Why are the French attacks blamed on foreigners when the first terrorist turns out out to be French? (life, cost)

[euro123]

Don't get me wrong, I feel bad for the victims of all nationalists in the tragedy.

But here is another way to interpret it:

French person(Ismaël Omar Mostefaï) kills 3 eastern Europeans (2 Romanians and one Bulgarian-French died). Imagine the outrage in Western Europe if it was a bit reversed: A Bulgarian/Romanian armed with Kalashnikov kills British/French citizens who are on holiday in eastern Europe.

For example, the WW1 started because an eastern European (Serbian) assassinated some western politician - which resulted in Austria-Hungary invading Serbia.

[pigeonhole]

"French" from Algerian origin as it turns out but hus!hush! its not PC to say so in the mainstream media.

[r_u_a_wizard]

Yes of course he was technically "French" but his sympathies were not with the French state or French culture. This is a stupid point to make if you understand French history and immigration to France. There are many French citizens, particularly of North African ancestry, who hate the country they live in.

[seixal]

The perpetrator, Ismaël Omar Mostefaï, was as French as his name sounds. He probably didn't consider himself French not more that he was accepted as such by French natives. Being a citizen of a country is a legal status matter that can change "at will", ethnicity is something you're born into and will follow you until the day you die and after.

[KuuKulgur]

Originally Posted by seixal

The perpetrator, Ismaël Omar Mostefaï, was as French as his name sounds. He probably didn't consider himself French not more that he was accepted as such by French natives. Being a citizen of a country is a legal status matter that can change "at will", ethnicity is something you're born into and will follow you until the day you die and after.

This.

[euro123]

Originally Posted by r_u_a_wizard

Yes of course he was technically "French" but his sympathies were not with the French state or French culture. This is a stupid point to make if you understand French history and immigration to France. There are many French citizens, particularly of North African ancestry, who hate the country they live in.

Well, frankly I'm feeling SLIGHTLY douchebaggish for starting such a thread targeting France in a moment like that, but I think it's more constructive than the 10th+ thread titled "pray for France", so on.

I mean, the argument goes like this:

"We should not let refugees since they're terrorists". Later, it turns out that it's not refugees, nor immigrants but people who are 100% French. Even if they're Muslims and having Algerian grandparents, then how are you going to define "French" if not as someone who has a French passport? Are the British Indians: non-British or the Asian-Americans: non-Americans?

Your nationality is only determined by what's written on your passport.

[r_u_a_wizard]

Originally Posted by euro123

Well, frankly I'm feeling SLIGHTLY douchebaggish for starting such a thread targeting France in a moment like that, but I think it's more constructive than the 10th+ thread titled "pray for France", so on.

I mean, the argument goes like this:

"We should not let refugees since they're terrorists". Later, it turns out that it's not refugees, nor immigrants but people who are 100% French. Even if they're Muslims and having Algerian grandparents, then how are you going to define "French" if not as someone who has a French passport? Are the British Indians: non-British or the Asian-Americans: non-Americans?

Your nationality is only determined by what's written on your passport.

It is a discussion that we need to have, but pretending that ethnicity, culture and religion don't matter is dangerous and foolish

It's not popular to say so, but the truth can be uncomfortable

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by euro123

"We should not let refugees since they're terrorists". Later, it turns out that it's not refugees, nor immigrants but people who are 100% French.

None of this is true.

At least one of the terrorists was a refugee, who passed through Greece in October of this year.

None of the terrorists appear to be "100% French". They are all either migrants or immigrants/descendants of immigrants.

[ctr88]

The terrorists are French citizens but of Muslim country decent. The two guys that massacred 17 people in the Charlie Hebdo shooting were both born in Paris of Algerian decent. This points out the problem with Muslim immigration to Europe. The parents of the two mass murderers immigrated from Algeria to France and their children turned out to be radical Islamist murderers who spoke perfect French. So even some Muslims born and raised in Europe turn radical and want to kill. This is the issue with the compatibility with free societies, democracy and some forms of Islam and whether they truly integrate into those societies values, lifestyle, human rights, womens rights, or stay self segregated in Muslim enclaves in France.

[seixal]

Originally Posted by euro123

"We should not let refugees since they're terrorists". Later, it turns out that it's not refugees, nor immigrants but people who are 100% French. Even if they're Muslims and having Algerian grandparents, then how are you going to define "French" if not as someone who has a French passport? Are the British Indians: non-British or the Asian-Americans: non-Americans?

Your nationality is only determined by what's written on your passport.

The problem is that people around the world who happen to acknowledge France think that it is populated by some kind of painter named Jean-Pierre De la Croix, wearing a short moustache, a stripped shirt, covered with a beret, driving around his romantic attitude on a scooter.

Then some people take a trip there to shockingly discover that Parisian society with the average man called Mohammed Ben Chetiff, wearing La Coste tracksuits, displaying a Bronx copy-cat ghetto attitude, miles away from the stereotype.