3 ms·

> Did you ever work in another country? Yes. I'm currently working in another country and I've been studying in Japan for a year. So I have few points of compa

> Did you ever work in another country? Yes. I'm currently working in another country and I've been studying in Japan for a year. So I have few points of comparison. Terrorism is not just a question of numbers. The problem is more about how the government handle the matter. When you read things like terrorists getting welfare[1] for years, the fact they can keep the nationality[2] and returnees jihadists from Syria will be welcomed[3], in addition to no state reaction after Charlie (which lead to the Bataclan event), no real proactive mesures against 15 000 people suspected of terrorism acquaintance or support[4], the problem is not current terrorism, it is the future. Because almost nothing is done against it and you can except to see the trend of multiples attacks per year (or month, Europe wise) to continue for years. Should I mention that if you ever got red-handed in a terrorist plot you're only sentenced to maximum 10 years of prison[6], that can be further reduced for "good behavior"? It's even creating more of them actually.[7] And that hosting them is not even considered prosecutable?[8] And let's not dive in rabbit hole of the hundreds of salafist mosques that can preach hate against the French in total impunity. It also have impact on daily life. Multiples subway stations are closed for hours everyday because of suspicious bags, the train station like Gare du Nord are closed and rushed by the police on a regular basis. Anyway I could simply have started my post with a question, like you did: did you ever had a friend got shot in a terror attack? I guess not, otherwise you would not just speak about numbers. [1] https://francais.rt.com/international/44967-2-millions-deuros-fraude-allocations-djihadistes https://francais.rt.com/international/44967-2-millions-deuro... [2] http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/le-scan/2016/03/30/25001-20160330ARTFIG00296-decheance-de-nationalite-un-abandon-en-six-actes.php http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/le-scan/2016/03/30/25001-20... [3] http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2017/11/09/01016-20171109ARTFIG00310-retour-de-djihadistes-macron-prone-le-cas-par-cas-pour-les-femmes-et-les-enfants.php http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2017/11/09/01016-201... [4] https://www.valeursactuelles.com/politique/15-000-fiches-s-pour-radicalisation-85661 https://www.valeursactuelles.com/politique/15-000-fiches-s-p... [5] https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/justice/filiere-djihadiste-de-strasbourg-7-a-9-ans-de-prison-en-appel-pour-les-prevenus_1906331.html https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/justice/filiere-dj... [6] https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/justice/filiere-djihadiste-de-strasbourg-7-a-9-ans-de-prison-en-appel-pour-les-prevenus_1906331.html https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/justice/filiere-dj... [7] http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/03/30/97001-20170330FILWWW00068-les-prisons-principales-sources-de-radicalisation.php http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/03/30/97001-20170330F... [8] http://www.lemonde.fr/attaques-a-paris/article/2016/05/26/jawad-le-logeur-devrait-echapper-aux-poursuites-pour-terrorisme_4926700_4809495.html http://www.lemonde.fr/attaques-a-paris/article/2016/05/26/ja...

supergarfield 9y ago
[1] is from Russia Today, so I'll abstain from commenting [2] is true, but it should be noted that this is standard procedure in the West, since citizenship is considered one the most inalienable rights (in Germany, loss of citizenship only occurs through taking another one; in the US, it's only possible for naturalized citizens to lose their citizenship if they commit terrorism within 5 years of being naturalized). [3] the article does not say that djihadis will be welcomed. [4] is standard procedure in the West. You can't detain people who don't even stand accused, unless you're the US and have absolutely no concern about egregiously violating your constitution (and human rights). And tracking 15,000 people is beyond what any police force can do. [5][6] it is generally not a good idea to comment on criminal trials, since you have access to very little compared to the judges and jury. It's also unclear that detention is a good solution to the problem anyways. [7] is perfectly correct. [8] it is considered prosecutable, this person is on trial. Also see [6], and again, unless you have a very good reason to think the accused actually knew he was hosting terrorists (which the judges, who have access to far more information that you do, don't), there's nothing visibly wrong about that trial. Finally, > Anyway I could simply have started my post with a question, like you did: did you ever had a friend got shot in a terror attack? > > I guess not, otherwise you would not just speak about numbers. It's not with strong feelings that you'll make good policy. It's very sad that people die, but it's no good reason to drop all common sense.

supergarfield 9y ago

[1] is from Russia Today, so I'll abstain from commenting [2] is true, but it should be noted that this is standard procedure in the West, since citizenship is considered one the most inalienable rights (in Germany, loss of citizenship only occurs through taking another one; in the US, it's only possible for naturalized citizens to lose their citizenship if they commit terrorism within 5 years of being naturalized). [3] the article does not say that djihadis will be welcomed. [4] is standard procedure in the West. You can't detain people who don't even stand accused, unless you're the US and have absolutely no concern about egregiously violating your constitution (and human rights). And tracking 15,000 people is beyond what any police force can do. [5][6] it is generally not a good idea to comment on criminal trials, since you have access to very little compared to the judges and jury. It's also unclear that detention is a good solution to the problem anyways. [7] is perfectly correct. [8] it is considered prosecutable, this person is on trial. Also see [6], and again, unless you have a very good reason to think the accused actually knew he was hosting terrorists (which the judges, who have access to far more information that you do, don't), there's nothing visibly wrong about that trial. Finally, > Anyway I could simply have started my post with a question, like you did: did you ever had a friend got shot in a terror attack? > > I guess not, otherwise you would not just speak about numbers. It's not with strong feelings that you'll make good policy. It's very sad that people die, but it's no good reason to drop all common sense.