Americans Refuse to Understand What Happened in Paris

Missing in many media accounts of Paris terrorism was any reference to France's bombing of Syria or that France is Syria's former colonial overlord.


Abode of Chaos/Flickr

Look, even authoritarian and totalitarian states can't prevent domestic terrorism. What hope do relatively open societies have? Open societies abound with "soft targets," that is, noncombatants going about their everyday lives. They are easy hits for those determined to inflict harm, especially if the assailants seek to die in the process.

We also know, as U.S. officials acknowledge, that NATO bombing of jihadis boosts recruitment.

So if Americans and Europeans want safer societies, they must discard the old, failed playbook, which has only one play—more violence—and adopt a new policy: nonintervention.

But how are we to pursue this saner policy in the face of a determined refusal to understand what happened in Paris?

All too typical was a recent discussion on CNN in which an American-Muslim leader and an English former jihadi debated whether the attacks in Paris are best explained by the marginalization of France's Muslim population or by an "ideology." Missing was any reference to France's bombing of Syria. (France is Syria's former colonial overlord.)

How could that not have been part of the CNN discussion? The answer cannot be ignorance. Indeed, throughout the weekend the bombing of Syria was often acknowledged on France 24 television. At times the Paris attacks were portrayed as acts of vengeance, however horrifyingly misguided and evil. (While attacks on noncombatants are undeniably evil, we must note that western governments incessantly claim to act on behalf of their people.)

Why do the U.S. media think Americans need not know what the French know? (I won't say America's establishment media never associate jihadi terrorism with revenge, but it's far too infrequent.) The Islamic State's own statement made clear that the attacks were in response to the French bombing of Syria.

Let France and all nations following its path know that they will continue to be at the top of the target list for the Islamic State and that the scent of death will not leave their nostrils as long as they partake in the crusader campaign, as long as they dare to curse our Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him), and as long as they boast about their war against Islam in France and their strikes against Muslims in the lands of the Caliphate with their jets, which were of no avail to them in the filthy streets and alleys of Paris. Indeed, this is just the beginning. It is also a warning for any who wish to take heed.

The New York Times reported that a witness to the Paris violence heard one perpetrator say, "What you are doing in Syria, you are going to pay for it now."

The upshot is that war on Mideast populations will not prevent terrorism against western societies. On the contrary, it will make terrorism more likely because "the action is in the reaction." Indeed, the U.S.-led coalition commits terrorism in the eyes of its victims—so many of whom are noncombatants. Who can blame them when, for example, the Obama administration has no idea whom it kills with its "signature strikes" by drone? As The New York Times reported,

Every independent investigation of the strikes has found far more civilian casualties than administration officials admit. Gradually, it has become clear that when operators in Nevada fire missiles into remote tribal territories on the other side of the world, they often do not know who they are killing, but are making an imperfect best guess.

That is hardly the way to win hearts and minds. One might be tempted to ask if the foreign-policy elite will ever learn. But if it has no incentive to learn, why should it bother? Has it learned anything from the uninterrupted flow of money and arms to the jihadis from its allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and Turkey? Has Israel's tilt toward the radical Sunnis made any impression?

Finally, just as more war will fail to protect Americans and Europeans, so will further destruction of their liberties fail. Closing these open societies is a bizarre way to answer jihadis. Better to liquidate the self-destructive empire and privatize security. It's often said that "freedom isn't free." Fine, but why must we pay monopoly prices for inferior "services?"

This piece originally appeared at Richman's "Free Association" blog. 

NEXT: Bad Ideas for Combating the Islamic State

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “What hope do relatively open societies have? Open societies abound with “soft targets,” that is, noncombatants going about their everyday lives. They are easy hits for those determined to inflict harm, especially if the assailants seek to die in the process.”

    In an open society everyone walks around armed.

      1. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now.I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss.go to this site home tab for more detai….

  2. Richmans point seems to be: 1. Because of France’s actions before the 1950s, the French ppl of today are just asking for it. 2. We have to “talk” with ppl whose only mode of discussion is guns, bombs, and beheadings. 3. That ISIS has a legitimate claim to self-defense because of Western actions in Syria, despite not being the legitimate government of Syria.

    1. Logic doesn’t appear to be his strong point.

      1. Yeah, he has a few good points such as signature drone strikes being horrible policy, but it’s wrapped in so much shit as to be nonsensical.

        We don’t have a dog in this fight and our actions aren’t going to make it better.

