Attacks in Paris

why were the suicide bombers trying to enter the ground 10 mins into the game????
would it not have been easier to walk straight into the stadium with 10 mins to go when the gates open??
 
why were the suicide bombers trying to enter the ground 10 mins into the game????
would it not have been easier to walk straight into the stadium with 10 mins to go when the gates open??

Because If it's anything like city their way would have been blocked by the hordes going the other way
 
Really? Freedom of movement is a terrorist's wet dream.
A lot of them are home grown anyway theses days

Freedom of movement enables millions of us to live and travel in other countries,we are never going to restrict that by choice, it's up to the UK to get tough on immigration something they say they are but the figures for outside EU immigration say otherwise

We are safer in that we can act as one to protect the EU countries.I am looking foward to hearing the full arguements leading up to the referendum
 
And all these radical imams known to operate throughout the western world will be dancing around celebrating. They are the key as long as the authorities allow them their freedom of speech and keep turning a blind eye in the name of anti-racism.
 
The difficulty is compounded by three things: first, the west is undefeatable in military terms, and acts of terrorism serve to underpin the west's resolve, not to undermine it. Secondly, however, the hydra-like nature of ISIS/AQ means that they too are undefeatable in military terms. We learned in Northern Ireland that asymmetric wars are unwinnable. In military terms western backed powers will before too long take back the territory under IS control, but that won't end the conflict any more than did taking Afghanistan from the taleban.

Which brings me to the third point, namely that some form of negotiated settlement is the only way this conflict can end. I take your point that it is difficult to imagine the suicide bombers sitting round the negotiating table, but some time (even if it is decades away) the higher echelons in IS/AQ will come to the table, because however long it takes it will eventually dawn on them that they can't win.

You miss the point by a million miles
The point of the jihad is they are doing the will of God it matters not a jot if they win or not in the terms we consider victory. They have in their eyes won, in the eyes of allah, just by participating they have won and as Martyrs their rewards are waiting in heaven.

Once you realize that we do not really comprehend their aims how can we hope to bring them to the table so they don't really care if they cannot win in terms the west can recognise. This is why they will never sit down a negotiate as that in itself goes against the teachings of the Koran.
 
I think the problem is if you cast your mind back a few years the Idea of propping up the established government during the Arab Spring would have been completely against the zeitgeist of the time. This, despite a number of people voicing concern about who exactly we were siding with. It's easy in hindsight to realise that far from liberation from tyranny as it was thought to be at the time, the Arab Spring was the rise of the new radical Islam. It was a key moment in the rise of the new Caliphate and in fact Syria today is just another chapter in that movement. The enemy isn't ISIL it is radical Islam throughout north Africa and the middle east. Action against ISIL alone will only shift the problem but will never end it.
People need to wake up to just how much sympathy there is for radical Islam and only then when the scale of the problem is admitted can a realistic strategy be formed.
The Arab Spring had a number of causes, many of which were economic & political rather than religious. The Tunisian who famously burned himself to death was a graduate who couldn't get a job and was selling fruit by the roadside. The authorities confiscated his wares and an hour later he self-immolated. A lot of it was born of frustration about lack of jobs, corruption, authoritarianism, lack of freedoms, etc, rather than being religious in origin.

But it certainly provided an excuse or vacuum for radical Islam to exploit.
 
I have believed strongly for years that free movement within the EU was ridiculous. It wouldn't hurt business at all to have a visa system. Why would we prefer to bring in a computer engineer, scientist, doctor from France, Poland or Greece above someone from the U.S.? And what about some excellent talent from Asian, Africa or the Middle East? You just have a simple system to let people interview, be vetted, prove their credentials and let them fill a need. And where you have a shortage still you train your own. I have nephews and nieces that I want to see get summer jobs and first full time jobs and serious grown up jobs - all at home. And if they want to move to France or Germany they can do if they have exceptional skills and led peaceful respectful lives.

An open economy at the scale that Europe wants isn't fair on anyone. It's only survived because it was too unfashionable to counter.

This year has shown more than ever why it is ridiculous. The poor migrants wanting in, the slowness to address, the freedom of terrorist suspects to wonder about. You need strength and leadership to maintain order. You need a common culture to keep the peace. Its not a right wing thing. It's not nationalist. It's just common sense.

The EU should remain as an economic carrot for cooperation. It should be offered to any peaceful country. I've never liked this idea of the EU being for the European Christians of old. Turkey for example if peaceful should be part of the EU and get grants from the richer countries to help develope, special rates on imports etc but not an open border for migrating workers, and not a list of laws to abide by. We should respect their culture and promote a common good.

If the EU stayed away from politics then each country could act in their own interest to keep the peace internally. Some would be harsher than others but that is up to their populations to decide.

Sorry for the ramblings. It doesn't matter what I think anyway. The EU have ensured I never have the choice to make.
 
Last edited:
So how does this affect NATO, with the French saying this is an act of war would it come under collective defence, one ally attacked = all allies attacked, now I'm sure there would have be a bit of a huddle first but isn't this one of the points of NATO.
 
So how does this affect NATO, with the French saying this is an act of war would it come under collective defence, one ally attacked = all allies attacked, now I'm sure there would have be a bit of a huddle first but isn't this one of the points of NATO.
I would imagine that's a legal issue. Over reactions are going to happen and going to war may not be the right thing in the long term. They will not be diving into all out war
 
There seems to be growing support for full scale military engagement alongside Irani forces to visibly defeat the Isis presence in the territory they currently occupy. By doing this they argue that the central element of their ideology - reviving the Caliphate - would be shown to be unattainable.
 
You have no chance of preventing terrorists living in Belgium from entering France to carry out their aims without border controls. It is a fundamental part of national security and has been abandoned by the shengen countries in their quest for a single european super state.
 
I would imagine that's a legal issue. Over reactions are going to happen and going to war may not be the right thing in the long term. They will not be diving into all out war


Agree many complex things would need sorting, it just struck me as almost a plea to NATO from Hollande when he made his statement, tho emotions would have running high then(understatement of the year alert).
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top