|
It means you pay 99% less than you want to.
|
|
|
|
|
Hook you in , then pay the rest via other means (high maintenance costs etc)
|
|
|
|
|
There is a great mindset change operating at this very moment in the country, everybody seems to realize that we are to fight a war against terrorism.
Until now, there has been some events, but it was highly ridiculous and unorganized - even the 17 deaths in January.
I have been following the events until late in the night. Even if 150+ people died or will be dying in the next days, I think this is still pretty low in comparison to what could have happened : killing 80 people in a room filled with 1,500 people is not a highscore when four ak47 are firing, three suicide bombers near the Stade de France exploded with only a few people in the area whereas they could have waited for the 80,000 spectators to come out at the end of the soccer game.
But suicide bombers, simultaneous attacks, coordination, ... This is getting serious, I think the peace era we have been experiencing since the end of WW2 has come to an end.
|
|
|
|
|
The peace was always an illusion, sadly. French armed forces have possibly been involved in fewer conflicts than UK troops who have been required to open fire in every year since 1945 but with France's NATO and UN responsibilities there's probably not much in it.
|
|
|
|
|
This is NOT directed at you. I'm simply using the occasion of your post to put this out there:
Maybe now some of the peaceniks in Europe can understand how the U.S. felt after the attack in 2001.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think so. The President of France did not say the the kinds of things he's saying now: "Act of war", "We will conduct a war that is pitiless."
And then there's the state of emergency, military in the streets, first curfew in Paris since WW2.
I think the feeling after this attack is much different.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure there would have been much point in a state of emergency and military in the street of Paris after aeroplanes were flown into buildings in America.
Wouldn't really have achieved much.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
And your point is? 
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
The 2001 attacks made Americans realise how the English felt about the IRA (heavily funded by the Americans).
Terrorism originated along time before 2001.
|
|
|
|
|
Again, I don't think so because the IRA attacks used to be on a smaller scale.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow.So Some terrorism is ok. So the Manchester Bomb injured 212 people. The Omagh bomb killed 29. But this is OK because it's small scale? So how many need to die to make it real terrorism?
And you Americans would be OK if the British subsidised a Terrorist attack on American soil if it killed only 29 or injured 212 because that would be small scale?
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't say terrorism is OK, you said that. I said the feeling after this attack is different.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
No you said 'pehaps now'* Europeans would start to feel the same about Terrorism as Americans have since 2001. The point is we've been feeling it a lot longer than that. I'm afraid you're newcomers to this party, in fact you were on the other the side for a long time before 2001.
*not your exact words, but your sentiment all the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Not my sentiment at all. That may be your skewed interpretation of what I said, but not at all what I said.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
You said
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: Maybe now some of the peaceniks in Europe can understand how the U.S. felt after the attack in 2001
My interpretation of that is you think Europeans didn't know what a terrorist attack felt like in 2001 - we did, we were suffering it long before then.
I'm also reading between the lines, and interpreting that you were suggesting that the 'peaceniks' were saying that Americans deserved it because of their foreign policy. If you think this attack had nothing to do with American foreign policy, you're very much mistaken, it's just America is so far away from Asia it's much easier to hit their allies in Europe.
If I've misinterpreted anything you've said please point out what you really mean, I'm not anti-American, far from it, I just think it's absurd that Americans think Terrorism started this century.
|
|
|
|
|
Will you please allow a little bit of reality to intrude?
ISIS is hitting France not because te US is too far away and France is the ally of US.
ISIS is hitting France because France as been bombing ISIS positions in the Middle East.
This is known as tit for tat.
Mind you, I am not supporting ISIS in any way or condoning their murderous ways but I would like a more nuanced argument from you.
|
|
|
|
|
Vivic wrote: ISIS is hitting France because France as been bombing ISIS positions in the Middle East.
I disagree, that may be part of it, but they hit France because they could and because France, or more specifically Paris, has a high Muslim population, is a very popular city, the French national team was playing Germany.
Their goal was to try to create a(n increased) rift between Muslim and non-Muslim, and probably more important to strike at the support for taking Syrian refugees. Hence the need to target an element that would get reported in Germany, the way the attackers shouted about Syria and a very clear and easily to find trail through the refugee routes had been laid.
It was not simple tit for tat, nothing to be gained from that.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
Rage wrote: I think the peace era we have been experiencing since the end of WW2 has come to an end.
My deepest sympathies to everyone in France, and my response to what we should do to ISL would is better left to the soapbox.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Rage wrote: the peace era we have been experiencing since the end of WW2 has come to an end.
When exactly did it start? Korea, Viet Nam, Aden, Kenya, Israel/Palestine, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Peru, Falklands, Iraq/Iran, Kuwait, Iraq ... just some of the war zones that have existed since 1945, i.e my entire lifetime.
|
|
|
|
|
None of those places are in France.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
All those places you mention were isolated, what you are seeing now is the start of decades/centuries of a war unlike anything we've ever seen before.
|
|
|
|
|
Yet the sad thing is that many people still think that we should keep on taking more and more Muslims into Europe as 'refugees', they really don't see the bigger picture and the future they are setting up our kids and future generations for.
The fact is you can't fight an enemy within, and the line that most Muslims are moderate is a lie. They don't condemn these attacks, a lot of them silently agree with them. Mass-immigration does not work, I've seen it 1st hand. I know a lot of people here will view this post with disdain, but they live in small villages where the impact of mass-immigration has been sheltered from them.
The most worrying thing is that the mass-immigration in the past 2 decades seems to be orchestrated by our European governments. It's almost as if they are trying to destroy the indigenous communities that have been built up for centuries whilst simultaneously using the threat of Terrorism that this upheaval creates to further strengthen their control.
France and England has such a high Muslim population that we will be subject to these attacks from within for decades if not centuries, the sad thing is that the left-wing politically correct amongst us will let it keep happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. You linked to some muslims condemning the attacks. Well done, that must mean most Muslims condemn the attacks, if you are gullible of course. Talking of gullible, did you know the word 'Gullible' was removed from the Oxford English Dictionary last year?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