      2. He didn’t blame Israel this time. Be grateful for what we have here.

      3. Sheldon should really shut the fuck up about this one. He does not help his case. Maybe he should go to Paris and approach Parisians on the street with his babbling bullshit. Then report back to tell us how it went.

    2. Yeah, he didn’t say any of those things. Time to change your username to “TheOneWhoMakesShitUp.”

  3. The west stood idly by while Rwanda erupted in a blood bath. The ISIS jihadists are killing Christian and Yazidi men and making the women into sex slaves. They rightly get bombed for their atrocities.

    But then it’s the west’s fault for incidents like Paris.

    Sheesh. Talk about victim blaming.

    1. But weren’t the Yazidis bombing Muslims in Syria or somewhere? I can’t quite remember where, but maybe Sheldon can remind us.

    2. It’s the Sheldon Richman way. He really is an embarrassment to Reason.

      1. Whenever I see a Sheldon Richman article on Reason, I picture him signing “My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard,” while shaking his booty.

        Except instead of “milkshake” it’s “articles,” instead of “yard” it’s “comment section,” and instead of “boys,” it’s “retards.”

  4. You know what else is missing from reports on the Paris atrocities?

    Quiche. Fucking quiche.

    Not sure how Sheldon missed that one.

  5. What is really sad about this articles is the number of people who believe this kind of shit. Calling them historically ignorant is a fantastic understatement. It totally ignores the expansion of Islam by the sword since it’s inception 1300 years ago.

    Islam was chopping the heads off of “infidels” before the fucking US was even discovered by Europeans but somehow all of their murderous ways are America’s fault. Hopefully, those who publicly declare “No Islam to see here” will be the first to have their heads removed to the tune of “Allah Akbar”. They will chop again, so it might as be one of their enablers.

    And yeah, looking right at you, Richman.

    1. Calling them historically ignorant is a fantastic understatement

      It’s Richman. You can just drop “historically”.

  6. I guess Israel should be bombing Britain because of the Mandate.

    1. Please don’t get him going on Israel.

  7. Funny how advocating nonintervention and pointing out that bombing wedding parties and propping up oppressive dictatorships might piss some people off is so controversial to so many here. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that Muslims aren’t busy attacking Switzerland.

    1. You might wanna do a little googling on Switzerland and jihadis because the Swiss certainly seem to think they’ve got a problem with them.

      1. I would add Sweden and Denmark. I don’t recall either of those countries sending their armies to Syria yet for some reason they keep having these problems with the youtz.

    2. Give them time, but I guess they know where their money is!

    3. You’re totally right. I mean, the Dutch haven’t sent their armies to invade anyone, and look at how safe The Netherlands is — just ask Theo Van Gogh.

      1. But….but……he drew an irreverent cartoon or something! Clearly asking for it!

  8. Here’s the thing: the French were bombing MILITARY targets and even after their CIVILIANS had been massacred, they continued to bomb MILITARY targets.

    ISIS, on the other hand deliberately attacks CIVILIAN targets and continues to attack CIVILIAN targets in retaliation for attacks on its own MILITARY targets.

    Do you see the difference now Sheldon? If a man punches you, you do not have just cause to beat up his grandmother, even though it’s way easier and will hurt the man indirectly.

    1. I’ll add that a grandma puncher by any standard is barbarian and anyone who attempts to justify him is an idiot.

      Sheldon, some people are just mean. It’s a concept so simple this child understands it:

      1. Man, that video. Right in the feels.

      2. See? We CAN protect ourselves from people with guns who want to kill us with flowers!

    2. Sheldon sympathizes with Jihadists and other anti-Israel types, who also can’t see the difference between military and civilian targets. To see the difference himself he would have to stop seeing those suicide bombers as poor misunderstood victims and that’s not likely to happen anytime soon.

      1. To be fair, this time he didn’t mention JOOOOS, though I suspect he was tempted.

        1. It’s almost amusing to read his screed and imagine him becoming sick to his stomach from refraining to dump this all in Israel’s lap. Any enemy of the Jew is an amigo of Richman’s. Willing to apologize for nearly any act gives Richman the crown King Of Anti Semitism.

          1. You know that Sheldon Richman is Jewish, right?:


            1. And full of self loathing. My Marxist aunt claims to be Christian, but would gladly see Christians stripped of any right to public expression or religious speech. Her true faith is Progressive Orthodox.

