terrorist attack in france

[GoranZ]

so what are you saying that france initiated the arab spring all around magrheb in the first place? stop with you bs.

YES

If Sadam was still in power in Iraq what would have happened with your 2 terrorist? At least one telegram to official Paris "You guys send us two guys to us, they were not good so we fix the problem for you", no bodies, no graves, no names, no problems... I know that France was opposed to the intervention in Iraq but you ally US understood that as only "we wont participate", and not as "dont do it"
Who do you think Bashar al-Assad is fighting in the last 3-4 years? The same guys that targeted France.
Who was/is funding the Islamic State? France was funding it, and Frances ally's(Saudi Arabia and few other) are still funding it now.

Sorry but France is funding the same terrorists that targeted it. Sometimes directly, and sometimes indirectly, but the funding is always present in some form.
Now France should enjoy the fruits on its efforts.

[betiko]

the situation isn't as simple as that in Syria. Bashar isn t the good guy just fighting the bad extremist guys. I ve seen enough things and heard enough things from the population that have suffered from the military repression that was butchering them, these guys were clearly not some radical islamists. There are some syrian rebels that fight daesh and those islamists, mainly in Aleppe. You are over simplifying. There is a big army fighting against the repression of the butcher bashar and the nuttheads from daesh. There are still civilians in the middle getting killed. We can t leave them like that.

Regarding Irak, France has received enough bird shit stains from the US for deciding not to go and that it was unjustified.

Actually the Imam leader that was leading this bunch of idiotic terrorists was preaching against the US for what they did in Irak, this is from the early 2000s. This imam was sent to rpison in france, and then this same guy became much less radical while his followers became more and more radical.

[JBlombier]

Now France should enjoy the fruits on its efforts.

So France, the nation, can now enjoy their murdered citizens, because they paid for it. That's what you're saying, right? Haven't heard such a disrespectful sentence in quite a while.

[betiko]

Now France should enjoy the fruits on its efforts.

So France, the nation, can now enjoy their murdered citizens, because they paid for it. That's what you're saying, right? Haven't heard such a disrespectful sentence in quite a while.

Wow, a none french defending france in this subforum.. That s a rare specie!

[saxitoxin]

the situation isn't as simple as that in Syria. Bashar isn t the good guy just fighting the bad extremist guys.

Bashar does what has to be done. It may not be pretty but it has kept a lid on the Salafist phenomenon for the last 300 years.

[AndyDufresne]

the situation isn't as simple as that in Syria. Bashar isn t the good guy just fighting the bad extremist guys.

Bashar does what has to be done. It may not be pretty but it has kept a lid on the Salafist phenomenon for the last 300 years.

--Andy

[Phatscotty]

[GoranZ]

Now France should enjoy the fruits on its efforts.

So France, the nation, can now enjoy their murdered citizens, because they paid for it. That's what you're saying, right? Haven't heard such a disrespectful sentence in quite a while.

You read me correctly... What I said is what the truth is. If you consider the truth as disrespectful then something is wrong in your brain.

Same thing happen with Americans funding Osama bin Laden, in the end he turn out to be Americas greatest enemy(surprisingly funded by US and their ally Saudi Arabia).

Its up to the France/US to chose their ally's more properly or face the outcomes of their own actions.

[saxitoxin]

Its up to the France/US to chose their ally's more properly or face the outcomes of their own actions.

[arno30]

correct.... but how do you chose them "properly" ?

if i remember well, Osama was an US ally and then changed his mind (after the war in Irak, part 1 ?). the ally of one day can be your ennemy the day after, right ?

I have the feeling that there is no good solution to that, like there have been no solution for the Israel/palestinian problem for decades... unless WE decide to give food to everyone on this planet which would be i guess a good start. not likely to happen in the future so we will have to "enjoy the fruits on our efforts" for decades to come. And all of us, evrybody will have his share don't worry.

[_sabotage_]

"Osama was a US ally."

There is only evidence that Osama worked for the US, there isn't proof that he changed sides.

9-11 is a scientific impossibility as described by the 9-11 commission, most of whose authors disagree with their own findings. It doesn't take an expert to realize that if you cut off someone's head, it's not going to fall through the persons body pulverizing it as it goes. If you are interested in expert opinion on the matter, architects and engineers for 9-11 has over 2000 experts saying it is scientifically impossible.

