• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Terrorist Assaults on France (Jan 2015) - Charlie Hebdo, Executed Police, Gun Fights and Hostage Tak

Robert0288 said:
I'm sure if there was a fundamentalist yahoo cell which security forces (RCMP/CSIS etc..) had enough information on to hit, being able to hit them would not be an issue.  Right now the situation does not need the war measures act, and certainly doesn't need LAV3s set up outside of embassies.

I was being deliberately ridiculous when I posted that... But are you sure they would do the hit?  CSIS knew Jeff Delisle was spying for a couple of years but didn't bother to tell the RCMP because they were afraid of "legal ramifications" ... My point is, our security forces are, IMO, a little too "rice bowlish" and we may just need a little less devolution and a little more cohesion.

 
RoyalDrew said:
True, but that still didn't stop the government from getting rid of the War Measures Act.  Maybe if it still existed we wouldn't have soldiers going to work in civilians.  The government would certainly have the power to take down some fundamentalist yahoo's a lot more quickly.

Let's separate the War Measures Act in the FLQ Crisis from the deployment of the army, which was done under two distinct authorizations. The first, which saw 2 Combat Group from Petawawa deployed to the National Capital Region to guard sensitive personnel and installation was done under the umbrella of support to another government department, in this case the Solicitor General Department and its subordinate force, the RCMP. The second, support to the Government of Quebec, was done in reaction to a requisition by the provincial attorney general under Part 11 of the National Defence Act. Neither authorized martial law or suspended civilian control of the administration of law and order or authorized detention of civilians by the military. Last, each and every member of the CF deployed was still subject to the Criminal Code and its provisions for due process, minimum force and proportional response.
 
RoyalDrew said:
I was being deliberately ridiculous when I posted that... But are you sure they would do the hit?

Sorry it's hard to pick up via internet forum.

CSIS knew Jeff Delisle was spying for a couple of years but didn't bother to tell the RCMP because they were afraid of "legal ramifications" ... My point is, our security forces are, IMO, a little too "rice bowlish" and we may just need a little less devolution and a little more cohesion.
Without derailing this thread, I do know that law enforcement agencies and traditional intel agencies are always trying new and better ways to work together.  It's not perfect, but it's certainly better than it used to be, and everything is only getting more interconnected.
 
The non response by the US administration to the solidarity march in Paris gets savagely lampooned:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/201033/#respond
 
Perhaps France is going to see a different sort of response based on changing cultural and religious mores, the sort which have escaped notice by the mainstream press until now. The approach by the parish priest in this anecdote seems to be the right way to approach the Christian faith; "a Catholicism that is both doctrinally robust and joyfully welcoming":

http://theweek.com/articles/531469/there-christianrevival-starting-france

Is there a Christian revival starting in France?
Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry
January 15, 2015

On a recent Sunday, my family and I only showed up 10 minutes early for Mass. That meant we had to sit in fold-out chairs in the spillover room, where the Mass is relayed on a large TV screen. During the service, my toddler had to go to the bathroom. To get there, we had to step over a dozen people sitting in hallways and corners. This is business as usual for my church in Paris, France.

I point this out because one of the most familiar tropes in social commentary today is the loss of Christian faith in Europe in general, and France in particular. The Wall Street Journal recently fretted about the sale of "Europe's empty churches."

Could it be, instead, that France is in the early stages of a Christian revival?

Yes, churches in the French countryside are desperately empty. There are no young people there. But then, there are no young people in the French countryside, period. France is a modern country with an advanced economy, and that means its countryside has emptied, and that means that churches built in an era when the country's sociological makeup was quite different go empty. In the cities — which is where people are, and where cultural trends gain escape velocity — the story is quite different.

But back to our parish. Is our pastor some outlier with megawatt charisma? In terms of flair, he would win no public speaking contests. But there is something that sets him apart from many of the Catholic priests my parents' generation grew up listening to: he is unapologetically orthodox. He is tactful, but unafraid to talk about controversial topics. He will talk about a lackadaisical approach to the liturgy being a kind of unfaithfulness to God. A few weeks ago, I even got to see something for the first time in my life: a Catholic priest preaching about Hell.

But there is no rigoristic hectoring at our parish. Our pastor will stress the importance of living in accordance with the Church's rules, and in the same breath say something like: "Is the real problem in the Church people who are divorced and remarried, or people who are homosexual? No, the real problem is people who go to church every Sunday and are not willing to see everyone as a child of God, are not willing to welcome them." It is the kind of approach modeled by Popes John Paul II and Francis: a Catholicism that is both doctrinally robust and joyfully welcoming.

This is not an isolated phenomenon. My wife and I now live in an upper-crust neighborhood with all the churches full of upwardly-mobile professionals. When we were penniless grad students, we lived in a working class neighborhood and on Sunday our church was packed with immigrant families and hipster gentrifiers.

