It is significant. More significant than any bombing or battle that's happening in the Middle East. NOT because "French people died," as you like to sarcastically say, but because of what impact this attack will have on the EU, the UN, and the Middle East.

1. France is (was) not at war. France was sitting there, not doing anything (of significance) and all of a sudden, there's bombs going off in it's CAPITAL. This crap happens in countries fighting wars, Ox. That's where one would expect these things.

2. France, and the EU, now has an obligation to get involved with the Middle East. Do you know why a lot of Western Europe isn't involved in the Middle East? It's because a country's first obligation is to its people; its OWN people. Anything else comes after. No Western European country wants anything to do with the Middle East, because they know what condition it is in. You think their intervention would help the Middle East? You're wrong. The Middle East would only hurt those countries, thus having the countries fail at their #1 obligation. But alas, not doing anything has failed, as well. Now the EU has a legitimate reason to march into the Middle East.

3. Muslim extremists bombing capitals + Muslim refugees coming into these countries by the millions = Very Very BAD OUTCOMES. I shouldn't be having to explain this. Fear controls the mind, Ox. Now that muslim extremists were able to target a Western European country's capital, there's going to be hysteria. Refugees will be even more neglected and abused, and because of this, there will only be more conflict in Europe. All because "boo hoo, some Frenchmen died."

4. The US has already been involved in the Middle East for years, and because of this latest attack, it can walk up to France and the UN and say "Welcome to our way of seeing things, you hypocritical procrastinators." Because contrary to popular belief, the US is currently doing what it thinks is best for itself and the world, Albeit not very well. The UN will (hopefully) get it's sh*t together and do something about this terrorism, especially if it turns out that this attack was planned or backed by ISIS.

This four point argument details all the reasons I can currently see that makes the Paris bombing plenty more significant than any bombing or battle that is happening in the Middle East. Not only does this latest attack wake up the EU that terrorism is bad, but it might actually bring even more turmoil to the Middle East, the birthplace of civilization and the graveyard of empires. One must also recognize the absolute guaranteed backlash this attack will result in regarding the refugee crisis in Europe. You are partly correct, though. If the attack didn't happen to Frenchmen or any other European, then the attack would not have happened in Europe, and the EU would still not recognize that they are in just as much danger of terrorism and conflict as the Middle East is, and it would continue to let conflict be and tend to its own citizens, which is not a bad thing to do, as the first obligation of countries is its own people.

I mean not to be mean, or to belittle your losses, but this bombing will clearly have a huge impact on Europe, the Middle East, and the world.

you are very much correct, I already heard a politician from my country who wants to close the borders...

Edited 11/14/2015 00:23:59

Well said.....RIP to all 100 French citizens

1. France is (was) not at war. France was sitting there, not doing anything (of significance) and all of a sudden, there's bombs going off in it's CAPITAL. This crap happens in countries fighting wars, Ox. That's where one would expect these things.

I agree, that this is terrible. But would you not agree, that somebody living peacefully in Jordan, who is suddenly finding that their family is getting shot down by IS, just as significant as something like this? I don't remember a huge public outburst when this happened to Jordan.

2. France, and the EU, now has an obligation to get involved with the Middle East. Do you know why a lot of Western Europe isn't involved in the Middle East? It's because a country's first obligation is to its people; its OWN people. Anything else comes after. No Western European country wants anything to do with the Middle East, because they know what condition it is in. You think their intervention would help the Middle East? You're wrong. The Middle East would only hurt those countries, thus having the countries fail at their #1 obligation. But alas, not doing anything has failed, as well. Now the EU has a legitimate reason to march into the Middle East.

France has a legitimate reason to be concerned about the death of its own citizens. The problem here, is that this is all over the news in the UK, and other west European countries. For a report in the UK, to care so much about French citizens, but not care about Lebanese / Jordanian citizens, is what I find unfair. An intervention in the Middle East would not help- at least an intervention like Iraq.

3. Muslim extremists bombing capitals + Muslim refugees coming into these countries by the millions = Very Very BAD OUTCOMES. I shouldn't be having to explain this. Fear controls the mind, Ox. Now that muslim extremists were able to target a Western European country's capital, there's going to be hysteria. Refugees will be even more neglected and abused, and because of this, there will only be more conflict in Europe. All because "boo hoo, some Frenchmen died."

