3 ms·

> 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 fr

by 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).
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by hk__2 11y ago

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).

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]