It seems like France stands out among terrorist attacks in the news. Is it because they are more likely to be critical of Muslim culture than other European nations? Is it because there is a security failure allowing terrorist to come in and organize better?
France certainly has a social problem, with immigrant-descended populations often living precariously in crime-ridden banlieues, relatively isolated from the “indigenous” French people. These are great conditions to breed extremism.
But I’m not sure you could go so far as to say that there’s really a terrorism problem. Of course any terrorist attack will be a huge thing in the news, but looking at the bigger picture, it still happens rather rarely and France is overall a pretty safe country.
This is an accurate summary of the situation. We have a social problem, and a pretty bad one at that, not a terrorism or an immigration problem.
We’re in the endgame of capitalism and fascism, baby.
Best to just keep your head down, vote left (like spitting on a forest fire), and most importantly, stay armed and practice your marksmanship.
It’s going to be a shit future.
France has a social classes problem. There is class segregation everywhere. If you are poor you live in a neighborhood where everyone is poor and since everyone is poor there isn’t enough money to invest in the neighborhood. So these neighborhoods are neglected. As a result many poor youths are unable to climb the social ladder and thus some will end up living a life of crime. And so it happens that many migrants who came to France and Western Europe as a whole were poor. Since Western Europe wanted cheap labor. Sweden has the same problems as France with their migrants. Since many cities in Sweden are also segregated along the classes.
Genuine question: Are there any countries that aren’t segregated by income? Because I think that’s been true of everywhere I’ve ever been.
Saw a documentary about Vienna the other day. They have state sponsored housing that is cheap or free and nice to look at and situated together in rich neighbourhoods to work against segregation.
Don’t know if this is the case for all of Vienna or Austria.
Eastern Europe in general can be like that. You can have grandmas living next door to rich families.
That is slowly changing, however, as the rich move to secluded spots in the countryside, middle class moves to the suburbs and the super poor move to the dachas. The flats in the cities are still getting more expensive somehow.
deleted by creator
What even are you on about ?? We have no colonies left. There are a few French “enclaves” left out of the mainland, but they are isolated, forgotten about (in a bad way sadly, shit is tough there) and absolutely not a source of immigration.
Mali(Chad, Mauritania, Niger) may not officially be French anymore, but let’s not forget French soldiers spent a good decade at war with Jihadist groups in the Sahel, which made them extremely unpopular with a lot of people.
France has also been quite interventionist in other countries in the region, like Cote d’Ivoire.
Also, technically speaking, France doen have a handful of colonial regions, 2 million people live in them.
Technically speaking, those regions (which I mentioned above) are not colonies. Of course one could argue they are in all but name (and I would agree), but they have nothing to do with any case of terrorism on the mainland, which is what the above poster was saying.
As to the rest of your post I agree with your point, but those are not colonies (the OP was deleted since but it said that terrorism happens because France still has colonies, which is bullshit on many levels).
There are less terrorist attacks in France than mass shootings in the USA, per year, per capita.
So, no, it doesn’t have a problem.
“It has less X than the US has shootings” means almost nothing as a statement. Thats not a metric for if its a problem or not
But it does allow for a statement to be quantified and compared. So now on to the most dehumanising post I’ve ever written…
Current French population is 65 million, and USA is 340 million. So USA is 5.23x larger.
Since 2000, 292 people in France have been killed due to terrorist acts, according to this handy Wikipedia page. 90 of which were at the Bataclan, with 131 people being killed that weekend in the most deadly terrorist attack in French history.
That gives the equivalent of 1,527 people, over nearly 24 years, or about 64 people a year.
According to the Gun Violence Archive, in the USA 2,006 people - excluding perpetrators - have been killed…since 1st January, 2021, giving a staggering 668 people per year.
(I would go back further, but unfortunately their data export appears to max out at 2000 incidents.)
So, regardless of your thoughts or feelings about gun violence in America, France’s “terrorist problem” - including the worst attack they have ever faced - is less than a tenth of that.
Does this excuse or justify any of the cowardly fucks who killed innocent people? No, of course not. Fuck them all.
But it does highlight the size, and I hope gives people a reason to pause and think about just who is peddling the line, and just who seeks to benefit from demonising overwhelmingly peaceful minority groups.
