10 ms·

I'm living in Paris. I heard gunfire from my apartment. My heart goes out to Salah-Eddin, and all people living in the shadow of unspeakable abominations. It

I'm living in Paris. I heard gunfire from my apartment. My heart goes out to Salah-Eddin, and all people living in the shadow of unspeakable abominations. It saddens me to imagine that simply hearing gunfire in the distance is nothing compared to what my fellow man has witnessed elsewhere. Salah-Eddin's condolences mean a lot to me and I wish him all the best. It's my sincerest hope that French troops will be deployed to Syria in the near future, and that such an action will prove useful in protecting him, his family, his neighbors and his culture. For what it's worth, I've submitted an application to be a reservist in the French army. It's one month of training and 30 days of active duty per year. I sincerely hope my small effort will be helpful not only because it puts another man in the Parisian battlefield (yes... that's sadly what it has become), but also because it allows a better-qualified soldier to (hopefully) deploy to the Middle East. I don't presume to know whether or not my action is helpful, but I sincerely hope it is. I'm already quite busy with my dissertation defense coming up in a few short months, but this can do, so I will. I suppose I needed to get that off my chest as well...

seivan 11y ago
Good luck in the Army! The Middle East doesn't need more foreign bodybags (good or bad guys) but support, training and equipment. Last I checked they are begging for armor and winter gear.
- omginternets 11y ago
  I'm only going to be a weekend-warrior! Reservists essentially patrol Paris (especially airports and train stations), so there's zero chance of me going abroad unless I volunteer. Frankly, this is why I think enlisting as a reservist is a worthwhile and not-too-damaging thing to do. At the end of the day, someone needs to pull the trigger, sickening though this thought may be. I hope I won't have to, but I'd rather do that than watch my compatriots get butchered in their own streets. I'd rather do that then weep in my apartment like I did last Friday. I'm a few years shy of 30, I'm in good shape... if not me, then who? I mention this in case any other Frenchmen are lurking around. I know the army doesn't have a great reputation here, but this is a way to help out that doesn't even need to interfere with your work schedule. Your employer is required by law to allow you to pursue your missions, and you're paid a small amount during your active-duty days (though this is hardly the point). I can think of no clearer example of self-defense. >Last I checked they are begging for armor and winter gear. I wonder how difficult it would be to collect old winter clothes and send them over...
  - kefka 11y ago
    In a way, I wish the US had something similar as the French's idea of reservists. Technically, we do, as the National Guard. However, they are abused and used on foreign deployments. Then again, I doubt they would accept me, given I have an arm injury that prevents a bit of motion above shoulder height.. (I'm 6'5" or ~2m tall)
utku_karatas2 11y ago
> It's my sincerest hope that French troops will be deployed to Syria in the near future This kind of thinking is exactly why Mid-east is in its current state and that is exactly the reason why ISIS was born. ISIS high command mainly consists of Iraqi ex-officers, who were rendered jobless and aimless by USA's 'liberation' attempt. Al-Qaida was a result of a 'liberation' attempt by Soviets and then consequently another 'liberation' attempt by USA. Guess how the French 'liberation' will result at the end.
- omginternets 11y ago
  I respectfully (and partially) disagree. The invasion of Iraq was stupid, reckless and selfish. It was a for-profit war that destabilized the region and allowed ISIS to take on its present form. I'll have you remember that France staunchly opposed this war. Now the US and the brits have left us with a veritable cesspool, and we're bearing the brunt of the consequences. This isn't a liberation attempt or a preemptive strike. This is responding to an immediate threat. And again, it would be foolish and disastrous to only respond militarily, but it's just as foolish not to protect ourselves from immediate threats while we counter persistent threats through non-military action. Yours is a false dichotomy.
  - utku_karatas2 11y ago
    Hate to dwell on topics not suited on HN, but I'll just ask you one thing: how would the French troops on the Syrian ground even remotely help securing France? USA can pull off its invasive politics via a) pouring insane amount of resources both militarily and politically b) by getting along pretty good with other Muslims while bombing some (like Saudis, Turks, etc.) c) by being an ocean distance away from the very people they drop bombs on. How will France do all of that with a) much more limited resources b) while being uniformly disliked by almost all Muslim nations due to historical reasons and c) while being a boat ride away from tens of millions of agitated Muslims? I believe, with this attack, France is pulled into this already extremely messy situation by the powers that be. And I am afraid things will escalate to a much worse situation.
    - 11y ago
hk__2 11y ago
> the Parisian battlefield (yes... that's sadly what it has become) Could you expand on that? I live in Paris too and I don’t feel it has anything different from another city like London or New-York regarding security.
- omginternets 11y ago
  Well, for starters, a group of trained soldiers from a wannabe state slaughtered innocent civilians in our streets, detonated a bomb in a stadium (where, I remind you, our President was located) ... I would also remind you that there's really nothing to prevent this from happening again and again. Our security forces do not have a handle on this, and our president is declaring war. We've had two gunfights in the middle of Paris in two years. If you don't see how this is different from previous terrorism, then respectfully, there's really no point in discussing any of this with you. The point isn't that things are different from a security-state point of view. The point is instead that we're facing something whose scope and scale we underestimated.
  - sangnoir 11y ago
    I have no intention of belittling your experience - but "battlefield" is not the right term (unless you meant it as hyperbole). There were no battles fought (a battle is "sustained fight between large organized armed forces" according to Google). This was a terrorist attack on French soil - in Paris, the thought has weight-enough on its own, there is no need to frame it as a battle.
