Paris: At least 128 dead in 6 terrorist attacks

[video=youtube;S-75FihV10w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-75FihV10w[/video]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/no...now-so-far

• President François Hollande says the Islamic State group is to blame for terror attacks across Paris that have left at least 127 dead. He says the attacks were an “act of war … prepared and planned elsewhere, with outside involvement which this investigation will seek to establish”. Hollande adds that France will be “ruthless in its response” and declares three days of national mourning.
  
• Islamic State releases a statement claiming responsibility for the attacks on Saturday and threaten s further attacks against France. The group says the killings were in response to airstrikes against its militants, adding France would remain a “key target”.
  
• The state of emergency declared across France on Friday night remains in place on Saturday. The measure means that most public spaces can be shut down and there is heightened police and military presence across the country. The French police stress that no public demonstrations are to be held in Paris.
  
• David Cameron is to chair an emergency meeting of government ministers and security officials to discuss the British response. A senior Met police officer raises the prospect of increasing the threat level to the UK to its highest possible.
  
• The French government also convenes an emergency meeting on Saturday morning to formulate its response to the attack. An international investigation is launched overnight and officials have said “accomplices” are still at large.
  
• The injury count currently stands at about 200, 99 of whom are seriously. wounded.
  
• Earlier on Saturday, the death toll at each location was reported as: 87 at the Bataclan theatre; 18 at Boulevard de Charonne; one at Boulevard Voltaire; five at Rue de la Fontaine au Roi; and 14 at Rue Alibert. More deaths have been reported on Saturday morning but it is unclear where they occurred. At the Stade de France, the Paris prosecutor, François Molins, says “some” people were killed, possibly three. However, it is not clear whether they are attackers or victims.
  
• Eight assailants have been killed, seven of them in suicide bombings, a French prosecutor said. But police are still hunting accomplices. Witnesses to one shooting said police told them at least one attacker was still at large.
  
• Shootings and explosions occurred at six locations across central and eastern parts of the Paris, including restaurants, the Bataclan concert hall and near to the Stade de France to the north of the city. Two suicide attacks and a bombing took place near the stadium, where the national team was playing Germany in a friendly football match.
  
• On Friday night, Hollande orders the closing of the country’s borders. He says there are “unprecedented terror attacks under way in Paris” and authorities warn residents to stay inside.
  
• World leaders have voiced outrage, with many pledging to help France with the ongoing investigation. Barack Obama says America stood shoulder-to-shoulder with France. The Vatican has also condemned the attack as “mad terrorist violence”.
  

Europe doesn't feel safe anymore.

It's disgusting. Just disgusting.
This should now make it depressingly clear to people that europe has more pressing concerns than taking care of the refugees of other countries.
The economy is in major problems and now our own capitals aren't safe for our own citizens.

And i doubt that the response this will cause which will likely wipe out ISIS will stop the terror, a new group will simply take their place and more extremists will keep doing this pomegranate. It's just depressing.

As if the cultural tensions in europe weren't in a bad enough spot already, i'm genuinely afraid of what this will result in if it keeps up.

Sad days indeed. One of my friends is stuck in Paris right now. She was trying to enjoy her vacation as well. I can only hope she is still doing well. I suspected they'd do a lockdown =/
*sigh*

 Bare with me on this. Seeing this upsetted me. Sorta related but sorta not

Okay, so people made "PrayForParis" for a reason (and don't get me wrong, I'm with it despite not posting about it). Not even 24 hours later, I start seeing people talk about other events that happened like PrayForJapan, PrayForMexico, and others. Now it's "PrayForTheWorld"? Am I the only one that find this eerily similar to how people changed "BlackLivesMatter" to "AllLivesMatter"?

Not trying to cause any kind of ruckus. Yes, yesterday was a horrific day in different parts of the world, but why change a hashtag/phrase that was created to identify events? It happened with BlackLivesMatter when others said "No, EVERYONE matters". In my mind, I'm reading this as "No, pray for the WORLD instead". I even looked up the earthquakes and the one in Mexico was relatively small with no damages/deaths, and the other happened 90 MILES off the coast of Japan with no imminent danger at all. How were these events relevant and need praying? The tragedies that's happened are being washed-out by these hashtags and it's infuriating.