It was only recently that I was struck by the fact that, imperceptibly, the majority of my college and grad school friends who were Christmas-and-Easter-Catholics when we met now report going to Church every Sunday and praying regularly. On social media, they used to post about parties; now they're equally likely to post prayers for persecuted Middle East Christians or calls to help the homeless over the holidays.

My friends live all over town; some of them are young singles who move around a lot; all of them report looking for those mythical "empty churches" we hear so much about — and failing to find them. In fact, it's closer to the other way around: If you don't show up early, you might have to sit on the floor — and people are happy to do it.

Of course, the key benchmark for a real religious revival is priestly vocations. The test of a people's fervor is how many of them are willing to pursue a life of celibacy and thankless service for the sake of the Kingdom. But it's a lagging indicator: the move from finding a robust faith to joining the priesthood takes time. But even there, things are looking up.

Vocations have stabilized for some time now and have been showing slow but steady growth for years. The Community of Saint Martin, a congregation started in the 70s by just one priest, whose members pray in Latin using the new, post-Vatican II Missal — making them suspect to both the traditionalist wing of the Church, who distrust the New Missal, and the progressive wing, who dislike the use of Latin — now has one of the biggest seminaries in the country. And, so to speak, quality has a quantity all of its own: One talented priest will turn around a parish when 10 mediocre ones just occupy space. The people of the so-called "John Paul II Generation," who have been through the crucible of all those anti-religious trends we've read so much about, who choose the priesthood nonetheless, have a fervor that was too often lacking in previous generations.

I don't deny that much of my evidence for a revival is anecdotal; but, well, first, I'm a pundit, so you're dreaming if you think I'm going to let that stop me; and second, if there was a revival starting, wouldn't that be how you would notice it before it showed up in the numbers?

The massive rallies in France, underwritten by the Catholic Church, against the recent same-sex marriage bill stunned the world: Isn't France the poster child for sexually-easygoing secularism? Perhaps more than a million people took to the streets, and disproportionately young ones, too. (Compare Britain's "whatever" response to its own same-sex marriage act, passed around the same time.) But they forgot that a century of militant secularism didn't kill the Old Faith — it merely drove it underground. And perhaps by privatizing faith, the secularists unwittingly strengthened it; after all, the catacombs have always been good to Christianity. Many commentators on both sides have described the protests as a kind of "conservative May 68," after the generation-defining student protests that would go on to seize the levers of power. Infamously, an unwritten rule of French politics for the past 50 years has been that mass protests will kill a government bill even if it has a majority in Parliament and in the polls. Many fret (and some relish) that the government making an exception just for social conservatives only radicalized them further.

Nowadays, the perceptive and troublemaking French writer Michel Houellebecq is making noises with his book Submission, which envisions France turning into an Islamic theocracy in the near future — not chiefly because of immigration from Muslim countries, but because of the conversion of the native-born population. The agnostic Houellebecq's book is Christ-haunted, or perhaps more accurately, Christianity-haunted. The book's protagonist, an allegory of France, and, perhaps, the author, is fascinated by the figure of Joris-Karl Huysmans, a 19th century French author who converted from a life of atheistic hedonism to devout Catholicism. The protagonist is exhausted by the spiritually dead consumerist secularism of his culture — so exhausted that even despite his best efforts, he finds himself unable to believe in the faith of his forefathers, and only turns to Islam, as it were, as the last available option.

Houellebecq's genius has always been at tapping the French zeitgeist where it hurts. The Catholic writer Barbey d'Aurevilly had been so struck by young Huysmans' decadent novel À rebours that he declared Hysmans' options were "the barrel of a gun or the foot of the cross," suicide or Catholicism. Houellebecq's novel has France choosing what seems to be, from his perspective, the first option. Incredibly, perhaps France is instead choosing the second.

The tragic Charlie Hebdo attack has thrown into relief what seems to some, like Michel Houellebecq, as the battle between irreligiosity and Islam for the future of France. Nobody seems to envision that France's future instead just might be some of that old-time religion.
 
Marine Le Pen makes a forceful statment about Islamic radicalism in France. While many in the political and bureaucratic arena shy away from speaking like this, Le Pen obviously believes that a large number of French voters will be receptive to this sort of talk (or are frustrated by the constant pussyfooting around by politicians, bureaucrats and the media). Now we will see what sort of response this brings:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/opinion/marine-le-pen-france-was-attacked-by-islamic-fundamentalism.html?_r=1

To Call This Threat by Its Name
Marine Le Pen: France Was Attacked by Islamic Fundamentalism

By MARINE LE PEN
JAN. 18, 2015

PARIS — “To misname things is to add to the world’s unhappiness.” Whether or not Albert Camus really did utter these words, they are an astonishingly apt description of the situation in which the French government now finds itself. Indeed, the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius no longer even dares pronounce the real name of things.

