is irrelevant to the situation.
In a fight between armies you're right.
In a fight in the cities the guys with the shotguns might very well win.
Jokodo
Veteran Member
200? Europe today is unrecognisable compared to Europe a mere 75 years ago. Some people would like to undo that, it seems.
Jokodo
Veteran Member
I'm only pointing out that "Everybody knows that" isn't even a bad argument, it's no argument at all.
angelo
Deleted
If anyone is curious of how Europe will look like in fifty years time or less, just visit a place like Molenbeek in Belgium where the 100.000 estimated population is 80% muslims from North Africa, and the center of the origins of terrorist according to the Belgium pm no less.
Too much truth here.
Will Wiley
Veteran Member
They were not getting thousands and thousands of converts to the extreme apocalyptic brand of Islam before the US illegally invaded Iraq.
1. Young men see their countries destroyed by US bombing, and see the US and Israel committing war crimes.
2. They become open to the apocalyptic extreme sect of Islam.
We did not have ISIL before the invasion of Iraq.
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
Iraq kept radicalism under control but when the country was thrown into chaos due to lack of leadership and a destruction of homeland security (in Iraq), ISIL and others filled the void
Will Wiley
Veteran Member
True, but at that time there were no apocalyptic islamists in Iraq. There wasn't even any Al Qaeda there.
Had they been there they would have been doing what they are doing now. Seeing themselves as bringing on the final apocalyptic battle, where they defeat the infidels.
Seeing the infidels invade provided the soil for this to take root.
Jokodo
Veteran Member
True dat, almost all women wearing dresses or skirts, half of the men carrying arms, that's not gonna come back anytime soon. Not even if someday half of the French population traces roots to North Africa, though that might be your best bet.
New Replacement Culture:
<snipped a picture that's even more irrelevant thant the others>
That's not even in France - the title of the link says, among others, "muslims-protest-outside-the-french-embassy-in-london". It's probably that same cell from Belgium (Shariah4Belgium) that at one point tried to go international by calling themselves Shariah4Holland when going out in the Netherlands. They probably never had more people than on the picture, and one third of them are in jail for repeated petty crimes and another third for inciting hatred. You can google them.
If you want to allow Corpus Christi processions while maintaining that there's separation between Church and State, you can't have anything against that.
Context please! Looks more like a protest against poor working conditions than anything else to me. It's a shame that niggers now can make use of their democratic right of assembly without risking to be shot at at will, innit? Never would have been allowed in 1965 France! (The latter is probably, sadly, true; for most people, though, that change represents an improvement.)
The same fringe group as before, some of the same faces too. The only thing they ever achieved was providing getty images for islamophobic propaganda. If I were a bit more into conspiracy theories...
A pro-Palestinian demonstration where some (but not all) protesters are descendants of North African immigrants, and a handful of those raise an Algerian and Moroccan flag to express the sentiment that Algeria and Morocco stand with Palestine. You know that people who are not you are allowed to express opinions you don't share? Basic civics.
A still from a presumably North American tv station that misidentifies zones urbaines sensibles with "no-go zones"? If that's evidence of anything, it's evidence of North American TV spreading misinformation.
It takes anyone with a printer less than five minutes to put up such a sign. It takes much more to actually enforce it, and evidence of a sign isn't evidence of enforcement. Also, once again, not even France.
I see garbage on the street. This could be after a football match, after a street concert, on the morning of January 1, or at the end of a strike by the garbage collectors. It could be in the 60s except the cars look a bit too modern, and there's no indication that the garbage was left behind specifically and exclusively by immigrants.
It's a great example of appeals to emotion without the tiniest veneer of rational argumentation.
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
Air superiority.
Something an insurgency, by definition, does not have.
That's the thing: a lot of Islamist militant groups aren't actual "militaries" in the sense that people sometimes describe them. They're mostly bottom-tier militias that are very troublesome if they catch you off guard or if they exploit the loopholes in your rules of engagement. In a fight with someone who doesn't actually CARE whether or not the city is still standing when the smoke clears (e.g. Bashar Assad, Vladmir Putin, Benajmin Netanyahu) it reduces pretty quickly to "target practice."
Those 500,000 soldiers wouldn't need to actually kill all of those insurgents in order to take the city. They'd only need to kill enough of them that the continued combat is no longer viable and the mass of fighters are too exhausted and demoralized to continue. That can (and traditionally IS) accomplished through carpet bombing and massed artillery strikes.