Donald Trump Says Paris Massacre Would Have Different If People Had Been Armed
[
16 November 2015 ]
QUOTE
Republican
presidential candidate Donald Trump said on Saturday that the
terror attacks in Paris would have been 'a much, much different
situation' had the victims been armed with guns.
In the immediate aftermath of the coordinated assaults in Paris, which killed at least 129 and injured 352 more and for which Islamic State has claimed responsibility, Trump called on the Obama administration to reconsider plans to allow thousands of Syrian refugees to be resettled in the United States.
'With the problems our country has, to take in 250,000 people, some of whom are going to have problems, big problems, is just insane,' Trump said at a rally on Saturday in Beaumont, Texas.......... Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said the terrorist attacks in Paris serve as an example of why American borders need to be secured......
Trump's claims [ sic ] came just a day after coordinated assaults in Paris,
which killed at least 129 and injured 352 more and for which Islamic State has
claimed responsibility.
UNQUOTE
Notice that "Trumps claims";
rather than "Mr Trump states the
obvious". The Daily Mail is a
Propaganda machine that wants to keep us
disarmed making it easy for a corrupt government to oppress us. The
Firearms Act 1920 was brought in to
prevent another Bolshevik Revolution;
one that was never going to happen anyway. In America the
Armed Citizen pays off, preventing crime
thousands of times a year. While
Donald Trump tells the truth the Jew,
Carlile uses this attack as an excuse to
Spy On Us while Cameron carries on
importing thousands more perpetrators.
PS
Mark Steyn [ partly Jew BTW ] has some pungent comments on the
moral cretins who let "Peace
Lovers" into civilization - see
The Barbarians Are Inside, And There Are No Gates. Proof? See evidence from the Armed Citizen
Paris Massacre Was Not Carried Out By Islamics - Politicians Claim [ 24 November 2015 ]
QUOTE
The British Home Secretary, Theresa May, was a little behind the curve when she reacted to the bloodbath in Paris by insisting that "the attacks have nothing to do with Islam". This is the old spin that, although some terrorists might claim to be Muslim, there's nothing inherently Muslim about their terrorism..............As President-in-waiting Hillary Clinton assures us:
Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.
So not only is terrorism nothing to do with Islam, but Muslims have "nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism". She said this a few hours before yet another US citizen was killed by terrorists shouting "Allahu Akbar!" - this time in a mass slaughter at the Radisson Hotel in Bamako, Mali.........
Even when you make it out of your "war-torn land" and join the great swarm of refugees yearning to breath free, a Christian can use a little "protection":
Rome (CNN)Muslims who were among migrants trying to get from Libya to Italy in a boat this week threw 12 fellow passengers overboard -- killing them -- because the 12 were Christians, Italian police said Thursday.......
I've mentioned before the German police estimate that simply tracking one serious person on a terrorist watch list consumes the time and money of 60 government employees. Meanwhile, being the guy on the watch list is incredibly cheap:...........
After the Charlie Hebdo attack, Steve Emerson was mocked across Europe and threatened with a lawsuit by the Mayor of Paris for suggesting that there were "no-go zones" where the state's writ does not run. In the last week the Government of Belgium has admitted that Molenbeek, five miles from the EU's governing institutions and NATO headquarters, is exactly that. The non-existent no-go zones are the incubators of jihad, and the entire political establishment of the western world is committed to expanding them..........
Which is why, in the decade after 9/11, Western governments ramped up Islamic immigration instead of slowing it to a trickle; and their citizens were "very supportive" of those who converted to Islam in record numbers, instead of mourning the wholesale abandonment of their inheritance; and their community-outreach enforcers dragged those who disrespected the Prophet into court for ever more footling infractions, instead of obliging Islam to adjust to core western values like freedom of expression.
UNQUOTE
Mark Steyn says it so much better than me, than anyone. Yes, politicians are liars, fools, ignoramuses, bribed, blackmailed, political subversives, traitors or some combination.
Paris Massacre Leader 'Killed' By Police [ 20 November 2015 ]
He looks like a jovial soul. Was he the right one? Possibly. It means that les flics can write him off as one of their successes. He is also a success for the François Hollande, the president of France. After all he did swear absolute, undying loyalty to Israel, rather than la belle France. See for yourself at Hollande's Treason. He proved it by flooding his own country with hostile Third World aliens.
He could have done with a visit to a good dentist. Now it does not matter.
