• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gunman kills four at French Jewish school

French law enforcement took him out around 10am GMT. Intense gunfire and explosions lasted almost a minute! Sarkosy has spoken stressing the unity and solidarity of the Republic, reminding everyone that "our Muslim compatriots had nothing to do with this killer", and stressing how they should not be stigmatised over one man's actions.

I disagree with Sarkozy. This man didn't do everything on his own; he had help. Sarkozy is saying this because he doesn't want riots in Paris and weeks of car burnings, so politically speaking, the correct thing to do but we know better right?
 
I'm sure you do. I don't, but I couldn't possibly comment, since I'm only 300 miles from the scene instead of 3,000.
 
I disagree with Sarkozy. This man didn't do everything on his own; he had help. Sarkozy is saying this because he doesn't want riots in Paris and weeks of car burnings, so politically speaking, the correct thing to do but we know better right?

There is so much fear and PC that no one can really know what's going on anymore. Politicians will say what's expedient and, like you say, everyone knows they are lying. The media will tell us on a 'need to know' basis, often working hand in glove with the government.

If the first casualty of war is truth then it appears we are at war.
 
I'm sure you do. I don't, but I couldn't possibly comment, since I'm only 300 miles from the scene instead of 3,000.

Why is distance from the scene important?

Do you restrict your comments to your own neighborhood?
 
I'm sure you do. I don't, but I couldn't possibly comment, since I'm only 300 miles from the scene instead of 3,000.

So since you're so close and all... you're view is this terrorist did everything on his own, with no help from anyone in France or the surrounding European area. Is that right?
 
So since you're so close and all... you're view is this terrorist did everything on his own, with no help from anyone in France or the surrounding European area. Is that right?

Since when did a shooting spree require help? How about we let the investigation happen, or are you suggesting they won't explore the evidence because of political expedience?
 
Since when did a shooting spree require help? How about we let the investigation happen, or are you suggesting they won't explore the evidence because of political expedience?

I'm suggesting no one acts alone - there's always help. I'm also suggesting that this (now dead) terrorist isn't the only one who's responsible for those dead: Those who knowingly helped him in these acts are just as guilty.
 
There's no evidence of any support other than his brother and mother, but speculate away.
 
Why is distance from the scene important?

Do you restrict your comments to your own neighborhood?

Someone with a brain could figure out that If I was physically (and socially) closer to the events and couldn't tell, then a forigner ten times as far away is even less likely to be so certain. If you restricted your comments to your neighbourhood, it would be a lot quieter around here..
 
I'm suggesting no one acts alone - there's always help. I'm also suggesting that this (now dead) terrorist isn't the only one who's responsible for those dead: Those who knowingly helped him in these acts are just as guilty.

The statement you objected to originally:

""our Muslim compatriots had nothing to do with this killer"

Now one man killing spree's are a common fact of life, we in Europe had a quite devastating one last year involving children. It's certainly the case the tools with which to do the crime were obtained illegally, but getting firearms illegally doesn't mean Muslims provided them. It certainly doesn't mean other Muslims planned the attack. It certainly doesn't mean that the criminal underworld in France who are most likely to sell these arms share his ideology or have any ideology other than obtaining wealth for that matter.
 
The statement you objected to originally:

""our Muslim compatriots had nothing to do with this killer"

Now one man killing spree's are a common fact of life, we in Europe had a quite devastating one last year involving children. It's certainly the case the tools with which to do the crime were obtained illegally, but getting firearms illegally doesn't mean Muslims provided them. It certainly doesn't mean other Muslims planned the attack. It certainly doesn't mean that the criminal underworld in France who are most likely to sell these arms share his ideology or have any ideology other than obtaining wealth for that matter.

You're right that it doesn't mean any of those things but it also means that another guy called Mohamed was involved in a terror attack.

Perhaps that name will one be as popular for male babies as Adolf.
 
You're right that it doesn't mean any of those things but it also means that another guy called Mohamed was involved in a terror attack.

Perhaps that name will one be as popular for male babies as Adolf.

What's troubling here is that a dude was captured by Afghan forces, handed back over to NATO and the French government basically said "stop your west-hating diatribe over there, you might get in trouble, come back over here where we're more tolerant of that kind of thing."

Maybe that guy deserved freedom of speech before he did what he did, he also certainly deserved harder surveillance.
 
What's troubling here is that a dude was captured by Afghan forces, handed back over to NATO and the French government basically said "stop your west-hating diatribe over there, you might get in trouble, come back over here where we're more tolerant of that kind of thing."

Maybe that guy deserved freedom of speech before he did what he did, he also certainly deserved harder surveillance.

Yes, but harder surveillance is often called 'profiling', with charges of 'racism' surely to follow.

It's time we got past that.
 
Yes, but harder surveillance is often called 'profiling', with charges of 'racism' surely to follow.

It's time we got past that.

So you want a society where everyone is a suspect?
 
Can you believe these news????

Luckily, the french authorities had the good sense to suspend the teacher immediately!:applaud


French teacher seeks 'minute's silence for killer' - Yahoo! News

But a union leader was quick to jump to her defense.

"This is not the political act of an extremist but the act of a colleague who has health concerns, who is fragile and who is receiving psychological treatment," the local head of the SGEN-CFDT union, Pascal Bossuyt, told AFP.

"She said something unfortunate in a particular context and she immediately regretted what she said," he added.

She seemed to be quite sincere when she said it.

It's clear the rep is lying but lying doesn't seem to matter much anymore.
 
Perhaps you can explain the reasoning behind that question. I have no idea how you got there.

You stated

Yes, but harder surveillance is often called 'profiling', with charges of 'racism' surely to follow.

It's time we got past that.

From what I can gather from those comments, then you are for harder surveillance.. and profiling. Now my question is how harder? As in making everyone a suspect from the start hard? Police state hard? or just targeting those minorities we dont like.. you know, Muslims, Jews, homos, left handed people, red heads, socialists, Latinos, Blacks and Asians.. and so on? That of course would never have prevented Gabby Giffords assassination attempt or Breviks murder spree or the Oklahoma City bombings... they were after all white Christians..
 
I'm suggesting no one acts alone - there's always help. I'm also suggesting that this (now dead) terrorist isn't the only one who's responsible for those dead: Those who knowingly helped him in these acts are just as guilty.

So who else should be arrested?
 
But a union leader was quick to jump to her defense.

So what!

If the teacher has health concerns and is receiving psychological treatment, then she shouldn't be teaching.

A minute of silence for the killer? Yeah right, my eye!:roll:
 
You stated



From what I can gather from those comments, then you are for harder surveillance.. and profiling. Now my question is how harder? As in making everyone a suspect from the start hard? Police state hard? or just targeting those minorities we dont like.. you know, Muslims, Jews, homos, left handed people, red heads, socialists, Latinos, Blacks and Asians.. and so on? That of course would never have prevented Gabby Giffords assassination attempt or Breviks murder spree or the Oklahoma City bombings... they were after all white Christians..

So you feel Gays are potential terrorists? Left handed people? Redheads?

Why are you here?
 
Someone with a brain could figure out that If I was physically (and socially) closer to the events and couldn't tell, then a forigner ten times as far away is even less likely to be so certain.

Yeah, knowledge and understanding are geographically oriented. :roll:
 
So who else should be arrested?

No one should be arrested ... I'm suggesting an investigation to include family, friends... or do you also believe he acted 100% on his own without help?
 
Back
Top Bottom