Okay, so people made "PrayForParis" for a reason (and don't get me wrong, I'm with it despite not posting about it). Not even 24 hours later, I start seeing people talk about other events that happened like PrayForJapan, PrayForMexico, and others. Now it's "PrayForTheWorld"? Am I the only one that find this eerily similar to how people changed "BlackLivesMatter" to "AllLivesMatter"?

Not trying to cause any kind of ruckus. Yes, yesterday was a horrific day in different parts of the world, but why change a hashtag/phrase that was created to identify events? It happened with BlackLivesMatter when others said "No, EVERYONE matters". In my mind, I'm reading this as "No, pray for the WORLD instead". I even looked up the earthquakes and the one in Mexico was relatively small with no damages/deaths, and the other happened 90 MILES off the coast of Japan with no imminent danger at all. How were these events relevant and need praying? The tragedies that's happened are being washed-out by these hashtags and it's infuriating.

I partially agree with you, and partially don't.
While it's true that equating what happened in Paris with harmless earthquakes cheapens it, I do think we need to PrayForTheWorld.

The events in Paris weren't an attack on Paris, or even on France, alone. They were an attack on the West, on the civilized world, on everyone who isn't (the "right" kind of) Muslim. The attackers chose Paris for various symbolic and logistic reasons, but their previous strike was blowing up the Russian plane taking off from Egypt, and their next target could be Sydney, or Washington, or The Hague, or Mumbai, or even Tehran (they did attack Hizbolla, the Lebanese fundamentalist Islamic organization backed by Iran and the Syrian regime).

So yes, PrayForParis, for the wounded, the bereaved, and the scared people there; but also PrayForTheWorld, because, make no mistake, we are in a World War.

When you start thinking about it, it's pineappleed up.

French Charlie Hebdo's Response to ISIS bomb killing over 200 Russian civilians:



Moscow's response to ISIS killing over 100 civilians in Paris:



We really should bury this often rather poisonous attitude towards "non-westerners" and unite against ISIS.

When you start thinking about it, it's pineappleed up.

French Charlie Hebdo's Response to ISIS bomb killing over 200 Russian civilians:

-snip-

Moscow's response to ISIS killing over 100 civilians in Paris:

-snip-

We really should bury this often rather poisonous attitude towards "non-westerners" and unite against ISIS.

That's not entirely a fair comparison.

When the plane crashed, it was not clear at first whether it was due to mechanical failure (in which case Charlie Hebdo's response is on-point, though crude, as is their style) or terrorism.

That's not entirely a fair comparison.

When the plane crashed, it was not clear at first whether it was due to mechanical failure (in which case Charlie Hebdo's response is on-point, though crude, as is their style) or terrorism.

Meant to point this out in my post but seems like I forgot. It does make it a little different but had it been for some other cause, it ultimately wouldn't change the fact that innocent people died and that western world largely still seems to ignore or undervalue what happens outside our "club". That's how I feel anyway.

the japanese earthquake is a stupid thing, but i hold the same opinion about all lives matter than i do about pray4world, that they're both absolutely correct, more so than their original version. the attack on france was awful, but so are the attacks on syria and other places. you have to care about everyone not just who you like best (france, as a country) or what group you form a part of (black lives matter, white lives matter, etc). everything and everyone matters.

It's disgusting. Just disgusting.
This should now make it depressingly clear to people that europe has more pressing concerns than taking care of the refugees of other countries.

I really can't agree with you here. While admitting vast waves of Middle Eastern refugees does present very real security concerns, I don't think it's fair to take an "us first" approach in response. Without cheapening the tragedy of what happened in Paris, this attack should remind us what some of these refugees face on a daily basis. Terrorist attacks in Syria, Israel, Jordan, etc barely even make the news in the West because of their frequency. You then propose to deny those who flee safe harbor, as if they brought these attacks in like some sort of contagion?

The attacks on Paris are shocking for the Western world because they reminded us that no one is really safe and that anyone could be attacked. Ignoring the refugee crisis and turning them away won't keep you or me safe.