What does this mean? It means that government has an incentive to materialize a threat when there isn't one to engage in policies that would otherwise be protested by the population.

Sometimes this does encourage a real enemy or creates one. But that Bin Laden was anything but a CIA MIC-budget-boosting and self-empowering boogeyman has yet to be shown.

Is the attack in France a continuation of a successful attempt to coerce the population into footing the bill for rights violations, sometimes against themselves, or blowback from creating an antagonist is not something I will ever know.

[saxitoxin]

correct.... but how do you chose them "properly" ?

don't choose, there's no law that says you have to give guns to anyone

(though, if there were law that said that and I were walking down the street and saw a man with a dirty beard crawling out of a cave, dressed like he was an extra in the cast of Aladdin, the first thought through my head would not be "I should give that dude a surface-to-air missile and see what happens")

like there have been no solution for the Israel/palestinian problem for decades

had France not given Israel the technology to build the atom bomb, the Israel/Palestinian problem would have been solved back in the 1980s by Israel's neighbors ... if you remove one side in a conflict then there ceases to be a conflict - easy

[patches70]

Any of ya'll seen the unedited video of when the French police officer supposedly got shot in the head?

Here it is, but guess what? The terrorists didn't actually shoot the officer in the head. The bullet clearly misses the officer and the terrorists roll out shouting stuff. Why is it being stated that the officer was shot in the head at point blank range when it's clear he wasn't?




I'm just asking is all, maybe the official story is still true even if this part of the story is obviously wrong. You can clearly see the bullet fired from the terrorists hits the pavement near the officer's head (right at 0:12 in the video) and not into the officer's head. There is absolutely no gore, no brain splatter, or a bloody mess in the video.

A shot to the head from an AK 47 would look similar to this-



Not quite as explosive to a human head as to a watermelon, but if the officer had been shot in the head right there, his brains, skull and blood would be splattered all over the pavement.
In the media that part of the video is obscured deliberately as if covering up extreme gore. But there is no gory aftermath because the officer wasn't actually shot in the head there as it's being claimed.

Some fishy stuff there. Too bad they couldn't capture the bad guys alive, apparently Al Qaida is claiming responsibility for the attack. It might have been nice to get these people alive to interrogate them to see what they may know in an effort to thwart further attacks. But I guess we'll never know now.

[Dukasaur]

Any of ya'll seen the unedited video of when the French police officer supposedly got shot in the head?

Here it is, but guess what? The terrorists didn't actually shoot the officer in the head. The bullet clearly misses the officer and the terrorists roll out shouting stuff. Why is it being stated that the officer was shot in the head at point blank range when it's clear he wasn't?




I'm just asking is all, maybe the official story is still true even if this part of the story is obviously wrong. You can clearly see the bullet fired from the terrorists hits the pavement near the officer's head (right at 0:12 in the video) and not into the officer's head. There is absolutely no gore, no brain splatter, or a bloody mess in the video.

I'm not sure you're seeing that correctly. Something hits the ground in front of the officer's head, but not necessarily the bullet. It could be a fragment of his helmet. The helmet, also, could explain why there's not much gore -- it keeps it contained. It's entirely plausible to me that they shot him in the head, a piece of his helmet was blasted away and hit the pavement, the bullet was slowed so that the penetration into the skull was not explosive but still sufficient to cause death, and whatever blood leaked out was mostly contained by the helmet.

I'm not saying this is the correct explanation (a little bit of low-resolution video can't tell me that) but I think it is certainly possible.

[betiko]

He possibly hit the neck, it doesn t look like a plain miss to me. If the shooter knew he had missed he would have given it another shot (never better said). Also the cop was agonizing and after the point blank shot he stops moving completely. Pretty pointless discussion anyways as there is absolutely no benefit from adding a cop to the body count if he didn t die.
And i don t agree, best thing is to have these guys dead. Guantanamo has provided absolutely no information to the CIA, all the torture/interrogation ended up pointless. These guys committed these actions knowing they would die modt likely and were prepared for death and suffering, they definitely wouldn t ve said shit after water bording or whatever.