Ok. I understand, that terrorists bombing Paris is bad. Very bad. But wouldn't you agree, that terrorists being able to reach Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, and other countries, is just as bad, as terrorists being able to reach France? Last time I checked, Tunisian citizens were just as human as French citizens.

4. The US has already been involved in the Middle East for years, and because of this latest attack, it can walk up to France and the UN and say "Welcome to our way of seeing things, you hypocritical procrastinators." Because contrary to popular belief, the US is currently doing what it thinks is best for itself and the world, Albeit not very well. The UN will (hopefully) get it's sh*t together and do something about this terrorism, especially if it turns out that this attack was planned or backed by ISIS.

The US shouldn't have been as involved as it has been. It should be finding ways to strategically airstrike ISIS, and rescue innocent civilians, instead of mindlessly removing leaders of a relatively stable regime. I don't know what this point is supposed to address. I agree with it. The US is perfectly free to contact France and say "let's destroy ISIS", but they shouldn't be valuing French citizens more than Jordanian citizens.

I'm partially glad that this conflict woke up France, but it shouldn't have. At the first notice of other people being harmed by terrorists, international awareness should have skyrocketed. It shouldn't have taken the EU this long, to have finally realise "Wow, there's some messed up shit going on there". It has been, for a while. But just because they harmed some of the west's citizens, doesn't mean that it's now important. and this is what France, and the EU have been treating it like.

JERRY JERRY JERRY

Ox I completely disagree if attacks are going on with our neighbours we feel scared and worried for French citizens

But should we not feel worried for Jordanian citizens? What makes them less human than French citizens?

No we should but sympathy must be shown for French citizens

Edited 11/14/2015 00:56:17

1. France is (was) not at war. France was sitting there, not doing anything (of significance) and all of a sudden, there's bombs going off in it's CAPITAL. This crap happens in countries fighting wars, Ox. That's where one would expect these things.

France was actually bombing Isis in Syria before the US (i think). Certainly not "just sitting there". France's foreign policy certainly is one of the reason why France was targeted, apparently one terrorist was heard saying "This is payback for Syria", or something like that

Edited 11/14/2015 00:58:37

I agree that sympathy must be shown. But, why is sympathy not shown on the same level to the Lebanese citizens that experience this daily?

This is significant mainly for Europeans, thats why it is well covered in most of the western nations.
These attacks will change many important things even for Europe: first example is the French borders that will remain closed for now to prevent any terrorist to escape or enter our territory, but that also means people can no longer freely enter the French territory, Europeans included, you dont get how important this is, as our borders were never closed since the European Union was created. Furthermore, the army will be massively sent to Paris, as for me Im not living in Paris, but that would mean you are basically like if you were in a zone of war, with army everywhere and having any means possible to guarantee security and authority. We are under the state of emergency, a special resolution created during the Algerian war, which gives the possibility to the executive power to do anything it wants to prevent any crisis, and take exceptional measures if needed without the consent of the Justice, basically as if we were in a dictatorship or any authoritarian regime because the situation makes this resolution necessary.

Edited 11/14/2015 01:08:21

At least 149 dead.....Holy shit.


And Martain pretty much said what I was thinking already.


And if it happened in the U.S again, we would expect, if not demand the President to do as much

well 125ch, France bombed also in Libya and was certainly targeted because of Mali when they expelled Al Qaeda in Maghreb there, because they were helping the states of Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco dealing with the islamic terrorists, also providing supplies and training to the local armies of the subsaharan states such as Chad, Mauretania or Niger, so not only because of Syria, not forgetting also the fact that we are also present in Afghanistan... so yeah you got the answer of why we were targeted here, because after the US we are basically the next target of Daesh/Al Qaeda.

Ox, it's not that french lifes have more value than jordanian lifes, it's just that if there is a shooting on another city you get sad for the deaths but not too scared, but if the shooting happens right in your god damn neighborhood you hide under the desk, call the police, cry silently for help and pray for the best. People dying in Jordan is a bad thing, just like in France, but then again, people dying in France, in addition to the loss of a life, is pretty much ISIS taunting the west by saying "you're not invulnerable, I'm coming for you, take off your pants".