November 2015 Paris Attacks ex Wiki
The November 13, 2015 Paris attacks were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris and its northern suburb, Saint-Denis. The attackers killed 130 people,[2] including 89 at the Bataclan theatre,[7] where they took hostages before engaging in a stand-off with police. 368 people were injured,[4] 80–99 seriously.[6][5] Seven of the attackers also died, while authorities continued to search for accomplices.[3]Beginning at 21:20 CET in the evening, three suicide bombers struck near the Stade de France in Saint-Denis, followed by another suicide bombing and a series of mass shootings at five locations in Paris.[8] The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) claimed responsibility for the attacks,[9][10][11] and French President François Hollande said the attack was an act of war by ISIL[12][13][14] planned in Syria, organised in Belgium, and perpetrated with French complicity.[15] France had been involved in airstrikes on various ISIL targets in Iraq and Syria since October.[16] ISIL carried out the attack in retaliation for French involvement in the Syrian Civil War and Iraqi Civil War.[17][18]
In response, a state of emergency was declared, the first since the 2005 riots,[19] and temporary border checks were introduced.[20] People and organisations expressed solidarity with France, many through social media. On 15 November, France launched the biggest airstrike of Opération Chammal, its contribution to the anti-ISIL bombing campaign, striking ISIL targets in Al-Raqqah in retaliation for the attacks.[21] On 18 November, the suspected lead operative of the attacks, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, was killed in a police raid in Saint-Denis, along with at least two other people.[22]
France had been on high alert since the January 2015 attacks in Paris [ the rather successful Charlie Hebdo Job ] that killed 17 people, including civilians and police officers.[23] The November attacks were the deadliest on France since World War II,[24][25] and the deadliest in the European Union since the Madrid train bombings in 2004.[26]
Paris Attack Strategy - Gwynne Dyer Explains
Paris attacks: the terrorist strategy
As always after a major terrorist attack on the West, the right question to ask after the slaughter in Paris is: what were the strategic aims behind the attack? This requires getting your head around the concept that terrorists have rational strategies, but once you have done that the motives behind the attacks are easy to figure out. It also becomes clear that the motives have changed.The 9/11 attacks on the United States in 2001 followed the classical terrorist strategy of trying to trick the target government into over-reacting in ways that ultimately serve the terrorists’ interests. Al-Qaeda’s goal was to sucker the United States into invading Muslim countries.
Al Qaeda was a revolutionary organisation whose purpose was to overthrow existing Arab governments and take power in the Arab countries, which it would then reshape in accord with its extreme Islamist ideology. The trouble was that Islamist movements were not doing very well in building mass support in the Arab world, and you need mass support if you want to make a revolution.
Osama bin Laden’s innovation was to switch the terrorist attacks from Arab governments to Western ones, in the hope of luring them into invasions that would radicalise large number of Arabs and drive them into the arms of the Islamists. His hopes were fulfilled by the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Once the Western troops went in, there was a steep decline in terrorist attacks on Western countries. Al-Qaeda wanted Western troops to stay in the Middle East and radicalise the local populations, so it made no sense to wage a terrorist campaign that might make Western countries pull their troops out again.
The resistance in Iraq grew quickly and and attracted Islamist fighters from many other Arab countries. The organisation originally known as “Al-Qaeda in Iraq” underwent several name changes, to “Islamic State in Iraq” in 2006; then to “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” – ISIS for short – in 2013, and finally to simply “Islamic State” in 2014. But the key personnel and the long-term goals remained the same throughout.
The man who now calls himself the “Caliph” of Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Bahdadi, first joined “Al-Qaeda in Iraq” and started fighting the US occupation forces in Iraq in 2004. But along the way the strategy changed, for ISIS eventually grew so strong that it conquered the extensive territories in Syria and Iraq that now make up Islamic State. Popular revolutions were no longer needed. The core strategy now is simply conquest.
In that case, why are Islamic State and Al-Qaeda still attacking Western targets? One reason is because the jihadi world is now split between two rival jihadi franchises that are competing for supporters.
The split happened in 2013, when ISIS, having launched a very successful branch operation in Syria known as the Nusra Front, tried to bring it back under the control of the parent organisation.
The Syrian branch resisted, and appealed to Al-Qaeda, the franchise manager of both jihadi groups, for support. Al-Qaeda backed the Syrians, whereupon ISIS broke its links with Al-Qaeda and set up as a direct competitor.
ISIS and the Nusra Front then fought a three-month war in early 2014 that killed several thousand militants and left the former in control of most of eastern Syria. Soon afterwards ISIS overran most of western Iraq and renamed itself Islamic State.
Islamic State and Al-Qaeda’s local franchise, the Nusra Front, are currently observing a ceasefire in Syria, but the two brands are still in a bitter struggle for the loyalty of jihadi groups elsewhere in the Muslim world.