I really can't agree with you here. While admitting vast waves of Middle Eastern refugees does present very real security concerns, I don't think it's fair to take an "us first" approach in response. Without cheapening the tragedy of what happened in Paris, this attack should remind us what some of these refugees face on a daily basis. Terrorist attacks in Syria, Israel, Jordan, etc barely even make the news in the West because of their frequency. You then propose to deny those who flee safe harbor, as if they brought these attacks in like some sort of contagion?

The attacks on Paris are shocking for the Western world because they reminded us that no one is really safe and that anyone could be attacked. Ignoring the refugee crisis and turning them away won't keep you or me safe.

I mean you make it painfully clear that you know absolutely nothing about the situation some european countries are in. Denmark is already far over capacity, so is sweden, infact sweden is trying to reallocate a lot of the refugees they have already taken in. And only more are coming.
We cannot support any more refugees and the security regarding letting the refugees into europe are atm a pineappleing joke.

So why exactly should my country continue to burden itself when we've already taken in a pomegranateload of refugees? We simply can't help more people. I mean i can't really put this nicely but refugees are overall a resource sink, they cost countries a LOT of money to take in and take care of, Denmark is not a huge country with a massive economy to support a super high number of refugees. There's a reason denmark as a country has been making it harder and harder to get into denmark and cut further and further back on the support immigrants and refugees get, because we simply can't afford helping people the way we used to.

So yes, i'm taking an 'us first' approach, i want denmark to focus on itself, i want denmark to focus on its own citizens and the refugees we have ALREADY taken in. I want my country to not collapse because we took in refugees we couldn't realistically support.

I don't think this should be hard to understand.

I really can't agree with you here. While admitting vast waves of Middle Eastern refugees does present very real security concerns, I don't think it's fair to take an "us first" approach in response. Without cheapening the tragedy of what happened in Paris, this attack should remind us what some of these refugees face on a daily basis. Terrorist attacks in Syria, Israel, Jordan, etc barely even make the news in the West because of their frequency. You then propose to deny those who flee safe harbor, as if they brought these attacks in like some sort of contagion?

The attacks on Paris are shocking for the Western world because they reminded us that no one is really safe and that anyone could be attacked. Ignoring the refugee crisis and turning them away won't keep you or me safe.

extending a helping hand only to fall into the river yourself and drown helps nobody. yes, the syrians have been through hell and back, but this kneejerk response of letting the floodgates open isn't safe, it lets not-so friendly people in too. so to adress your last phrase:

You then propose to deny those who flee safe harbor, as if they brought these attacks in like some sort of contagion

he proposes you stop giving "safe harbor" to absolutely everyone, because not everyone asking for it is really in need of it. and also, because sometimes you just can't provide even if they do seek honest help.

I mean you make it painfully clear that you know absolutely nothing about the situation some european countries are in. Denmark is already far over capacity, so is sweden, infact sweden is trying to reallocate a lot of the refugees they have already taken in. And only more are coming.
We cannot support any more refugees and the security regarding letting the refugees into europe are atm a pineappleing joke.

So why exactly should my country continue to burden itself when we've already taken in a pomegranateload of refugees? We simply can't help more people. I mean i can't really put this nicely but refugees are overall a resource sink, they cost countries a LOT of money to take in and take care of, Denmark is not a huge country with a massive economy to support a super high number of refugees. There's a reason denmark as a country has been making it harder and harder to get into denmark and cut further and further back on the support immigrants and refugees get, because we simply can't afford helping people the way we used to.

So yes, i'm taking an 'us first' approach, i want denmark to focus on itself, i want denmark to focus on its own citizens and the refugees we have ALREADY taken in. I want my country to not collapse because we took in refugees we couldn't realistically support.

I don't think this should be hard to understand.

I don't pretend to know a lot about Denmark or Europe in general and I genuinely wish my country were accepting more than a criminally small number of refugees. I won't point to any specific European nation and call them selfish or negligent nor has that ever been my intent. The economic complications and strains from what can only be described as an overwhelming number of refugees are important and ultimately must pose limitations on the number of people that can realistically be accepted. I will instead ask that you reexamine your first post.