I agree, that this is terrible. But would you not agree, that somebody living peacefully in Jordan, who is suddenly finding that their family is getting shot down by IS, just as significant as something like this? I don't remember a huge public outburst when this happened to Jordan.

Are you asking about the lives of the people killed, or the significance of the act itself? Because war is no stranger in Jordan or any of the Middle East, which is why the event of a shooting in Jordan is not nearly as significant as the event of a bombing in the capital of a western European country that is miles and miles away from that kind of turmoil.

France has a legitimate reason to be concerned about the death of its own citizens. The problem here, is that this is all over the news in the UK, and other west European countries. For a report in the UK, to care so much about French citizens, but not care about Lebanese / Jordanian citizens, is what I find unfair. An intervention in the Middle East would not help- at least an intervention like Iraq.

1. Intervention is the only way to help anyone, unless it would help to do nothing.

2. UK, France, western European countries all belong to the EU. An attack in one of their countries is really an attack on the entirety of the EU. Plus, if it can happen in France, then it can happen in the other countries. Until now, that kind of conflict has stayed where conflict has always been. Again, countries need to look after their own first, everyone else second. It's not that they don't care about Jordan and Lebanon and the rest, it's that they're too p*ssy to intervene for fear of endangering their own people.

But wouldn't you agree, that terrorists being able to reach Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, and other countries, is just as bad, as terrorists being able to reach France?

No. The fact that a terrorist attack as massive as the one in France happening at this point in time in Europe is disastrous. Conflict and war has already plagued Egypt, Jordan, and Tunisia. This attack has just pushed Europe off a cliff and into shark-infested waters. The very fact that terrorists can be found within walls not at all near the crap that's going on in the Middle East is disturbing. The world (or at least Europe) thought terrorism of that scale was contained in one area, until now.

Last time I checked, Tunisian citizens were just as human as French citizens.

Yes, but this isn't about the value of human lives, it's about the significance of a big terrorist plot that went off in the most visited capital of the world. The repercussions of this will be huge, compared to a plot that would go down in a little known city of Tunisia.

I don't know what this point is supposed to address.

The point is that the UN will be pressured to take action.

It should be finding ways to strategically airstrike ISIS, and rescue innocent civilians, instead of mindlessly removing leaders of a relatively stable regime.

1. Assad did use chemical weapons.

2. The US should have never left Iraq so soon; that war was not something one could simply half-ass and expect everything to be okay. Because the US left so early, leaving no body of power, ISIS was born. Instead of p*ssy airstrikes, the US should have cleaned up its own mess and wiped ISIS from existence. But even then, there's no making peace in the Middle East. Been that way for centuries, will be that way for centuries to come, which is why I don't really get your argument about European lives being worth more than lives from Middle Eastern countries. What is Europe supposed to do? They're already accepting more refugees than they can take, effectively screwing themselves over in the long run.

I'm partially glad that this conflict woke up France, but it shouldn't have. At the first notice of other people being harmed by terrorists, international awareness should have skyrocketed. It shouldn't have taken the EU this long, to have finally realise "Wow, there's some messed up shit going on there". It has been, for a while. But just because they harmed some of the west's citizens, doesn't mean that it's now important. and this is what France, and the EU have been treating it like.

The EU have been treating it like none of it is their problem, and that they couldn't be effected. Like I asked, what is Europe supposed to do? The US (accompanied by UK and I think France) went to fight terrorism in Afghanistan, not because it simply existed, but because terrorism portrayed a dangerous and direct threat to the US. The US wasn't going to waste lives on a goal that can't be achieved, which is fixing the Middle East. As long as the place isn't nuked into oblivion, the people living there will continue to fight.

Now, France and the EU (maybe the UN) will have to step in, because they realize the threat to themselves, and they can only help themselves, because the Middle East is beyond help.

Islam has ruined that area of the World. Not since the Dark Ages has any other religion (Christianity) been so homicidally aggressive. Muslims are fucking that place up (radicals). It's up to Muslims (moderates) to fix it. If we go marching in, hell yeah, we'll wipe ISIS off the face of the Earth. Easily. But as soon as we leave...
BOOM! Another ISIS or Al Qaeda pops up.

^ Dark Ages is pre-Holy Roman Empire. You mean to say Middle Ages.

But everything else you say is basically correct.