It’s almost like white nationalism is the bigger threat. Funny that.
You are right, but we also don’t have a “terrorist problem”.
There are mostly mentally ill people killing someone every 6 months because of being made believe idiotic things, which of cours is a tragedy. 3000 death in the circulation (cars n stuff), hundreds women beaten to death in no-terrorist ways, …
Extreme right (Le Pen) loves it though because blaming all societys problems on one “type of population” is sadly what works, they (the Le Pen family) have been doing it for decades and decades.
Alright, the real reason why you see terrorism in France more than others, is from what we in Denmark call the Muhammad Crisis.
A Danish satire drawing of Muhammad with a bomb was published in a Danish newspaper. The papers HQ got attacked. A small one, but still significant in Denmark.
France newspaper L’Equipe then reprinted the drawing more than once as a protest for free speech. After that France became a prime target for these kind of terrorists.
The driving terrorism in Nice, bombings in Paris and at L’Equipes HQ, it all happened after that.
This created alot of bad blood between these cultures, and that long going hate is what keeps France a prime target.
To blame the terrorist attacks France has suffered on a cartoon by a niche newspaper is a rather blinded look at the situation, and ignores pretty much everything about the state of the world in the past few hundred years as well as modern times.
I hope no one walks away thinking this comment is correct.
I hope no one thinks this is the whole explanation, but it’s part of history that is not known by many.
It’s a tiny part that doesn’t have much relevance today. And it’s not a hidden history it was big news for years.
I totally agree with you on this. I can somehow sense that the law against Islamic practitioners has been tightened more and more, e.g. regarding hijab, after that. It’s like if you cant be us, you can no longer be tolerated; you’re not one of us.
L’équipe ? The sport journal read by football circle jerkers ?
You probably meant Charly Hebdo.
And France is a though subject, it is historically a welcoming country for northern Africa and Muslim population (former protectorat or colonies, same language) but France partly failed mixing its population with the boom of huge ugly suburbs in the 60/70s. They ended up being poor class zone, that became foreigners zones, that became forgotten by politics leading to their population growing poorer and angry (with a right to be). Some of those were targeted by extremism advocate as they make a good place to cultivate anger and recruit new peoples.
So France is often a target because it is historically close to Muslim populations of Africa and often the final destination when migrating to Europe because it has good social security and no language barrier, unlike Italy, Greece or UK where you have to learn a new language. France is also still very present in Africa (language, industry, politics even money bills for some) so maybe if you ask a poor lost angry boy to name one Euro country, he will probably say France.
Then of course Charly drawing Muhammad or the gov forbidding religious clothes in schools was just another easy justification to attack the country.
The Hebdo drawing wasn’t light hearted fun though, it was right wingers trying to wind up religious people. Obviously there’s never any excuse for murder but publicly attacking a whole religion will upset a lot of people, and things can lead on from that.
Dude, ten years earlier they drew Jesus, Mohammad, Buddah etc having group sex together.
France stands for the right to express yourself. Fuck those idiots thinking they were somewhat responsible for any kind of terrorist attack.
They’ve done many many offensive things. They’re an awful publication and it’s disgusting that they’re allowed to exist.
I’m not sure the rest of France reflects your support as there’s been both local and worldwide protests about them over the years.
Who should decide that someone has the right to draw an image and not another one? That’s how dictatorships starts, by limiting criticism.
If you think we should limit criticism (it’s not like believing in Jesus, Mohammed etc haven’t got millions killed and worse) you could start by limiting your own criticism. You know, to show how good it is to do it.
It’s not that simple is it? If you set a church on fire then should you go free because of past issues by the church?
On drawing, should you be able to draw your friends child being shot? Again, these are not issues you should kill for, but you can understand why people are mad.
Dude, stop changing the subject.
sHoUlD yOu haVe ThE rIgHt tO KILL cHildReN
I do not relate to people getting violent over non violent speech. You are self reporting.
Not supporting people and murdering them are two distinct things, are they not?
Her clothing wasn’t tasteful, though. It was a woman’s attempt to wind up men. Obviously there’s no excuse for rape, but wearing clothing in public designed to be provocative will attract attention from a lot of people, and things can lead on from that.
What a wild false equivelency!
