• 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!

French Soldier stabbed in Paris, Survives

Your pathetic attempt to insult me is one of the most foolish attempts I've ever read on the internet.

I wasn't describing you as foolish - your statement however deserved that title. D-Day was an armed invasion during war, by a military force against another military force. All combatants were appropriately dressed and within limits, acting under rules of war. The same cannot be said of someone wearing civilian clothing, using cover of other civilians to then attack a soldier / soldiers.

What happened in Paris was an attack by someone using cover of other civilians, dressed as a civilian and then making his escape using innocents as his cover.
 
I wasn't describing you as foolish - your statement however deserved that title. D-Day was an armed invasion during war, by a military force against another military force. All combatants were appropriately dressed and within limits, acting under rules of war. The same cannot be said of someone wearing civilian clothing, using cover of other civilians to then attack a soldier / soldiers.

What happened in Paris was an attack by someone using cover of other civilians, dressed as a civilian and then making his escape using innocents as his cover.
And how does that make it terrorism? Our military/government has also conducted operations in plain clothes.

The fact is, not every ****ing thing is terrorism. Violence against military targets is simply war. That's the kind of thing you simply open yourself up to when you join the military.

Why don't you label the thousands of murders every single day as terrorism?

Terrorism is defined as "being violent while Muslim."

Apparently it is. Thousands of people are stabbed worldwide every day. Nobody would even remotely considering calling it terrorism. Muslim in England did it? TERRORISM!

I mean jesus, I hate all religions, but making **** up to reinforce their hate is just sad.

Correct. In war, you get to attack the other side's troops. That's... sortof how it works. Our soldiers shoot at Al-Qaeda members, why would it be terrorism for them to shoot back?

Ft. Hood was treason and murder brought on by espionage. (and he deliberately shot unarmed people, which I think would also be a war crime) Those are all terrible things, but they are not terrorism. Hell, US intelligence services routinely get Al-Qaeda insurgents to turn on their buddies. Are you saying the CIA is a terrorist organization?

USS Cole is even more straight-forward. It was a destroyer. A heavily-armed military vessel. We sank quite a few Japanese destroyers in WW2. Terrorism? Of course not. Warfare.
Perfectly well said. It's sad how few people seem to get that.

Well I certainly hope no Muslims are harmed in the upcoming attacks, because that would be a travesty.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Muslims are killed by westerners every single day. Did you think this was completely unprovoked?

So it's an act of war?

So in your brain terrorism and war are the only two options? What do you file murder under?
 
Last edited:
So the bombing of the USS Kohl and the Fort Hood shooting were not terrorism because they were military targets?

The cole was a.cheap torpedo.

Hood sounds like a.crazy.person shooting a place up.
 
I wasn't describing you as foolish - your statement however deserved that title. D-Day was an armed invasion during war, by a military force against another military force. All combatants were appropriately dressed and within limits, acting under rules of war. The same cannot be said of someone wearing civilian clothing, using cover of other civilians to then attack a soldier / soldiers.

What happened in Paris was an attack by someone using cover of other civilians, dressed as a civilian and then making his escape using innocents as his cover.

Drones negate your entire argument.

No functional difference.

Sneaky killing.
 
Correct. In war, you get to attack the other side's troops. That's... sortof how it works. Our soldiers shoot at Al-Qaeda members, why would it be terrorism for them to shoot back?

As far as I know this guy was not an al Qaeda member or a member of any known terror organization.
I do get the feeling however that if a French soldier would have put a bullet in this guy's head a week before he's done anything it would suddenly stop being "an act of war" to you.
Well it really wouldn't be an act of war genius, just like this one isn't.
 
So in your brain terrorism and war are the only two options? What do you file murder under?

Well if you're arguing that it's not terrorism because they've targeted military personnel than murder doesn't come into play at all.

That's exactly what you seem to argue in the very same post.

And how does that make it terrorism? Our military/government has also conducted operations in plain clothes.

The fact is, not every ****ing thing is terrorism. Violence against military targets is simply war. That's the kind of thing you simply open yourself up to when you join the military.

Why don't you label the thousands of murders every single day as terrorism?
 
Well if you're arguing that it's not terrorism because they've targeted military personnel than murder doesn't come into play at all.

That's exactly what you seem to argue in the very same post.

You could really call it either. In a civil court I would call it murder, in respect to macroeconomic policy I would call it war and or retaliatory attack.

The only thing I simply can't see it logically being called is a terrorist attack.
 
I really want to know how this happens, Paris is crawling with heavily armed soldiers.
 
-- Violence against military targets is simply war. That's the kind of thing you simply open yourself up to when you join the military --

Got it. Civilian in a car crash with military convoy gets annoyed and kills or wounds a military driver = war.

Drunk in a pub in Cyprus, stab and kill a fusilier = war?

Your argument hasn't improved since you tried to claim D-Day could have been a terrorist attack.
 
Got it. Civilian in a car crash with military convoy gets annoyed and kills or wounds a military driver = war.

Drunk in a pub in Cyprus, stab and kill a fusilier = war?

