Mass Shooting At Newspaper In Paris

I don't see many folks ignoring the jihadists. I see some people rightly taking the time to distinguish between the two so as not to antagonize people of the Muslim faith and create more jihadists.

 

I think as Westerners we need to stop using that term "jihadist" to describe these actions. It sends the wrong message to muslims
that we are at holy war with them.

 

Another fluid hostage situation going on in Paris at Kosher supermarket. The live feed of video
showing the police as a bit of a Monty Python quality to it. Police are trying to scale a small
embankment apparently towards market and keep slipping and falling down the hill. Does
not seem like a well organized operation.

 

To what degree would I need to antagonize you for you to become a terrorist?

If the answer is that it would be impossible for me to antagonize you to that degree, why to we act like this is a possibility for Muslims?

Our entire lifestyle is enough of a provocation if one is so inclined to act on it.

 

With this second situation at the Kosher supermarket in Paris, you have to almost worry about more attacks -- about a "ticking time bomb" situation.

If any terrorists are captured, I hope the authorities don't use this as an excuse to treat them with anything other than respect.

 

I don't understand what you are getting at here. It's a possibility for Muslims, writ large, because there's a radical wing of the religion. Several radical wings, technically. That doesn't mean that it's a possibility for every Muslim.

Most Muslims are responsible, law-abiding Koran owners, no? I could name you thousands of instances where people were killed that had nothing to do with Islam.

 

Rights to a fair trial and such should only extend to people are, you know, just kind of bad.

 

What about the suspect who turned himself in yesterday. Is it possible he wasn't involved and the third man was the supermarket guy?

 

You can't "antagonize" someone to radicalism. If they are inclined towards radicalism, then they will find something to justify their radicalism.

And, if we're going to stop doing things that might antagonize folks, and drive them to radicalism, where do we draw the line? Apparently it's set today at not reprinting Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

What's next? Should we just ho straight to requiring women to wear the veil, and not letting them work outside of the home?

 

This is a terrific point. For example, the motivation behind 9/11 had nothing to do with United States foreign policy. It was carried out by radicals who simply were going to find some justification to carry out their radicalism in that way. If it wasn't U.S. foreign policy, it might have been the designated hitter.

 

LOL. Our current administration kills terrorists by drone, and almost never makes an attempt to capture them. (We did capture the one guy in Libya not too long ago, but he just died in prison, before he got a trial.) And, the OBL mission was an assassination mission, not a capture mission.

Regardless, I'm all for fair trials. You can exclude any information from trial that is learned under questioning comes before someone is afforded all of their rights.

Once terror investigators get the information they need, any suspect can be handed over to others for questioning that could be used in court.

 

I agree. It's one of the reasons I don't buy the "because mental health" argument as a counterpoint to gun control proposals.

However, you CAN certainly and very easily provoke an already radicalized group of people. And that's where I keep coming down on this: They're fighting a war, and attacking and killing people who aren't fighting in it. It's like when we drone bomb civilians "by mistake" in Afghanistan.