"The economy is in major problems and now our own capitals aren't safe for our own citizens."
Why are these two problems linked in your mind (or at least in this statement)? Do you think that the acceptance of refugees has somehow jeopardized your safety? What do you propose to do about the refugees instead?

"And i doubt that the response this will cause which will likely wipe out ISIS will stop the terror, a new group will simply take their place and more extremists will keep doing this pomegranate."
Does the importance of fighting evil diminish because of it's difficulty? Would it be better to give up trying at all? Would ignoring ISIS as a regional problem allow them to consolidate their power and ultimately create a greater threat to foreign nations?

"As if the cultural tensions in europe weren't in a bad enough spot already, i'm genuinely afraid of what this will result in if it keeps up."
Are cultural tensions solely the fault of immigrants and refugees? Do you fear riots and violence and if so, from which group?

I ask these questions instead of trying to make "corrections" because there are multiple possible answers and some that probably can't be answered. This is an emotional time for all of us and particularly those in Europe who feel an even greater sense of kinship with France than other Western nations. I read that in your response, but I also see what may be a knee jerk reaction and what I hope is an unconscious association of the attacks and refugees which are probably more closely linked in time than cause which must be traced back to the Middle East. I merely wish to remind that the refugees are victims too.

[MENTION=7678]ShinkuDragon[/MENTION]; He has made it rather clear in both post that he's in favor of denying entry to refugees which are by definition a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. Does this not represent adequate need? I'm not talking about economic immigrants (nor is he in his first post by my interpretation) which merely seek better financial situations. He seems to reference both in his second post making my points relevant. You're projecting your more moderate opinion onto his post (unless he disagrees with one of these interpretations).

I took issue with Malthe's use of "more pressing concerns". It is shortsighted and naive not see the refugee crisis and the terrorist attacks have related causes which must be addressed with both long and short term solutions. The refugees are going to keep coming because they perceive the long march (reference intended) because the possible prospect of entry to Europe is preferable to what they consider certain death at home. Yes there will be those of lesser need and even some who try to take advantage of the situation. I don't think that means we should deny entry and watch them die outside the front door.

Again the economic argument is valid, but I found the data here instructive. The funding (and gap) is enormous. At the end of the day 700,000 Syrians have applied for refugee status in Europe. Remember that over 3 MILLION are displaced in countries surrounding Syria and another 3.5 MILLION are displaced within Syria. Only 10% have fled towards Europe. Based on this data, it certainly appears true that Sweden and Denmark among others have accepted disproportionately large numbers of refugees. You should be commended for that. I simply look at some nations (especially my own) and wonder if we could do more.

To borrow Shinku's metaphor, one person might fall and drown trying to pull someone out of the river, but many working together can succeed where one would fail.

I don't pretend to know a lot about Denmark or Europe in general and I genuinely wish my country were accepting more than a criminally small number of refugees. I won't point to any specific European nation and call them selfish or negligent nor has that ever been my intent. The economic complications and strains from what can only be described as an overwhelming number of refugees are important and ultimately must pose limitations on the number of people that can realistically be accepted. I will instead ask that you reexamine your first post.

"The economy is in major problems and now our own capitals aren't safe for our own citizens."
Why are these two problems linked in your mind (or at least in this statement)? Do you think that the acceptance of refugees has somehow jeopardized your safety? What do you propose to do about the refugees instead?

"And i doubt that the response this will cause which will likely wipe out ISIS will stop the terror, a new group will simply take their place and more extremists will keep doing this pomegranate."
Does the importance of fighting evil diminish because of it's difficulty? Would it be better to give up trying at all? Would ignoring ISIS as a regional problem allow them to consolidate their power and ultimately create a greater threat to foreign nations?

"As if the cultural tensions in europe weren't in a bad enough spot already, i'm genuinely afraid of what this will result in if it keeps up."
Are cultural tensions solely the fault of immigrants and refugees? Do you fear riots and violence and if so, from which group?