    - omginternets 11y ago
      >there is no need to frame it as a battle. When trained soldiers are shooting at each other and engaging in combat-maneuvers, it takes a great deal of mental gymnastics not to call it a battle. Would you prefer "skirmish"? I can get behind that, but that's a difference of scale, not nature. What we witnessed on Friday was a coordinated attack by members of a self-proclaimed state. If you don't want to call it a battle, you're just arguing semantics. It remains a military operation on our soil by a foreign state. Moreover, let's not forget the explicit message behind these attacks: Daesh can visibly attack (mostly) when and where it wants. The subtext is that this is going to happen again, as it already has. So yes, the only reasonable way to relate to Friday's events is to consider them as a battle in an ongoing conflict against a geopolitical entity (or a skirmish if you prefer). Again, and I truly mean no disrespect: denying this is so absurd that there's really no point in discussing it further, as we simply will not agree. Denying that this was a battle/skirmish is just as absurd as claiming that this has nothing to do with Islam (as, sadly, some people are already doing).
gotchange 11y ago
> It's my sincerest hope that French troops will be deployed to Syria in the near future, Maybe you should join the counter-terrorism forces or intelligence community instead to help your country, if that what you're actually after, not just blind revenge because you have to admit that these attacks were a big SNAFUS on the French security apparatus part and some heads got to roll over this but I was amazed to see that Hollande is going to raise their compensation and reward them even more for their incompetence. I REALLY REALLY wish I had a job like this where they pay me more every time I fuck up and make a total mess of a situation. I really picked the wrong field and career here. Also, I find it really amusing that the general sentiment in France towards guns and a 2nd amendment style right is negative when it is not a stretch to say that some lives could have been saved if armed persons of the populace came to the rescue and took out the terrorists instead of filming the massacre as it was unfolding helplessly. It proved beyond doubt now that security forces can be overwhelmed when faced with ops of such scale & magnitude and it would very imprudent to have just a single line of defense to protect people, when two or three backup could make wonders and end the situation in a matter of minutes and save the lives of a lot of people. So, maybe you should petition your government to relax the laws concerning purchasing and carrying guns to avoid such a disaster from occurring on this scale in the future and leave the ME to its people to sort out the mess.
- 1_player 11y ago
  > I find it really amusing that the general sentiment in France towards guns and a 2nd amendment style right is negative when it is not a stretch to say that some lives could have been saved if armed persons of the populace came to the rescue Please, no. Liberalization of guns (that is, a tool for hurting and killing living beings) doesn't solve terrorism. It doesn't make people safe. It doesn't help. People in USA don't understand why guns aren't sold freely in Europe just as we do not understand how guns are available to everybody in the States. Unfortunately I can't express that other than "it just feels wrong." Don't be naive and think that making everybody a vigilante is going to solve terrorism and Middle East crisis. It goes much deeper than that. EDIT: don't you have crazy people shooting around over there? I would argue that it's much easier given how available guns are to the populace, but the point is: gun liberalization has nothing to do with keeping citizens safe.
josu 11y ago
> It's my sincerest hope that French troops will be deployed to Syria in the near future, and that such an action will prove useful in protecting him, his family, his neighbors and his culture. Well, the problem is that according to his post, he lives "in the western part of the city [Aleppo] still under the control of the Syrian government[Under the "presidency" of Bashar al-Assad]" and the French Government has been on the side of the rebels. Which means, that if the French army is deployed, and there is no agreement between France (and the rest of the allies (mainly the US, UK and the Arab League) and Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, the French army may end up bombing Salah-Eddin's house instead of helping him. I wholeheartedly recommend you to read the wikipedia article on the foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War [1], to see how fucked up the situation is over there. And also, take a look at this map [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syr... [2] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTz8DYEUYAEaCwc.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTz8DYEUYAEaCwc.jpg:large
- wiz21 11y ago
  The wikipedia page is very interesting, but the motives are not clear, esp. for France. Any idea ?
  - josu 11y ago
    The Economist had a good article about the reasons for Russia to support Assad [1]. I know that it doesn't directly answer your question, but I hope it helps. [1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/09/economist-explains-22 http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/09/ec...
josu 11y ago
> It's my sincerest hope that French troops will be deployed to Syria in the near future, and that such an action will prove useful in protecting him, his family, his neighbors and his culture. Well, the problem is that according to his post, he lives "in the western part of the city [Aleppo] still under the control of the Syrian government[Under the "presidency" of Bashar al-Assad]" and the French Government has been on the side of the rebels. Which means, that if the French army is deployed, and there is no agreement between France (and the rest of the allies (mainly the US, UK and the Arab League) and Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, the French army may end up bombing Salah-Eddin's house instead of helping him. I wholeheartedly recommend you to read the wikipedia article on the foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War [1], to see how fucked up the situation is over there. And also, take a look at this map [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syr... [2] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTz8DYEUYAEaCwc.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTz8DYEUYAEaCwc.jpg:large