Mr. Fabius will not describe as “Islamists” the terrorists who on Wednesday, Jan. 7, walked into the offices of the newspaper Charlie Hebdo, right in the heart of Paris. Nor will he use “Islamic State” to describe the radical Sunni group that now controls territory in Syria and Iraq. No reference can be made to “Islamic fundamentalism,” for fear that Islam and Islamism might get conflated. The terms “Daesh” and “Daesh cutthroats” are to be favored instead, even though in Arabic “Daesh” means the very thing to be hidden: “Islamic State.”

Let us call things by their rightful names, since the French government seems reluctant to do so. France, land of human rights and freedoms, was attacked on its own soil by a totalitarian ideology: Islamic fundamentalism. It is only by refusing to be in denial, by looking the enemy in the eye, that one can avoid conflating issues. Muslims themselves need to hear this message. They need the distinction between Islamist terrorism and their faith to be made clearly.

Yet this distinction can only be made if one is willing to identify the threat. It does our Muslim compatriots no favors to fuel suspicions and leave things unspoken. Islamist terrorism is a cancer on Islam, and Muslims themselves must fight it at our side.

Once things are called what they are, the real work begins. Nothing has been done yet. Whether from the right or the left, one French administration after another has failed to size up the problem or the task to be accomplished. Everything must be reviewed, from the intelligence services to the police force, from the prison system to the surveillance of jihadist networks. Not that the French security services have let us down: They proved their courage and determination again during the Jan. 9 hostage crisis in a kosher grocery near the Porte de Vincennes in Paris. However their actions have been hobbled by a series of mistakes committed by the powers that be.

These mistakes must also be called by their names. I will mention only three, but they are of crucial importance.

First, the dogma of the free movement of peoples and goods is so firmly entrenched among the leaders of the European Union that the very idea of border checks is deemed to be heretical. And yet, every year tons of weapons from the Balkans enter French territory unhindered and hundreds of jihadists move freely around Europe. Small surprise then that Amedy Coulibaly’s machine gun came through Belgium, as the Walloon media have reported, or that his partner Hayat Boumeddiene fled to Syria under the nose of law enforcement.

Second, the massive waves of immigration, both legal and clandestine, our country has experienced for decades have prevented the implementation of a proper assimilation policy. As Hugues Lagrange, a sociologist at the French National Center for Scientific Research (C.N.R.S.), has argued, culture has a major influence on the way immigrants relate to French society and its values, on issues such as the status of women and the separation of state and religious authority.

Without a policy restricting immigration, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to fight against communalism and the rise of ways of life at odds with laïcité, France’s distinctive form of secularism, and other laws and values of the French Republic. An additional burden is mass unemployment, which is itself exacerbated by immigration.

Third, French foreign policy has wandered between Scylla and Charybdis in the last few years. Former President Nicolas Sarkozy’s intervention in Libya, President François Hollande’s support for some Syrian fundamentalists, alliances formed with rentier states that finance jihadist fighters, like Qatar and Saudi Arabia — all are mistakes that have plunged France into serious geopolitical incoherence from which it is struggling to extricate itself. Incidentally, Gerd Müller, Germany’s federal minister of economic cooperation and development, deserves praise for having the clear-sightedness, like the Front National, of accusing Qatar of supporting jihadists in Iraq.

These mistakes are not inevitable. But to rectify them, we must act quickly. The Union Pour Un Mouvement Populaire and the Parti Socialiste have called for a committee to investigate the recent terrorist attacks. That will hardly solve matters. “If you want to bury a problem, set up a committee,” the French statesman Georges Clémenceau once said.

For now, one emergency measure can readily be put into action: Stripping jihadists of their French citizenship is an absolute necessity. In the longer run, most important, national border checks must be reinstated, and there should be zero tolerance for any behavior that undermines laïcité and French law. Without such measures, no serious policy for combating fundamentalism is possible.

France has just gone through 12 days it will never forget. After pausing to grieve its dead, it then rose up to defend its rights. Now the French people, as if a single person, must put pressure on their leaders so that these days in January will not have been in vain. From France’s tragedy must spring hope for real change. The petty logic of political parties cannot be allowed to stifle the French people’s legitimate aspirations to safety and liberty.

We, the French, are viscerally attached to our laïcité, our sovereignty, our independence, our values. The world knows that when France is attacked it is liberty that is dealt a blow. I began by saying that we must call things by their names. I will end by saying that some names speak for themselves. The name of our country, France, still rings out like a call to freedom.

Marine Le Pen is president of the National Front party in France. This essay was translated by Edward Gauvin from the French.
 
2600 inteelligence and counter-terrorism agents are to be hired.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/01/21/france-to-get-better-guns-more-intel-agents-to-fight-terror/22097137/
 
Back
Top