The Paris shootings seem to be dominating the mainstream and social media. A few thoughts.
Since both the Russian airliner downed over Sinai and the Paris shootings seem to be tit-for-tat responses to interventions in Syria, isn’t it likely that increased interventions in Syria will bring further tit-for-tat responses in Europe and the Western world? It seems to me that there could now easily be an epidemic of bombings and shootings in Western capitals, as sleeper cells throughout the Western world are activated.
Also, in what sense does bombing Syria increase Western security, given that sleeper cells are already in place across the Western world, filled with radicalised indigenous Muslims? Most likely the state response to this internal threat will be increased repressive internal security measures of the sort set out here, which will affect everyone:
These soldiers will be granted relatively unprecedented powers as Parliament and President Hollande look to amend the 1955 State of Emergency law, which was last used in 2005 when the government looked to silence anti-police brutality riots. Historically, the law has been used to suppress Muslims in the country, and it’s unlikely the new iteration will prevent this.
Marking only the second time since the Second World War that the law has been enforced, the modifications will grant the French government the right to put entire neighborhoods on lockdown, including strictly enforced curfews, house raids without judicial oversight, weapons seizure, search and arrest of suspicious individuals, and broad powers of censorship. The law will also allow for the closure of theaters and meeting halls, as well as stronger control over France’s borders.
The Paris attacks were launched on unarmed citizens. If, as seems likely, further attacks are also launched on unarmed citizens, might it not be an idea to return to an armed citizenry? If a few of the Paris victims had been armed, they would have been able to fight back, instead of waiting an hour or so for armed police to arrive.
This runs, of course, entirely contrary to the current ‘progressive’ notion of having a completely unarmed citizenry, with all the firepower concentrated in the hands of the state. But I for one am inclined to reverse this example of ‘progress’.
Furthermore, since it’s almost certain that many of the people shot dead sitting outside Paris restaurants were smokers targeted by the Islamic State, wouldn’t one simple protective measure be to simply allow them back inside? Or is secondhand smoke deemed more dangerous to health than jihadist bullets?
Once again, smoking bans are yet another current ‘progressive’ measure that I’m inclined to reverse.
With the whole controlling ‘progressive’ EU project currently in deep jeopardy, it may be that both gun control and tobacco control will soon be jeopardised as well, and we will paradoxically have much to thank the Islamic State for, as lost freedoms are returned.