Your argument hasn't improved since you tried to claim D-Day could have been a terrorist attack.
I'd probably call those aggrevated murder. This attack was a highly directed, premeditated attack on a military target. I could see it being called murder, clearly, but terrorism doesn't make any sense at all.

And my argument was never that D-Day was a terrorist attack, just that by some of you people's horribly deficient logic, it too should be considered one.

I mean come on, take a step back and actually look at it. A terrorist attack on one person... with a knife... I mean jesus. How crippled with fear has our society become that we're going to compare a knife attack on a soldier with a bombing of many civilians?
 
I'd probably call those aggrevated murder.

A post ago, you called attacks on military targets war - now they are aggravated murder?

-- And my argument was never that D-Day was a terrorist attack, just that by some of you people's horribly deficient logic, it too should be considered one.

Nobody I read anywhere said D-Day could be considered a terrorist attack apart from those who deny the use of the word terrorist.
 
I'd probably call those aggrevated murder. This attack was a highly directed, premeditated attack on a military target. I could see it being called murder, clearly, but terrorism doesn't make any sense at all.

And my argument was never that D-Day was a terrorist attack, just that by some of you people's horribly deficient logic, it too should be considered one.

I mean come on, take a step back and actually look at it. A terrorist attack on one person... with a knife... I mean jesus. How crippled with fear has our society become that we're going to compare a knife attack on a soldier with a bombing of many civilians?

For it to be a terrorist attack it would need to be planned with the purpose of causing terror in the people it intended to target as a group. In this case soldiers outside of military bases.

What we dont know yet is how many others might be involved, how planned it was, and its intent. But Im sure if we wait a while we will get some group or another claiming credit and explaining what they were trying to do.

Offhand, it appears to be terrorism because it has a planned result outside of being just a knife attack.

I disagree with you regarding Ft Hood. What he yelled during the attack puts another spin on what he did other than a crazed act of murder.
 
You could really call it either. In a civil court I would call it murder, in respect to macroeconomic policy I would call it war and or retaliatory attack.

The only thing I simply can't see it logically being called is a terrorist attack.

Honestly, IMO the divide is far narrower between war and terrorism than it is between murder and war. I really don't think Muslims would feel less threatened if we designated attacks like these acts of war, and I don't think people in general would see all these politically motivated attacks as merely "murders".
 
Last edited:
Well, do let me know when something like that happens that you actually disapprove of.

So the implication I'm getting from you is that if you don't call something terrorism, you can't disapprove of it. Therefore, you don't disapprove of murder, rape, or child molestation.

Or maybe you want to walk back this vicious insinuation you've made about me. Oh, and maybe even ****ing read the post you quoted and see where I specifically said these actions were "terrible things." Where do you get the nerve to say some bull**** like this?
 
Last edited:
As far as I know this guy was not an al Qaeda member or a member of any known terror organization.
I do get the feeling however that if a French soldier would have put a bullet in this guy's head a week before he's done anything it would suddenly stop being "an act of war" to you.
Well it really wouldn't be an act of war genius, just like this one isn't.

You've missed a few steps in the conversation that lead to that post. You're misapplying what I said to a situation it wasn't referring to.
 
You could really call it either. In a civil court I would call it murder, in respect to macroeconomic policy I would call it war and or retaliatory attack.

The only thing I simply can't see it logically being called is a terrorist attack.

So what is your criteria for an act of terrorism?

Paul
 
So what is your criteria for an act of terrorism?

Paul

I would call it "the indiscriminate use of violence against civilian noncombatants for the purposes of creating fear to coerce people towards some political objective."

Generally speaking I would exclude military targets from the definition of terrorism. In any recognized rules of warfare, it is "legitimate" to attack the enemy's troops. People brought up Ft. Hood and the USS Cole in this thread, I am not willing to call those acts terrorism because I would then be forced to call many US military personnel and intelligence agents terrorists for conducting normal operations of the war on terror.

As for this incident, we don't really know much other than "brown skinned guy stabbed a soldier." There isn't any actual evidence beyond that. People speculate that it may have been connected to the attack in London.
 
A post ago, you called attacks on military targets war - now they are aggravated murder?



Nobody I read anywhere said D-Day could be considered a terrorist attack apart from those who deny the use of the word terrorist.

Everybody is implying D-Day is a terrorist attack because it was an attack for a political purpose, and to instill fear in a certain group (the Nazis).

That is apparently the sole criteria for terrorism, so pretty much every act of violence in history is terrorism.

For it to be a terrorist attack it would need to be planned with the purpose of causing terror in the people it intended to target as a group. In this case soldiers outside of military bases.

What we dont know yet is how many others might be involved, how planned it was, and its intent. But Im sure if we wait a while we will get some group or another claiming credit and explaining what they were trying to do.

Offhand, it appears to be terrorism because it has a planned result outside of being just a knife attack.

I disagree with you regarding Ft Hood. What he yelled during the attack puts another spin on what he did other than a crazed act of murder.

Every attack, of every kind, military, civilian, terrorist, all of them, have had "a planned result outside of the attack". That's the entire idea of attacks, to cause a result.

