Many Killed in Attack in Nice

Putting the Euro in the same sentence as terrorist attacks is completely ridiculous.

Also, the driver was a 37yo Tunisian. How surprising...

Apparently, he was only 31, and French Tunisian...

Doing that to his own people... Why continue to live in France if they have that kind of attitude... Tunisia is just a boat away, why didn't just go back to his country ?


This is despicable !! France must no longer be nice to any of its vile citizen, get these morons out !
 
French PM Manuel Valls has been quoted by the BBC radio as saying "you must learn to live" with this terrorism. But in their next breath BBC radio condemn FGM as child abuse. Who are the morons here?

Muslims in large numbers have been welcomed into France as citizens for decades. Yet in 2011 Sarkozy together with Cameron and Obama launched the massive air attack on Libya, Cameron quipping it was "necessary, legal and right".

The French Tunisian driver of the murder vehicle was known to police, but only as a spousal abuser - he was under a court order which separated him from his wife. Gee, I wonder if that angered him?

Valls has a point, of course, that you must learn to live with terrorism, since there is no way to remove whole populations, especially those already granted citizenship.

But let us be very clear that it was the western attacks, invasions and regime changes (both complete and in progress today) throughout the middle east and the ongoing attempt to impose liberal values on tribal populations that inspires this violence. How can you not expect violent revenge when you attack these people by air, land and sea in their homes in their homeland?

What utter fools our leaders have been. If we are to ameliorate this problem of terrorism we must recognize the real cause, and act to stop the madness of our leaders whose incessant meddling has sparked this needless violence.
 
Many politicians would disagree with the "legal" jargon on the Libyan air strikes on the U.S. side of things but that isn't a discussion for here so, I do apologize in passing.
 
Meanwhile, the Russian "liberals" (and other internet whiners) were angry on the oppressive Putin's regime for sending lots of police on the streets and blocking the walking squares with police trucks on the country's national holidays.
salut_9may2012_2_02.jpg
I wonder if their view changes now.
 
Valls has a point, of course, that you must learn to live with terrorism, since there is no way to remove whole populations, especially those already granted citizenship.
This line irks me. I don't care if it's France or America. People are dying everyday from terrorism. And all we're worried about are their rights. You shouldn't have any rights if you do this crap. And if a few good citizens get their rights removed for a while to find the bad apples so be it. There are 100's of thousands of people who wouldn't do a thing getting searched everyday at airports, just so the TSA doesn't look like they are racially profiling. Id give up my rights and even live under Martial Law if need be to end this stupid escapade of violence over a stupid book.🤬🤬:mad:
 
Id give up my rights and even live under Martial Law if need be to end this stupid escapade of violence over a stupid book.
Choosing to do something like that is fine. Forcing other to do that is as bad as terrorism. You're saying your life is worth more than other people's, which can't be proven true. Hurting the innocent to catch terrorist shouldn't be tolerated and defeats the entire point.
 
ISIL will take credit for any attack carried out in their name - even if there is nothing to link the perpetrator to their group beyond the claim that they were acting on their behalf.
Does it really matter if he was only "inspired" by ISIS or was a full fledged member? Part of their strategy is to inspire lone jihadists across the globe into committing acts of terror. If this turns out to be the case, this is just as much on them as it is on a card carrying senior leader in the organization carrying out an attack.
 
But let us be very clear that it was the western attacks, invasions and regime changes (both complete and in progress today) throughout the middle east and the ongoing attempt to impose liberal values on tribal populations that inspires this violence. How can you not expect violent revenge when you attack these people by air, land and sea in their homes in their homeland?

What motives does a French-Tunisian muslim have then if Tunisia wasn't "invaded" or attacked by western countries? The only thing in common here is the ideology.
 
Last edited:
The French Tunisian driver of the murder vehicle was known to police, but only as a spousal abuser - he was under a court order which separated him from his wife
Plenty of videos on the internet by Imams that spousal abuse by men is, for lack of a better term, is religiously lawful, and encouraged.

Id give up my rights and even live under Martial Law if need be to end this stupid escapade of violence over a stupid book.
So you would give up your constitutional rights just for a little security? Let's take Benjamin Franklin's words into account:

Benjamin Franklin
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
 
Doesn't the Islamic State publish a magazine called "Inspire" which urges followers to use cars and trucks to attack infidels in improvised or lone wolf situations?