    3. “If one man pushes little old ladies down and another man pushes a little old lady out of the way of an incoming bus, it does not do to say both are sorts of men who push little old ladies around.” – Buckley

    4. If a man throws a rock from you from his fortress, what are you supposed to do? Just take your lumps and walk on? Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

      Rightly or wrongly, people retaliate at the targets they have. Not the targets you think are “on-side”.

  9. yup those that does deserved it because something the French state did over 60 years ago.

    1. Closer to 70 years ago, but they’re just getting around to exacting revenge now.

      1. Memories go deep outside of the US ? they’re still pissed about the Crusades as evidence by ISIS’s statement:

        and that the scent of death will not leave their nostrils as long as they partake in the crusader campaign

        1. I’m pissed about Mongols and what they did to Baghdad. Anyone want to join me for some sweet revenge ? Sheldon is with me !

  10. Those concertgoers should have stayed out of the Middle East

    1. …and American death metal

  11. When will we be attacking England again? I’m still pissed about the money extorted from my ancestors by the Stamp Act.

  12. Sheldon is the Adam Lanza of Reason.

    1. OK, pack it up everybody. The internet has been won for today.

      1. I’m learning from you guys. It’s commenters like you that keeps me coming back. Good luck on your new military career also.

        1. Thanks. I ship out Sunday morning. Time to get the show on the road.

          1. Mind if I ask What are you doing ? I’m military.

          2. And good luck !

          3. Best military advice I can give you is avoid ships.

            1. I did that and regret it somewhat. I finished first in my B school and was allowed to choose a duty station. I could have gone to Hawaii which would have meant cruising. Instead I chose to go to Quantico. It was a valuable experience but an older wiser me would choose Hawaii.

    2. I thought Sheldon Richman a pseudonym for 0bama, anti-colonialist supreme, though 0’s way-back machine doesn’t go back beyond whities colonizing. Weren’t the original colonizers Africans? Between 60,000 and 40,000 years ago, Neanderthals expanded out of its African birthplace and replaced all others. And before these bi-peds, other exploitive colonizers: the nearly universal colonization of surfaces in marine waters by bacteria and the formation of biofilms and biofouling communities. However, the dynamics of surface attachment and colonization in situ, particularly during the early stages of biofilm establishment, are not well understood. This would explain our ceaseless bacterialism.

      1. The original slavers of blacks were also other Africans.

    3. I prefer to think of him as the Elliot Rodger of Reason.

  13. Damned if you do damned if you don’t. If we attack, they recruit to fight back. If we do nothing, they recruit to conquer a weak opponent.

    I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

    1. That’s silly. Why from orbit?

      1. (Yes, I get the Aliens 2 reference.)

  14. I like how we decided not to get invovled in Syria, and when US troops left Iraq, ISIS swept in, so nonintervention, yes. Tried it. Don’t think it worked as well as hoped.

    They hate us because we are not them. Simple. As. That.

    1. ‘Withdraw of forces is non-intervention.’ I don’t know how your brain stays intact when you say such thing.

    2. If we hadn’t gone there, they would have been fighting amongst themselves! Don’t you remember the movie, ‘Lawrence of Arabia’? They believe in the same form of a deity, but that’s not good enough for them! I’m going to start gettin non-PC pretty soon; so I’d better shut up!

  15. Mr. Richman offers no solution to ISIS. He opposes fighting them in Syria – because they might fight back – and he also opposes closing borders to the flood of refugees created by the West ignoring ISIS (“Closing these open societies is a bizarre way to answer jihadis”). However, accepting millions of refugees will cause tremendous economic problems. Many of the refugees, poorly educated and unable to understand the local culture, will probably turn to crime. Most of the refugees adhere to a strain of Islam that violently opposes many aspects of Western culture – such as criticizing Islam, drawing Muhammad, or allowing women to wear Western attire. In short many of the Syrian refugees have no place in Western society. Allowing them to settle in the West will create long term problems for the countries that accept them. That’s not a politically correct fact, but it is a fact.

    Those problems can’t be ignored. Sometimes there aren’t clean solutions to problems. Fighting ISIS in Syria will no doubt inspire them to greater acts of terror, but – in the end – capitulation will result in far more death and disorder than stopping the terrorists on their home turf.

    By the way – the last French soldier left Syria on April 17, 1946. That was a while ago, so I’m guessing the Paris attacks weren’t about the French occupation.