By this loan criteria of yours, EVERYTHING is terrorism. If I go shoot someone on the street, terrorism. Invasion of Iraq? Terrorism.

Really now. They could have been administering first aid to their comrade who had been stabbed in the f'in throat or decided not to open fire in a crowded shopping mall, thus acting completely appropriately. There's really no need to regress to stereotype on which we have little information.
Bull****. No way does it take longer than 5 seconds to shoot someone who just cut your comrade. No self respecting soldier on the planet will start rendering first aid while the enemy is standing 2 feet from him.

There's no scenario where this is ok. They should be demoted for being worthless cowards.

So what is your criteria for an act of terrorism?

Paul

It has to be a mass, indiscriminate attack against non-combatants in order to instill fear or cause a desired outcome.

For example: 9/11, Boston Marathon, Oklahoma City, etc.
Wrong examples: Punching someone in the face, stabbing someone, or committing crimes while muslim.
 
So it is ok to call 9/11 terrorism? You sure you don't want to just call it a bad day for air travel?

9/11 was obviously terrorism, and had virtually zero similarity to a street stabbing. The fact that some of you can't see the difference is appalling.

It was a mass, indiscriminate attack on civilians in order to cause fear. Comparing that with a targeted murder of a soldier makes zero sense.

What confuses me is why everyone cares so much about this one person. Thousands of people are murdered on the streets every day, but people want to freak out about this one? Every death is a tragedy, get over it.
 
You've missed a few steps in the conversation that lead to that post. You're misapplying what I said to a situation it wasn't referring to.

Yes, I was referring to the stabbing of the French soldier but I could just as well be referring to the Fort Hood shooting you were referring to since they are of the same nature.
So if a US soldier had killed the Fort Hood shooter a week before he's done anything, would it still be part of that "war" you're talking about? And who exactly are the belligerents in this open war? What are the factions?
 
Al-Qaeda and it's Islamist allies have made a tactical shift towards edged weapons and single person knife attacks as a way to bring Western Civilization to its knees. This spate of attacks is sure to go down in history as one of the more decisive blows ever dealt in pursuit of the Caliphate.
 
9/11 was obviously terrorism, and had virtually zero similarity to a street stabbing. The fact that some of you can't see the difference is appalling.

It was a mass, indiscriminate attack on civilians in order to cause fear. Comparing that with a targeted murder of a soldier makes zero sense.

What confuses me is why everyone cares so much about this one person. Thousands of people are murdered on the streets every day, but people want to freak out about this one? Every death is a tragedy, get over it.

Much of the definition of terrorism lies inn the motive of the attack, no? When the IRA bombed a pub in London known to be a hangout for British soldiers, it was terrorism. When the IRA sniped a soldier on the street in Derry it was terrorism. When then IRA kneecapped a Belfast policeman it was terrorism. Makes no difference who the victims were, it was the intent that defines this particular crime.
 
Everybody is implying D-Day is a terrorist attack because it was an attack for a political purpose, and to instill fear in a certain group (the Nazis).

Really? the choice seemed more strategic

As COSSAC developed that plan, the question of where to land posed problems. The site would have to be within the range of fighter aircraft based in Great Britain but also on ground flat enough to construct the airfields that would become necessary once the invading force moved off the beaches and out of the range of its initial fighter support. The landing zones themselves would have to be sheltered from prevailing winds to facilitate around-the-clock resupply operations and would have to possess enough exits to allow the invading force to proceed inland with as little difficulty as possible. Similarly, the area behind the beaches would have to include a road network adequate to the needs of a force that intended to move rapidly. Since the region would ultimately form a base for the drive across France toward Germany, a series of large ports would also have to be close enough to facilitate the unloading of the massive quantities of supplies and ammunition that would be necessary to sustain the attack.

The most appropriate location, COSSAC's planners decided, lay directly across the English Channel from Dover in the Pas de Calais region. The area fulfilled many of the Allies' requirements and offered a direct route into the heart of Germany. Since the enemy had recognized that fact, however, and had already begun to construct heavy fortifications along the coast, an alternative had to be found. The most suitable stood farther to the west, along the Normandy coast near Caen and the Cotentin Peninsula. That region contained major ports at Cherbourg and Le Havre and offered a gateway to ports at Brest, Nantes, L'Orient, and St. Nazaire. Allied planners believed that the Germans would undoubtedly sabotage Cherbourg, forcing the invaders to place heavy initial reliance upon the MULBERRIES, but the damage could be repaired and the region itself was less strongly defended than the Pas de Calais.

Offering, as well, a satisfactory opening into the French interior, it became the site of the invasion.

Normandy
 
Everybody is implying D-Day is a terrorist attack because it was an attack for a political purpose, and to instill fear in a certain group (the Nazis).

Dr Chuckles beat me to the appropriate response.

committing crimes while muslim.

Nobody has claimed this.

-- What confuses me is why everyone cares so much about this one person. Thousands of people are murdered on the streets every day, but people want to freak out about this one? Every death is a tragedy, get over it.

It's when it becomes a pattern across different countries that matters. It's when it's done in public - non warzones deliberately to affect ordinary noncombatants.
 
Back
Top Bottom