[betiko]

Any of ya'll seen the unedited video of when the French police officer supposedly got shot in the head?

Here it is, but guess what? The terrorists didn't actually shoot the officer in the head. The bullet clearly misses the officer and the terrorists roll out shouting stuff. Why is it being stated that the officer was shot in the head at point blank range when it's clear he wasn't?




I'm just asking is all, maybe the official story is still true even if this part of the story is obviously wrong. You can clearly see the bullet fired from the terrorists hits the pavement near the officer's head (right at 0:12 in the video) and not into the officer's head. There is absolutely no gore, no brain splatter, or a bloody mess in the video.

I'm not sure you're seeing that correctly. Something hits the ground in front of the officer's head, but not necessarily the bullet. It could be a fragment of his helmet. The helmet, also, could explain why there's not much gore -- it keeps it contained. It's entirely plausible to me that they shot him in the head, a piece of his helmet was blasted away and hit the pavement, the bullet was slowed so that the penetration into the skull was not explosive but still sufficient to cause death, and whatever blood leaked out was mostly contained by the helmet.

I'm not saying this is the correct explanation (a little bit of low-resolution video can't tell me that) but I think it is certainly possible.

Duka if you see the officer wearing a helmet i would suggest better prescription glasses. He s just a random cop patrolling. Not a biker cop, not a riot cop, not an elite force cop or whatever type of cops wearing helmets. You see his face, his hair....

[_sabotage_]

Patches,

Not conclusive, see Betiko's post, ignore Duk's. But I think you pointed out a key aspect which they didn't address: the media blocking out the head shot due to the claim of gore. Since it obviously wasn't needed, what does it say about the perception that is being built out of the situation?

[patches70]

He's not wearing a helmet, and I've also seen the enhanced video where it's zoomed in close, Duka, and the bullet completely misses the officer and hits the pavement.
No, if he'd been shot in the neck, the head, there would be a lot of gore. I don't know if you appreciate exactly how much damage a 7.62 round does to a human body, but suffice it to say, you don't see any of that after effect in the video. There is only one explanation, the bullet didn't actually strike the officer.

[Dukasaur]

Any of ya'll seen the unedited video of when the French police officer supposedly got shot in the head?

Here it is, but guess what? The terrorists didn't actually shoot the officer in the head. The bullet clearly misses the officer and the terrorists roll out shouting stuff. Why is it being stated that the officer was shot in the head at point blank range when it's clear he wasn't?




I'm just asking is all, maybe the official story is still true even if this part of the story is obviously wrong. You can clearly see the bullet fired from the terrorists hits the pavement near the officer's head (right at 0:12 in the video) and not into the officer's head. There is absolutely no gore, no brain splatter, or a bloody mess in the video.

I'm not sure you're seeing that correctly. Something hits the ground in front of the officer's head, but not necessarily the bullet. It could be a fragment of his helmet. The helmet, also, could explain why there's not much gore -- it keeps it contained. It's entirely plausible to me that they shot him in the head, a piece of his helmet was blasted away and hit the pavement, the bullet was slowed so that the penetration into the skull was not explosive but still sufficient to cause death, and whatever blood leaked out was mostly contained by the helmet.

I'm not saying this is the correct explanation (a little bit of low-resolution video can't tell me that) but I think it is certainly possible.

Duka if you see the officer wearing a helmet i would suggest better prescription glasses. He s just a random cop patrolling. Not a biker cop, not a riot cop, not an elite force cop or whatever type of cops wearing helmets. You see his face, his hair....

It's like four pixels, so I don't know how you can be sure. But yeah, I think you could be right there.

I replayed it about 8 more times, and I guess that is hair and not a helmet. He looked like a motorcycle cop to me the first couple of plays.

However, on the multiple plays I did start to notice that little things were flying through the air before the impact on the pavement that patches noticed. That's what I thought were fragments of his helmet, but they could very well have been the fragments of bone and brain that patches was looking to see. They were just smaller than patches expected them to be.

