Report on two French Kamikazes

Le Parisien had an article today detailing the
deaths of two French suicide bombers in Iraq.


One was Abdelhalim Badjdoudj, 19, of Saint Denis, a
suburb just north of Paris. He died in Fallouja last
October 27th. He was one of a number of young
Islamists of the 19th arrondissment (borders on
Saint Denis). He got into Iraq via Syria a year
ago. The DST has been going after this group
since January.

The other Kamikaze was Idris Bazis, 41, who
went radical in the late 1980s and had already
fought in the Balkans and then headed for
Afghanistan in the 1990s. After 9/11 he made
several trips to England and also got into
Iraq via Syria. He died in Feb of this year.

The article says that the examples of these two
seems rare for the moment. Another article yesterday
said that the radical core in the UK is about 3000
individuals with about 200 ready to go further than
just talk.

The fact that the French Kamikazes went to Iraq
transmits the idea that perhaps there will be a basic
difference in how the radicals act. In Britain they
may do their "thing" there, in France they head
aboard. However, this is "wishful" thinking is
not expressed in France, fingers are still crossed.

For tourists, does this make Paris safer than London?
Maybe, but don't be your life on it. I think that
the overall risks are small even in the UK.

Earl Evleth writes:

For tourists, does this make Paris safer than London?
Maybe, but don't be your life on it. I think that
the overall risks are small even in the UK.

The overall risk from terrorism has always been extremely small, and
this will not change. By definition, terrorism is something to which
groups resort when they don't have the means to do greater damage
(which would then qualify as military action). The idea is to carry
out small but spectacular attacks that do little real damage but get
lots of air time ... and then depend on public hysteria and hidden
government agendas to do the rest. Traditionally this has worked very
well, I'm sorry to say.

nobody cares anymore on 50 deads by bombing

more dies on one week-end on the road
( in France )

"Earl Evleth" a écrit dans le message de news:
...

Le Parisien had an article today detailing the
deaths of two French suicide bombers in Iraq.


One was Abdelhalim Badjdoudj, 19, of Saint Denis, a
suburb just north of Paris. He died in Fallouja last
October 27th. He was one of a number of young
Islamists of the 19th arrondissment (borders on
Saint Denis). He got into Iraq via Syria a year
ago. The DST has been going after this group
since January.

The other Kamikaze was Idris Bazis, 41, who
went radical in the late 1980s and had already
fought in the Balkans and then headed for
Afghanistan in the 1990s. After 9/11 he made
several trips to England and also got into
Iraq via Syria. He died in Feb of this year.

The article says that the examples of these two
seems rare for the moment. Another article yesterday
said that the radical core in the UK is about 3000
individuals with about 200 ready to go further than
just talk.

The fact that the French Kamikazes went to Iraq
transmits the idea that perhaps there will be a basic
difference in how the radicals act. In Britain they
may do their "thing" there, in France they head
aboard. However, this is "wishful" thinking is
not expressed in France, fingers are still crossed.

For tourists, does this make Paris safer than London?
Maybe, but don't be your life on it. I think that
the overall risks are small even in the UK.

trallala wrote:
nobody cares anymore on 50 deads by bombing

more dies on one week-end on the road
( in France )


its 12 in Belgium on an average weekend

trallala writes:

nobody cares anymore on 50 deads by bombing

more dies on one week-end on the road

It's not the number of dead, it's the scare value. The media place
the greatest emphasis on the people who die in scary ways, because the
whole object of the media is to scare people.

Following up to Mxsmanic

By definition, terrorism is something to which
groups resort when they don't have the means to do greater damage
(which would then qualify as military action).

the twin towers was fairly big but still terrorism, wars are
people fighting one another in the open and between whole
countries or two halves of a country, ones objective is to use
fear to obtain certain ends, the other to defeat the opposing
forces in battle. If AQ detonate a nuclear device they are still
terrorists unless they really do hope to eventually openly
conquer the whole world, which would probably be a first for
other than a state to attempt.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Photos of both "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

Following up to Mxsmanic

It's not the number of dead, it's the scare value. The media place
the greatest emphasis on the people who die in scary ways, because the
whole object of the media is to scare people.

the objective of the media is to sell copy and thus advertising,
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Photos of both "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

The Reids writes:

Following up to Mxsmanic

It's not the number of dead, it's the scare value. The media place
the greatest emphasis on the people who die in scary ways, because the
whole object of the media is to scare people.

the objective of the media is to sell copy and thus advertising,

What's the BBC, chopped liver?

Des

The Reids writes:

the objective of the media is to sell copy and thus advertising,

The only way to do that is to scare people. When people are scared,
they'll continue to look to the media in the hope of hearing or seeing
something reassuring. When they are not scared, they rapidly lose
interest in the news and tend to start ignoring the media.

The fact is, almost no news really affects any of us directly, so we
really have almost no reason to pay attention to the news. We
intuitively know that, which is why we ignore the news unless we have
a specific reason to watch ... such as fear of something that we think
_might_ affect us in some way (or a prurient interest in the macabre
or in the misery of others). So the media specialize in sowing fear,
uncertainty, and dread (FUD) among its spectators, listening, and
readers. It's the only way not to lose the audience. Nobody really
cares what's happening thousands of miles away, after all.

An exception is the case of extremely local news organizations, which
can often survive without the FUD, because they can provide news that
really is directly relevant to their audience. Neighborhood
newsletters and the like sometimes fall into this category, and you'll
notice that they cover stories in a much more general way, without
attempts to stress and scare people.

Following up to Des Small

the objective of the media is to sell copy and thus advertising,

What's the BBC, chopped liver?

public service.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Photos of both "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"