    1. Mr. Richman offers no solution to ISIS.

      Much as I loathe defending anything that hateful ignoramus writes… he need not offer a “solution” to ISIS. ISIS is not our problem, and the French, as a result of the way their society is structured, fundamentally cannot “solve” the issue of members of their unassimilated and alienated population picking up some foreign banner and visiting chaos on other Frenchmen.

      1. I’d say that if one is going to criticize the current approach, they should suggest a better approach.
        As far as I can see, hroark didn’t mandate that the approach include US involvement.
        Of course the Richman solution would probably require the invention of a time machine allowing us to go back and change past actions, so essentially it would be useless.

        1. In this case, lacking a time machine, there is nothing that France can actually do. They are paying the price for having a large amount of immigration to a society that is not fundamentally assimilationist in the way the the US is.

          There are some things that have no solution, where doing something is far worse than doing nothing.

      2. ISIS is not our problem…

        Neither was Germany’s need for “breathing room”.

        1. I think the translation of lebensraum would be “living space” but your point is well taken.

      3. ISIS has chosen to make themselves our problem. Whether you want them to be a problem or not.

    2. I suspect Mr. Richman’s solution to ISIS is kneeling down and saying “Yes, Sahib, I will gladly take your dick in my mouth or my ass.”

  16. More from the blame France first crowd. But then, they always blame France first. The French people know better.

    By the way, for just how many oppressive centuries was France the colonial overlord of Syria?

    As far as the terrorism-as-colonial-blowback theory goes, it doesn’t work so well in the case of the Philippines, or East Timor, etc. Or how about the recent slaughter of 143 students at the Garissa University College in the backend of nowhere in northeast Kenya? Although not mutually exclusive, another pretty strong hypothesis that seems to cover more of these islam-related attacks than the blowback is that it’s driven by religion. Of course, to the religious motive one can add various historical complaints as accoutrements. The horrific Spanish train attacks – 191 dead and ten times as many wounded – might be gussied up with references to really, really old Andalusian muslim wet dreams and just old, last-century Moroccan complaints. Was Spain blowback? Yes, in a way – from the fall of Granada in 1492. At root it was religious imperialism by believers in revelation who don’t care about real human lives.

    1. Also, this incident had nothing to do with France being a colonial overlord. This isn’t an attack supporting revolution … It’s from a bunch of terrorist trying to over through the rightful government of Syria.

      Him trying to connect the two ideas is ludicrous.

  17. It is more than French colonialism. The Islamists’ beef with France goes back to the Battle of Tours.

    1. At least then they had the decency to meet on the field of battle. Charles Martel the Mutherphuckin Hammer saw to that.

  18. Sheldon, although I don’t disagree with you concerning a certain level of noninterventionism, you missed a key point in ISIS’s statement, namely that one of the reasons they site is blaspheming against their prophet. Even if France weren’t bombing Syria, they still wouldn’t stop their attacks because it allows freedom of speech- the right of cartoonists to draw pictures of someone.

    How do you have an open society when trying to appease people who do not want one?

  19. When will Reason writers understand what happened in Paris?

    You don’t want us to intervene, but you want us to blindly take in a bunch of potential terrorists. Pick a train of thought, please.

  20. When will Reason writers understand what happened in Paris?

    You don’t want us to intervene, but you want us to blindly take in a bunch of potential terrorists. Pick a train of thought, please.

  21. If we are going to start the blame game, then why can’t the Islamic invaders of France in the 8th century be blamed? This is an idiotic line of thought . . .

  22. Where is the usual Reason commentariat? Are we just letting these war hawks brigade away without arguing the other side at all? We’re not going to mention that the underlying proposition being made by these commenters (many of which I have not seen before) is that we should continue to intervene militarily in the Middle East, despite what a failure that has been for the past 15 years or more? The situation over there is as bad as ever; our “boots on the ground” and our bombing campaigns have not helped matters. How is doubling down on a failed venture considered anything but foolhardy?

    1. First off, I have never seen brigade used as a verb. Second off, getting out of the Middle East would not be the worst thing in the world for the US. Neither point has anything to do with this inane article.

  23. Sheldon is an Islamist, I wouldn’t bother reading any of his antisemitic, anti-west, pro-Islam garbage.

  24. Some good points, but does anyone think that a consistent policy of non-intervention would end the Islamic State’s war on the west? Individual attacks, such as those in Paris, may be for revenge, but the war has continued for decades. I agree that drone strikes as a defense policy don’t yield good results, but why would we think the war is over if we stop drone strikes and all other forms of intervention? No evidence suggests that our opponents would stop fighting if we stop fighting.