seivan 11y ago

Good luck in the Army! The Middle East doesn't need more foreign bodybags (good or bad guys) but support, training and equipment. Last I checked they are begging for armor and winter gear.

omginternets 11y ago
I'm only going to be a weekend-warrior! Reservists essentially patrol Paris (especially airports and train stations), so there's zero chance of me going abroad unless I volunteer. Frankly, this is why I think enlisting as a reservist is a worthwhile and not-too-damaging thing to do. At the end of the day, someone needs to pull the trigger, sickening though this thought may be. I hope I won't have to, but I'd rather do that than watch my compatriots get butchered in their own streets. I'd rather do that then weep in my apartment like I did last Friday. I'm a few years shy of 30, I'm in good shape... if not me, then who? I mention this in case any other Frenchmen are lurking around. I know the army doesn't have a great reputation here, but this is a way to help out that doesn't even need to interfere with your work schedule. Your employer is required by law to allow you to pursue your missions, and you're paid a small amount during your active-duty days (though this is hardly the point). I can think of no clearer example of self-defense. >Last I checked they are begging for armor and winter gear. I wonder how difficult it would be to collect old winter clothes and send them over...
- kefka 11y ago
  In a way, I wish the US had something similar as the French's idea of reservists. Technically, we do, as the National Guard. However, they are abused and used on foreign deployments. Then again, I doubt they would accept me, given I have an arm injury that prevents a bit of motion above shoulder height.. (I'm 6'5" or ~2m tall)

utku_karatas2 11y ago

> It's my sincerest hope that French troops will be deployed to Syria in the near future This kind of thinking is exactly why Mid-east is in its current state and that is exactly the reason why ISIS was born. ISIS high command mainly consists of Iraqi ex-officers, who were rendered jobless and aimless by USA's 'liberation' attempt. Al-Qaida was a result of a 'liberation' attempt by Soviets and then consequently another 'liberation' attempt by USA. Guess how the French 'liberation' will result at the end.

omginternets 11y ago
I respectfully (and partially) disagree. The invasion of Iraq was stupid, reckless and selfish. It was a for-profit war that destabilized the region and allowed ISIS to take on its present form. I'll have you remember that France staunchly opposed this war. Now the US and the brits have left us with a veritable cesspool, and we're bearing the brunt of the consequences. This isn't a liberation attempt or a preemptive strike. This is responding to an immediate threat. And again, it would be foolish and disastrous to only respond militarily, but it's just as foolish not to protect ourselves from immediate threats while we counter persistent threats through non-military action. Yours is a false dichotomy.
- utku_karatas2 11y ago
  Hate to dwell on topics not suited on HN, but I'll just ask you one thing: how would the French troops on the Syrian ground even remotely help securing France? USA can pull off its invasive politics via a) pouring insane amount of resources both militarily and politically b) by getting along pretty good with other Muslims while bombing some (like Saudis, Turks, etc.) c) by being an ocean distance away from the very people they drop bombs on. How will France do all of that with a) much more limited resources b) while being uniformly disliked by almost all Muslim nations due to historical reasons and c) while being a boat ride away from tens of millions of agitated Muslims? I believe, with this attack, France is pulled into this already extremely messy situation by the powers that be. And I am afraid things will escalate to a much worse situation.
  - 11y ago

hk__2 11y ago

> the Parisian battlefield (yes... that's sadly what it has become) Could you expand on that? I live in Paris too and I don’t feel it has anything different from another city like London or New-York regarding security.