[Dukasaur]

He's not wearing a helmet, and I've also seen the enhanced video where it's zoomed in close, Duka, and the bullet completely misses the officer and hits the pavement.
No, if he'd been shot in the neck, the head, there would be a lot of gore. I don't know if you appreciate exactly how much damage a 7.62 round does to a human body, but suffice it to say, you don't see any of that after effect in the video. There is only one explanation, the bullet didn't actually strike the officer.

I did a bit of hunting in my younger days, and the amount of blood and gore is highly variable. Sometimes a lot, sometimes not much. I wouldn't read too much into this.

[patches70]

Patches,

Not conclusive, see Betiko's post, ignore Duk's. But I think you pointed out a key aspect which they didn't address: the media blocking out the head shot due to the claim of gore. Since it obviously wasn't needed, what does it say about the perception that is being built out of the situation?

It raises questions I'd think.

[patches70]

He's not wearing a helmet, and I've also seen the enhanced video where it's zoomed in close, Duka, and the bullet completely misses the officer and hits the pavement.
No, if he'd been shot in the neck, the head, there would be a lot of gore. I don't know if you appreciate exactly how much damage a 7.62 round does to a human body, but suffice it to say, you don't see any of that after effect in the video. There is only one explanation, the bullet didn't actually strike the officer.

I did a bit of hunting in my younger days, and the amount of blood and gore is highly variable. Sometimes a lot, sometimes not much. I wouldn't read too much into this.

Officer's body doesn't lurch or react in any way to the supposed bullet to the head. The officer's head stays stationary, wasn't even rocked a tiny bit by being hit by a 7.26.

Some enhanced video, ignore the commentary if you wish and just check out the closeup view of the moment the officer was supposedly shot in the head. That footage starts at about 0:50 into the video.




I'm not claiming false flag, I'm wondering why this is being misrepresented. That officer did not get shot in the head, or so it very much appears he wasn't at that moment. Maybe he ended up in the morgue with a bullet in the head, I have no idea. But that is absolutely atypical of a point blank head shot. The officer's head doesn't even bounce off the pavement from the impact force of the bullet.

Nah, there is something wrong with the claim being made that the officer was shot in the head at that moment. I'm just asking is all, though I know I'll never get any real answers. Which is fine I guess.
Sa'll good, it's too bad that government's and media have so destroyed their credibility that it's always hard to believe anything being reported.

[_sabotage_]

We have an obviously intelligent French lad saying basically, we don't need to get to the bottom of this. I would think in implementing an appropriate response and prevention, getting to the bottom of it may help.

But due to a rushed onslaught of perception, an unwarranted response will be developed or I should say, further implemented.

The population needs to get better at preparing a response in times of crisis, because governments are brilliant at it and taking excessive advantage of the fact.

An interesting article on the passage of the patriot act:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/terror-and ... 11/5400910

[GoranZ]

correct.... but how do you chose them "properly" ?

Well if you cant properly chose which government is better, of Saudi Arabia or Syria's official government then there will be also problems with choosing any ally. In such case you better not chose an ally as saxy said

if i remember well, Osama was an US ally and then changed his mind (after the war in Irak, part 1 ?).

Hahahaha, he never change his mind, he was always your enemy.

the ally of one day can be your ennemy the day after, right ?

Hmm NO, unless the only common thing is your common enemy

Any of ya'll seen the unedited video of when the French police officer supposedly got shot in the head?

Here it is, but guess what? The terrorists didn't actually shoot the officer in the head. The bullet clearly misses the officer and the terrorists roll out shouting stuff. Why is it being stated that the officer was shot in the head at point blank range when it's clear he wasn't?

I guess you havent seen page 1...

*Not for under 18...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2be_1420632685

IDK if the policemen is dead or not, if he is not some other people didn't had his luck so the crime made by the terrorists is still more or less the same.

[patches70]

IDK if the policemen is dead or not, if he is not some other people didn't had his luck so the crime made by the terrorists is still more or less the same.

Oh, sure sure, absolutely. A lot of people ended up dead for no good reason that's for sure. I just have to wonder if the official story about this police officer is wrong, then what else about the official story is wrong? Is it just error is is it deliberate misrepresentation or lies? If so, why lie, misrepresent? We won't ever know because the bad guys are dead.