    That’s why the Champ’s rope-a-dope strategy was so strange. Ali said it would wear his opponents out, but all they did was beat him up until his face became so puffy he couldn’t talk.

    One other comment: it’s true enough that we started a war in 2003, against Iraq, that was appreciably worse than low-level, anti-western jihadi wars from the Iranian revolution on. The 2003 war was an egregious blunder. The dilemmas the United States faces now confirm all the dire predictions of catastrophe made before the attack. Critics said at the time warned, “Don’t do it!” but the war cabinet attacked anyway. Once you start something like that, you will never escape the demons and devils you create.

    1. That should be:

      Critics at the time warned, “Don’t do it!” …

  25. This is apparently a topic that Reason commenters really don’t agree on. I agree with Sheldon myself( doesn’t happen a ton). I believe that constant interference from an outside force causes Muslims to shift to the right (just like the U.S do after a similar situation, re: 9/11, Pearl Harbor) towards religion and extremism. most terrorist attacks were revenge for something else, 9/11 was (at least partially) for having bases in Saudi Arabia, the Charlie Hebdo attacks were because we killed Zarqawi – on that last point, the media narrative was that those attacks were because of the cartoon. The actual terrorists claimed otherwise. I’m sure that the cartoon facilitated them picking the target, but Zarqawi’s death was the primary catalyst. In 1953, we overthrew Iran’s government and installed a dictatorial Shah (for England and BP, FYI). Then the Iranian revolution in 1979 overthrew the Shah and we wonder why they hate us? I imagine that most attacks by terrorists aren’t for no reason, and that the West may have struck first (or by just inferfering), however, the more extreme the Islamists get, the less justification it takes for them to act upon.

    1. OK! Thru all of this crap of fighting Muslims in one form or another, how come no one ever asks why the ‘F’ don’t the moderate muslims interject anywhere? They just sit back and wait to see who’s side they are going to be on whenever one little bit of this constant battle goes on. The battle goes on forever and they welcome whatever ally/ies that will enter the fray on their side. There is always a side-Sunni or Shi’ite or whatever!! They still consider most non-muslims as “crusaders” and then we have those hated Jews sitting in their midst as they always have been for more years than those crusaders were being a pain in the ass to them. But all the time in their “peaceful” periods, they slit each others throats over culture and religion, but mostly the latter. Ah, the serenity of living and dying in the Middle East! They go east and west from their homeland to spread their love and joy with the rest of the world! Such very, very unselfish, and considerate souls! Is there no end to this happiness of theirs????????

      1. Most reliable polling of ‘moderate’ Muslims indicates disturbing levels of sympathy with the actions of groups like ISIS, and a comfort level with restricting speech critical of Islam, and establishment of Sharia by the state. Which is part of my rationale for an immigration policy that is not accepting of Muslims. Including Islamic refugees. Though I believe in largely streaming lining the immigration process for almost everyone else. At least once we sort out our tens of millions of illegals.

    2. Pearl Harbor? Defending oneself against an attacker is shifting to the right?

      1. You didn’t feel that the country became more patriotic after 9/11, and were more hungry for war?

        1. If you are assaulted and battered by someone and you fight back you are not hungry for a fight. You are protecting yourself via fighting. Even leftists do that.

          1. Not the kookier ones.

  26. The Islamic State’s own statement made clear that the attacks were in response to the French bombing of Syria.

    Fortunately, we know ISIS would not lie or exaggerate or exploit circumstances for their own political gain

  27. If only Charlie Hebdo hadn’t bombed….whoever it was that they bombed.

    1. And Theo Van Gough. You know he stole the Enola Gay and dropped an A bomb on Mecca, right? Or. Maybe it was a a satirical cartoon. Same thing to Islamic murderers I guess.

  28. So Sheldon, I guess you’re willing to sacrifice Israel and the lives of every Jew who lives there.

    1. Whaat????

  29. I submit that a review of Sykes-Picot might prove interesting.

  30. Will the real libertarians please stand up?? Because there are none on this forum

  31. Great moments in the history of “Dressed like that, she was asking for it.”

  32. So, if France apologizes, like isis wants them to, and stops their aggression everything will be kumbaya and france will never ever be attacked by islamics again?

    I’m a big proponent of non intervention. I believe our indiscriminate interventionism is reaping it’s reward now. However, we have screwed up, now we need to eliminate the threat.