I ask these questions instead of trying to make "corrections" because there are multiple possible answers and some that probably can't be answered. This is an emotional time for all of us and particularly those in Europe who feel an even greater sense of kinship with France than other Western nations. I read that in your response, but I also see what may be a knee jerk reaction and what I hope is an unconscious association of the attacks and refugees which are probably more closely linked in time than cause which must be traced back to the Middle East. I merely wish to remind that the refugees are victims too.

ShinkuDragon; He has made it rather clear in both post that he's in favor of denying entry to refugees which are by definition a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. Does this not represent adequate need? I'm not talking about economic immigrants (nor is he in his first post by my interpretation) which merely seek better financial situations. He seems to reference both in his second post making my points relevant. You're projecting your more moderate opinion onto his post (unless he disagrees with one of these interpretations).

I took issue with Malthe's use of "more pressing concerns". It is shortsighted and naive not see the refugee crisis and the terrorist attacks have related causes which must be addressed with both long and short term solutions. The refugees are going to keep coming because they perceive the long march (reference intended) because the possible prospect of entry to Europe is preferable to what they consider certain death at home. Yes there will be those of lesser need and even some who try to take advantage of the situation. I don't think that means we should deny entry and watch them die outside the front door.

Again the economic argument is valid, but I found the data here instructive. The funding (and gap) is enormous. At the end of the day 700,000 Syrians have applied for refugee status in Europe. Remember that over 3 MILLION are displaced in countries surrounding Syria and another 3.5 MILLION are displaced within Syria. Only 10% have fled towards Europe. Based on this data, it certainly appears true that Sweden and Denmark among others have accepted disproportionately large numbers of refugees. You should be commended for that. I simply look at some nations (especially my own) and wonder if we could do more.

To borrow Shinku's metaphor, one person might fall and drown trying to pull someone out of the river, but many working together can succeed where one would fail.

to keep it short, a refugee is, from an economical point, nothing but an expense. in your house, how many more people would you be able to have before it became a problem? for how long would you be able to maintain them? if you don't think and assess these carefully you might find yourself as bad as the refugees you tried to help, unable to afford food for anyone.

"The economy is in major problems and now our own capitals aren't safe for our own citizens."
Why are these two problems linked in your mind (or at least in this statement)? Do you think that the acceptance of refugees has somehow jeopardized your safety? What do you propose to do about the refugees instead?

They aren't directly linked, however our countries are currently using a lot of resources handling the refugee crisis. And many countries are reaching their limits for what they can support without cutting resources from other things, and at the moment i feel that we need to make sure that our economy comes out of its crisis and that our country gets back on its feet properly. It was far more of a general statement about europe at the moment than it was me saying that the refugees are ruining the european economy, i'm saying that for some smaller countries it's most definitely impeding the recovery of our economies.

"And i doubt that the response this will cause which will likely wipe out ISIS will stop the terror, a new group will simply take their place and more extremists will keep doing this pomegranate."
Does the importance of fighting evil diminish because of it's difficulty? Would it be better to give up trying at all? Would ignoring ISIS as a regional problem allow them to consolidate their power and ultimately create a greater threat to foreign nations?

Who the pineapple said anything about giving up or that the importance diminishes because of its difficulty? I'm saying that crushing ISIS with military power isn't going to pineappleing solve the problem as long as the entire region is destabilized, figuring out how to crush ISIS is one thing, returning political and military stability to the region? That is a completely different problem and as far as i'm concerned the real challenge.

"As if the cultural tensions in europe weren't in a bad enough spot already, i'm genuinely afraid of what this will result in if it keeps up."
Are cultural tensions solely the fault of immigrants and refugees? Do you fear riots and violence and if so, from which group?

Do i fear riots and violence? Violence is already happening, the people of europe are not happy with how many governments are currently handling the situation, a month or so ago a swedish nationalist decided to kill immigrants with a sword because he was a crazy neo-nazi.
pomegranate like that isn't the fault of the immigrants or refugees, but the cultural tensions are only constantly being pushed further because of radical and extremists groups like ISIS. The more times ISIS pulls off pomegranate like this did this friday the more this tension will grow, and yes i most definitely predict that it'll result in violence or in some places riots.
The problem is again, that our countries are reaching their limits and people are becoming increasingly frustrated with that, and some people are most definitely also becoming increasingly afraid of it happening in their own countries. The xenophobic and racist pimentos will obviously be the ones that turn to violence and riots, but these people exist and i'm afraid that innocent blood will be spilled because of ISIS' actions.