A persons clothing is a personal choice.
Ripping off a strangers clothing in the street is an attack.
But making a drawing isn’t (a personal choice), how interesting.
Well actually not interesting at all, because you seemt just to be trolling (you just invented the part of ripping clothes off in the streets, talk of false equivalence) how boring.
A lot of people misunderstand who Charlie Hebdo are. So this -
https://twitter.com/AkyolinEnglish/status/1622980163817336834?lang=en
Is their reaction to the Turkey earthquake, There were roughly 51k killed, and their cartoon was that this was good because that was less muslims they had to kill.
Their ‘Mohammed edition’ was a full comic about how much they hated muslims. It was pure racism and in many countries they would have been prosecuted for hate speech.
They are a hate group.
This is the meaning of two wrongs don’t make a right. Charlie Hebdo are disgusting, the people who attacked them so severely were absolutely wrong, but neither act makes either of them right.
I don’t think Charlie Hebdo is very funny often, but you just grasping at straws here. You willfully misinterpret, no actually you just blindly follow a twitter that misinterpret something.
You know, they do this to anger people. To get followers. Etc.
This is not a twitter I follow, I had to search out the cartoon to explain the issue and this was the first result.
But I do agree with your second point, Charlie Hebdo do this to anger people, to get followers. They are looking to recruit the far right and create backlash against certain groups.
Meanwhile, the Onion published this: image and as they said, nobody was shot.
They were not right winger by any way, quite the opposite, they were100% anticlerical far left. Maybe stop talking about something you know nothing about?
Since when are racists far left? Are you drunk?
I think the whole world has a terrorism problem. Even countries that have traditionally been very neutral and peaceful are having problems with young men committing acts of terrorist aggression. It’s everywhere now.
I don’t think it is a problem of fixing security, as most terrorists are “home grown,” they don’t come in from outside countries. The home grown terrorists very likely are influenced by things going on in other countries, but usually they are natives to the country they terrorize.
It’s a problem of raising better kids. Of doing the hard thing to keep your child off the streets and away from drugs and guns. Of making people understand why hurting others is more than just unethical or immoral, it’s a path toward self-destruction and misery for everyone. And, we ought to be assigning more officers to ensure people go make their mental health appointments, as everyone should be doing.
The world of human beings is as sick place. Men value the wrong things and the wrong ideas. And especially young, gullible, highly impressionable men. We need to make sure resources are available and utlilized to keep young men in school and out of trouble and to get counseling. Most of them need it very badly. And we need to pass strict gun control measures - not a popular sentiment, but an accurate one. It has to happen or we’ll never be able to overcome this dilemma at all.
I think it’s important to understand why these people are mad. It’s really simplistic to say ‘raise better kids’, and the point of teaching people not to hurt is a bit tricky when positioned in a world where people are being hurt constantly.
Any good person raised in an environment where their own country is murdering children is going to have questions. You feel helpless when the whole world is comfortable with inhumane torture.
The problem that needs fixing is much much wider.
I didnt’ really have room to write more about what the term “raise better kids” would entail, but obviously ti would mean getting to the root of why these people are mad. That’s why I mentioned the need for mental counseling, which is sorely needed in a world where parents don’t bother to find out why their kids are upset and don’t or won’t see the red flags in front of them.
Yes the problem is much wider than this limited space can give a voice to. But you won’t solve the problems of the world by trying to throw one size fits all solutions onto the situation and attempting to look at the forest but not the trees. You can’t conquer a global problem by a global solution, it requires one on one kind of treatment, and has to start at home or in school.
I agree with most of this, but the parts that are odd to me sound like the results of a fairly typical sort of leftist bubble.
Gun control, for instance, is actually popular with the public at large. If the gun lobby weren’t so wealthy, this would probably be a nothing-burger, something we tackled years ago. Here’s some gallup data in some nice tables and graphs, going back years: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
Similar with immigration, though, if you address a problem, you can’t campaign on it any more. Since conservatives don’t really want a whole lot to change, ever really, they generally can’t campaign on accomplishments and solutions. So, they campaign on the problems they refuse to fix instead. And occasionally coming up with some weird new one to get people riled up over. But guns are a pretty consistent one for them. Remember how Obama was going to take all their guns away?