    I say, take pictures of the bomb torn apart bodies, those riddle by bullet holes, you know, the mutilated ones, and post them to the social media sites, especially those sites used for recruitment. Show those bodies along side the “leaders” who are sitting fat dumb and happy all safe like and tell them this is what you get to look forward to, and in minutes you will be forgotten, while your “leaders” are all safe and toasty.

    Another, I say drop some neutron warheads on the most populated areas of isis, then take pictures and videos of the the bodies, and those around a thousand yards puking their guts out and dying a slow, excruciating death.

    But, we are not willing to do what is needed to “win” this aggression. Anyone think a radical islamist wouldn’t find joy in doing this in a populated US City, unless of course we apologize and leave.

  33. To be sure, one can relate old attacks and invasions to current events. But if you start with this method of analysis, Mr. Richman, you shouldn’t stop short of telling all the interactions.

    Let’s start with the very first bad experience between France and Islamists. How about the invasion of France by the thousands of soldiers of Allah under the banner of the Umayyad Caliphat, in 732 A.D. If Charles Martel had not stemmed the Muslim expansion into Western Europe, all of the wonders of Western civilization in Europe would have ended in the barbarism of a despotic religion.

  34. I haven’t read the article. But let me guess.


    1. Further,

      If only Jefferson hadn’t started the Barbary Wars we wouldn’t be involved in the Middle East to this day.


      “It seems to me a certainty that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of the Arab women are the outstanding causes for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have been developing.” – General George S. Patton

    2. Blowback is so much smoke. But when there’s smoke, there’s fire. Hard to locate and put out a fire when there’s so much smoke though.

  35. Saying all Muslims are responsible for the terrorist acts of a few is like saying all Americans are responsible for the US government bombing the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Syria.

    The goal of the spiritual man is to achieve reunion with his Creator. The goal of the fundamentalist is to help the spiritual man achieve his goal by the most direct means available. Unfortunately there are some fundamentalists in every religion, in every country, in every government.

  36. For non-intervention to work don’t we have to sign a binding peace treaty or sumptin?

    What terms are being offered?

  37. “The upshot is that war on Mideast populations will not prevent terrorism against western societies.”

    Depends on the type of war. A war of attrition won’t work unless the kill rate stays ahead of the recruitment rate forever. Nukes offer the most cost effective and attrition-advantaged type of war, and with so many having already fled ISIS controlled territory the civ casualty rate would be lower in comparison to WWII. Add to that we’re talking mostly desert habitats. We have deserts in America, too, but we don’t live in them (excepting SOCAL, which we’ve irrigated the hell put of to create the appearance of non-desert) – we’d kind of be doing them a favor.

  38. Richman’s usual nonsense. Now he’s an apologist for tens of thousands of cut-throat murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.

  39. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor was a ploy to fool Americans into declaring war on them!

    Thankfully FDR saw through that ruse!

  40. What happened in Paris: Islam. Islam happened. Period.

  41. I think what happened is that France forgot the lesson of Charles Martel. When muslims come invading, you don’t invite them in. You tell them to go back to where they came from and back it with military force.

  42. All too typical was a recent discussion on CNN in which an American-Muslim leader and an English former jihadi debated whether the attacks in Paris are best explained by the marginalization of France’s Muslim population or by an “ideology.” Missing was any reference to France’s bombing of Syria.

    The US has historically intervened in South East Asia, but we don’t get many South Korean or Japanese terrorists. Nowhere near as you see from aggreived Muslims. If intervention in and of itself breeds terrorism where is the South Korean Al Qaeda? Why aren’t more Taoists and Bhudists setting off bombs in NYC, Paris or London? Why aren’t the occupied Germans setting off suicide bombs?

  43. Just like in Algeria. Let ’em in! Yeah.

  44. Want less intervention? Less immigration, more nonintervention. The two go hand in hand. No blood for Syrians.

  45. I love how bleeding hearts whine that what we’re doing is causing the violence, when all it takes is a short read of the goals of islam and its history to see that it has ever been thus.

    Silly notions that the West started this are as asinine as calling an animal ‘vicious’ because it fights back when you try to kill or hurt it. As for how to treat these savages, I harken back to Gengas Khan observing the cities of Afghanistan for the first time and noting they would be great places to raise horses.

  46. Honeymoon in Paris is a different thing, Are you searching for the perfect honeymoon destination? If you are, you will be pleased with your options…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.