I mean i wouldn't really find it hard to understand why some jews in europe might be somewhat xenophobic towards the muslims in general after the things that have happened in recent time as a result of the actions of extremists or radicals.

I read that in your response, but I also see what may be a knee jerk reaction and what I hope is an unconscious association of the attacks and refugees which are probably more closely linked in time than cause which must be traced back to the Middle East. I merely wish to remind that the refugees are victims too.

I at no point in my post associated the refugees with the attacks, i simply said that europe isn't exactly in a super great position and i feel that many countries in europe honestly have more pressing matters and that these countries are reaching their limits for how many refugees they can help.
I believe that for a country like denmark getting our economy back on its feet will allow us to help far more in the future than taking in more refugees than we can currently help does.

He has made it rather clear in both post that he's in favor of denying entry to refugees which are by definition a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. Does this not represent adequate need? I'm not talking about economic immigrants (nor is he in his first post by my interpretation) which merely seek better financial situations. He seems to reference both in his second post making my points relevant. You're projecting your more moderate opinion onto his post (unless he disagrees with one of these interpretations).

Yes, no pomegranate i'm in favor of denying entry to refugees. I will gladly state that openly: I don't believe denmark should take in anymore refugees. And we have already stopped, because again, we've reached our limits.
Also i didn't in either of my posts mention economic migrants???

I took issue with Malthe's use of "more pressing concerns". It is shortsighted and naive not see the refugee crisis and the terrorist attacks have related causes which must be addressed with both long and short term solutions. The refugees are going to keep coming because they perceive the long march (reference intended) because the possible prospect of entry to Europe is preferable to what they consider certain death at home. Yes there will be those of lesser need and even some who try to take advantage of the situation. I don't think that means we should deny entry and watch them die outside the front door.

Yeah the refugees are going to keep coming. But there are only so many refugees that each country can take properly care of, many countries are reaching their limit. So yes, if a country can't support anymore refugees then as much as that pineappleing sucks, i believe the country is fully justified in denying them entry. It's a super pomegranatety situation, no way around it.

To borrow Shinku's metaphor, one person might fall and drown trying to pull someone out of the river, but many working together can succeed where one would fail.

Yeah but each country only has so much support they can offer.

Let me give you a metaphor you can't possibly fail to understand, this entire situation is a sinking ship and the refugees are trying to get off this sinking ship without drowning. Each country can send a certain amount of lifeboats to save a certain amount of people. Denmark has sent a lifeboat that can carry X amount of people and we have taken in that X amount of people to care for. However if we overfill the lifeboat beyond its capacity there's a chance that the lifeboat itself will simply also sink making our efforts pointless to begin with.

Edit: Anyway i'm not really interested in continuing this discussion. If our opinions and outlook on this situation differ then that's fine to me.

As an American I'm really facing a crossroads, it really boils down to assuming the best or the worst in people. We genuinely already have an immigration problem, not so much of people looking to start the american life, but criminals. By criminals I mean actual crimes, drug dealers mainly, that kind of thing. The fact is Sryrian is in dire straights and I feel isis' main objective is to isolate muslims from the western world so they have a bigger army, since they(Muslims who are isolated) will turn to them(Isis), at the same time you do have the risk of radicals slipping through, so as an American should we risk our lives for those in need? It's hard for me as someone with a job with verifying information, to accept individuals blindly who have no records, and fake passports plentiful. It's impossible for me to say I'm okay with this even if there is a family next to them who genuinely needs this type of asylum. I feel as an American we should take the risk for individuals who are in turmoil. At the same time, is America at a point (even with the low percentage compared to other countries)where we have the ability to bring these families stability, or are just harboring a ticking time bomb of frustration?

Should we assume the worst for our security, or the best for our humanity, I feel a lot of individuals are having a tough time seeing past that line, specifically Americans, Europe is much, much worse off with this.