omginternets 11y ago
Well, for starters, a group of trained soldiers from a wannabe state slaughtered innocent civilians in our streets, detonated a bomb in a stadium (where, I remind you, our President was located) ... I would also remind you that there's really nothing to prevent this from happening again and again. Our security forces do not have a handle on this, and our president is declaring war. We've had two gunfights in the middle of Paris in two years. If you don't see how this is different from previous terrorism, then respectfully, there's really no point in discussing any of this with you. The point isn't that things are different from a security-state point of view. The point is instead that we're facing something whose scope and scale we underestimated.
- sangnoir 11y ago
  I have no intention of belittling your experience - but "battlefield" is not the right term (unless you meant it as hyperbole). There were no battles fought (a battle is "sustained fight between large organized armed forces" according to Google). This was a terrorist attack on French soil - in Paris, the thought has weight-enough on its own, there is no need to frame it as a battle.
  - omginternets 11y ago
    >there is no need to frame it as a battle. When trained soldiers are shooting at each other and engaging in combat-maneuvers, it takes a great deal of mental gymnastics not to call it a battle. Would you prefer "skirmish"? I can get behind that, but that's a difference of scale, not nature. What we witnessed on Friday was a coordinated attack by members of a self-proclaimed state. If you don't want to call it a battle, you're just arguing semantics. It remains a military operation on our soil by a foreign state. Moreover, let's not forget the explicit message behind these attacks: Daesh can visibly attack (mostly) when and where it wants. The subtext is that this is going to happen again, as it already has. So yes, the only reasonable way to relate to Friday's events is to consider them as a battle in an ongoing conflict against a geopolitical entity (or a skirmish if you prefer). Again, and I truly mean no disrespect: denying this is so absurd that there's really no point in discussing it further, as we simply will not agree. Denying that this was a battle/skirmish is just as absurd as claiming that this has nothing to do with Islam (as, sadly, some people are already doing).

gotchange 11y ago

> It's my sincerest hope that French troops will be deployed to Syria in the near future, Maybe you should join the counter-terrorism forces or intelligence community instead to help your country, if that what you're actually after, not just blind revenge because you have to admit that these attacks were a big SNAFUS on the French security apparatus part and some heads got to roll over this but I was amazed to see that Hollande is going to raise their compensation and reward them even more for their incompetence. I REALLY REALLY wish I had a job like this where they pay me more every time I fuck up and make a total mess of a situation. I really picked the wrong field and career here. Also, I find it really amusing that the general sentiment in France towards guns and a 2nd amendment style right is negative when it is not a stretch to say that some lives could have been saved if armed persons of the populace came to the rescue and took out the terrorists instead of filming the massacre as it was unfolding helplessly. It proved beyond doubt now that security forces can be overwhelmed when faced with ops of such scale & magnitude and it would very imprudent to have just a single line of defense to protect people, when two or three backup could make wonders and end the situation in a matter of minutes and save the lives of a lot of people. So, maybe you should petition your government to relax the laws concerning purchasing and carrying guns to avoid such a disaster from occurring on this scale in the future and leave the ME to its people to sort out the mess.

1_player 11y ago
> I find it really amusing that the general sentiment in France towards guns and a 2nd amendment style right is negative when it is not a stretch to say that some lives could have been saved if armed persons of the populace came to the rescue Please, no. Liberalization of guns (that is, a tool for hurting and killing living beings) doesn't solve terrorism. It doesn't make people safe. It doesn't help. People in USA don't understand why guns aren't sold freely in Europe just as we do not understand how guns are available to everybody in the States. Unfortunately I can't express that other than "it just feels wrong." Don't be naive and think that making everybody a vigilante is going to solve terrorism and Middle East crisis. It goes much deeper than that. EDIT: don't you have crazy people shooting around over there? I would argue that it's much easier given how available guns are to the populace, but the point is: gun liberalization has nothing to do with keeping citizens safe.

josu 11y ago

> It's my sincerest hope that French troops will be deployed to Syria in the near future, and that such an action will prove useful in protecting him, his family, his neighbors and his culture. Well, the problem is that according to his post, he lives "in the western part of the city [Aleppo] still under the control of the Syrian government[Under the "presidency" of Bashar al-Assad]" and the French Government has been on the side of the rebels. Which means, that if the French army is deployed, and there is no agreement between France (and the rest of the allies (mainly the US, UK and the Arab League) and Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, the French army may end up bombing Salah-Eddin's house instead of helping him. I wholeheartedly recommend you to read the wikipedia article on the foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War [1], to see how fucked up the situation is over there. And also, take a look at this map [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syr... [2] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTz8DYEUYAEaCwc.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTz8DYEUYAEaCwc.jpg:large

wiz21 11y ago
The wikipedia page is very interesting, but the motives are not clear, esp. for France. Any idea ?
- josu 11y ago
  The Economist had a good article about the reasons for Russia to support Assad [1]. I know that it doesn't directly answer your question, but I hope it helps. [1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/09/economist-explains-22 http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/09/ec...

josu 11y ago