Spectacular terrorist operations against Western targets appeal to both franchises because they are a powerful recruiting tool in jihadi circles. But Islamic State has a further motive: it actually wants Western attacks on it to cease.
It’s a real state now, with borders and an army and a more or less functional economy. It doesn’t want Western forces interfering with its efforts to consolidate and expand that state, and it hopes that terrorist attacks on the West may force them to pull out.
France is a prime target because French aircraft are part of the Western-led coalition bombing Islamic State, and because it’s relatively easy to recruit terrorists from France’s large, impoverished and alienated Muslim minority. Russia has also become a priority target since its aircraft started bombing jihadi troops in Syria, and the recent crash of a Russian airliner in Sinai may be due to a bomb planted by Islamic State.
So the outlook is for more terrorist attacks wherever Islamic State (and, to a lesser extent, Al-Qaeda) can find willing volunteers. Western countries with smaller and better integrated Muslim communities are less vulnerable than France, but they are targets too.
Putting foreign ground troops into Syria would only make matters worse, so the least bad option for all the countries concerned is to ride the terrorist campaign out. Horrendous though the attacks are, they pose a very small risk to the average citizen of these countries. Statistically speaking, it’s still more dangerous to cross the street, let alone climb a ladder.
Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries
Paris Massacre 1961 ex Wiki
QUOTE
The Paris massacre of 1961 was a massacre in Paris on 17 October 1961, during the Algerian War (1954–62). Under orders from the head of the Parisian police, Maurice Papon, the French National Police attacked a demonstration of some 30,000 pro-National Liberation Front (FLN) Algerians. Two months before, the FLN had decided to increase its bombing in France and to resume the campaign against both pro-France Algerians and the rival Algerian nationalist organization, the Algerian National Movement in France. After 37 years of denial, in 1998 the French government acknowledged 40 deaths, although there are estimates of over 200.[1]The massacre appears to have been intentional, as has been demonstrated by historian Jean-Luc Einaudi, who won a trial against Maurice Papon in 1999 – the latter was convicted in 1998 on charges of crimes against humanity for his role under the Vichy collaborationist regime during World War II. Official documentation and eyewitnesses within the Paris police department indeed suggest that the massacre was directed by Papon. Police records show that Papon called for officers in one station to be "subversive" in quelling the demonstrations, and assured them protection from prosecution if they participated.[2] Many demonstrators died when they were violently herded by police into the River Seine, with some thrown from bridges after being beaten unconscious. Other demonstrators were killed within the courtyard of the Paris police headquarters after being arrested and delivered there in police buses. Officers who participated in the courtyard killings took the precaution of removing identification numbers from their uniforms, while senior officers ignored pleas by other policemen who were shocked when witnessing the brutality. Silence about the events within the police headquarters was further enforced by threats of reprisals from participating officers.
Forty years later, Bertrand Delanoë, the Socialist Mayor of Paris, put a plaque in remembrance of the massacre on the Saint-Michel bridge on 17 October 2001.[3][4] How many demonstrators were killed is still unclear, but estimates range from 70 to 200 people. In the absence of official estimates, the placard which commemorates the massacre stated: "In memory of the many Algerians killed during the bloody repression of the peaceful demonstration of 17 October 1961". On 18 February 2007 (the day after Papon's death), calls were made for a Paris Métro station under construction in Gennevilliers to be named "17 Octobre 1961" in commemoration of the massacre.[5][6]
UNQUOTE
That one was French killing enemy aliens. It resulted in a media cover up - see the next one.
Massacre Of Algerians in 1961 - When The Media Failed The Test
QUOTE
A 1961 Massacre of Algerians in Paris When the Media Failed the Testby James J. Napoli
A colleague of mine in Cairo told me a story a few years ago about a massacre in the streets of Paris.
He was a news service reporter at the time of the violence in the French capital —Oct. 17, 1961—and saw tens of bodies of dead Algerians piled like cordwood in the center of the city in the wake of what would now be called a police riot.
But his superiors at the news agency stopped him from telling the full story then, and most of the world paid little attention to the thin news coverage that the massacre did receive. Even now, the events of that time are not widely known and many people, like myself, had never heard of them at all.
This year is an apt time to recall what happened, and not only because this is the 35th anniversary year of Algerian independence. The continuing civil war in Algeria and the growing violence and racism in France, as well as the appalling slaughters taking place elsewhere in the world, give it a disturbing currency.
Here’s what happened:
Unarmed Algerian Muslims demonstrating in central Paris against a discriminatory curfew were beaten, shot, garotted and even drowned by police and special troops. Thousands were rounded up and taken to detention centers around the city and the prefecture of police, where there were more beatings and killings.
How many died? No one seems to know for sure, even now. Probably around 200.
It seems astonishing today, from this perspective, that such a thing could happen in the middle of a major Western capital closely covered by the international media. This was not Kabul, Beijing, Hebron or some Bosnian backwater, after all, but the City of Light—Paris.
But the Fifth Republic under President Charles de Gaulle was in trouble in October 1961. De Gaulle, who was primarily interested in establishing France’s pre-eminent position in Western Europe and the world, found himself presiding over domestic chaos. France was constantly disrupted by strikes and protests by farmers and workers, as well as by terrorism from opposing organizations: the Front de Libération Nationale (FLN), representing the Algerian nationalist independence movement, and the Organisation armée secrète (OAS), a group of disaffected soldiers, politicians and others committed to keeping Algeria French. The OAS rightly perceived that de Gaulle was bound to free France from the burden of its last major colonial holding, so he could get on with the business of making France the economic and political power of his lofty ambition.
Eyewitness reports recounted stranglings by police.
But the vicious war in Algeria, marked by bloody atrocities committed on all sides, had been grinding on for nearly seven years. Terrorist attacks in Paris and other French cities had claimed dozens of lives of police, provoking what Interior Minister Roger Frey called la juste colère—the just anger—of the police. They vented that anger on the evening of Oct. 17. About 30,000 Muslims—from among some 200,000 Algerians, ostensibly French citizens, living in and around Paris—descended upon the boulevards of central Paris from three different directions. The demonstration of men, women and children was called by the FLN to protest an 8:30 p.m. curfew imposed only on Muslims.
The demonstrators were met by about 7,000 police and members of special Republican Security companies, armed with heavy truncheons or guns. They let loose on the demonstrators in, among other places, Saint Germain-des-Prés, the Opéra, the Place de la Concorde, the Champs Elysée, around the Place de l’Ätoile and, on the edges of the city, at the Rond Point de la Defense beyond Neuilly.
My news agency friend counted at least 30 corpses of demonstrators in several piles outside his office near the city center, into which he had pulled some Algerians to get them away from rampaging police. Another correspondent reported seeing police backing unarmed Algerians into corners on sidestreets and clubbing them at will. Later eyewitness reports recounted stranglings by police and the drowning of Algerians in the Seine, from which bodies would be recovered downstream for weeks to come.
Thousands of Algerians were rounded up and brought to detention centers, where the violence against them continued. “Drowning by Bullets,” a British TV documentary aired about four years ago, alleges that scores of Algerians were murdered in full view of police brass in the courtyard of the central police headquarters. The prefect of police was Maurice Papon, who recently was still denying charges that he was responsible for deporting French Jews to Auschwitz during World War II while he was part of the Vichy government.
The Official Version
The full horror of this inglorious 1961 episode in French history was largely covered up at the time. Though harrowing personal accounts did eventually percolate to the surface in the French press, the newspapers—enfeebled by years of government censorship and control—for the most part stuck with official figures that only two and, later, five people had died in the demonstration. Government-owned French TV showed Algerians being shipped out of France after the demonstration, but showed none of the police violence.Journalists had been warned away from coverage of the demonstration and were not allowed near the detention centers.
With few exceptions, the British and American press stuck to the official story, including suggestions that the Algerians had opened fire first. Even the newsman who saw the piles of Algerian corpses was not allowed to report the story; his bosses ordered that the bureau reports stick to the official figures.
Both French and foreign journalists in Paris seemed tacitly to agree that nothing should be done to further destabilize the French government or endanger de Gaulle, who was widely seen as the last, best hope for navigating France out of its troubles.
The story quickly died, drowned out by fresher alarums and excursions in Europe and elsewhere. And, of course, in the next year, Algeria would have its independence.
Jacques Vergès, the controversial French lawyer who represented the FLN during the war in Algeria, told me in an interview last summer that the police violence and government and press cover-up in 1961 were not surprising. The political circumstances were right for it, and the news media usually do what they’re told.
Just look at how easy it was to round up and intern American citizens of Japanese descent after Pearl Harbor, he observed.
If he’s right, then the problem for politicians is to make sure that the conditions for injustice and atrocity do not conjoin, that there is no probability created for massacres like the one in Paris in October 1961. And if the politicians fail, then the problem for journalists and others is how to resist becoming their accomplices.
UNQUOTE
It makes more sense than importing enemy aliens in the first place.