@zzz_pt
Good question. Motives are always the hardest thing to figure out. In addition to the ideology you mention, I speculate the individual involved in the Nice incident identified not only ethnically and religiously with the victims of western intervention, but also was personally aggrieved - perhaps he felt the French courts had unjustly deprived him of what he thought of as his property, his wife.
 
Last edited:
ISIL members celebrate for the attacks and the whole rest of the world cry.

Brilliant.
 
Last edited:
But let us be very clear that it was the western attacks, invasions and regime changes (both complete and in progress today) throughout the middle east and the ongoing attempt to impose liberal values on tribal populations that inspires this violence. How can you not expect violent revenge when you attack these people by air, land and sea in their homes in their homeland?

What utter fools our leaders have been. If we are to ameliorate this problem of terrorism we must recognize the real cause, and act to stop the madness of our leaders whose incessant meddling has sparked this needless violence.

The real cause is a society of violence and refusal to acknowledge human rights which we tolerate as some sort of "culture" in the middle east. Posts like this - that blame western "attacks" as the problem as though what is going on in the middle east is somehow acceptable and that we have no right to intervene are what embolden enemies of humanity to continue this kind of "revenge".

When you blame this kind of thing on us, or on France, or on anyone but the 'hat responsible, you lend righteousness to the cause. We should stand united, everyone in the civilized world, against uncivilized behavior wherever we see it. Whether it is perpetrated for religion, as a race war, because of an abuse of authority, or just sheer lack of respect for humanity, everyone who claims to be civilized should stand clearly against it.
 
Plenty of videos on the internet by Imams that spousal abuse by men is, for lack of a better term, is religiously lawful, and encouraged.

So you would give up your constitutional rights just for a little security? Let's take Benjamin Franklin's words into account:
Can you provide the rest of the quote? My dad said the quote has something to do with with fighting and not standing around doing nothing about the situation.

If that's true, I'll do like they did in his time defy the law of the King and take the situation into my hands.
 
Can you provide the rest of the quote? My dad said the quote has something to do with with fighting and not standing around doing nothing about the situation.

If that's true, I'll do like they did in his time defy the law of the King and take the situation into my hands.
I can do you one better and source it. The quote came from a letter from Benjamin Franklin to the Governor of Pennsylvania that was dated the 11th of November, 1755. You can find all of Franklin's papers at this website, Franklinpapers.org, but I will quote the context of the quote on this post.

In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assembly for the King’s Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their farther Security, if he shall think fit to accept it. Whether he could, as he supposes, “if his Hands had been properly strengthened, have put the Province into such a Posture of Defence, as might have prevented the present Mischiefs,” seems to us uncertain; since late Experience in our neighbouring Colony of Virginia (which had every Advantage for that Purpose that could be desired) shows clearly, that it is next to impossible to guard effectually an extended Frontier, settled by scattered single Families at two or three Miles Distance, so as to secure them from the insiduous Attacks of small Parties of skulking Murderers: But thus much is certain, that by refusing our Bills from Time to Time, by which great Sums were seasonably offered, he has rejected all the Strength that Money could afford him; and if his Hands are still weak or unable, he ought only to blame himself, or those who have tied them.
 
What motives does a French-Tunisian muslim have then if Tunisia wasn't "invaded" or attacked by western countries? The only thing in common here is the ideology.
this is a very good question but it's not only ideology, lots of france suburbs are cut from the rest of the country and I saw many documentary where a man from the suburb named aziz sent a resume to a firm and wasn't taken but the same guy sending the same resume but called Pierre would get the interview. Roots of this comes back from the marrocan/Algerian wars were the local that fought with the French got offered nationality but not a place in France society. They had suburb riot in 90's and now this. Off course it's too easy to just put it on this since we saw that people in small town in the middle of the France also went to Syria, but I do believe it does matter.

As for a solution I don't know really what to do, all this hate and stupidy make me speechless.
 
Last edited:
The genie is out of the bottle. Nothing can stop it. This is simply the price to be paid for meddling in the middle east. To this very hour Tony Blair will tell you it was well worth it. For him.

Tony Blair and George Bush are scum in my eyes the pair of them should be in court on war crime charges.
Blair filled his pockets as usual mp and if the rumour is true I don't know how to check, Bush should be locked up to.
Rumour is after the Iraq invasion all the American companies which got the job to help rebuild in Iraq were all Bush family related I don't now if any were Blair related but it wouldn't shock me one bit.
I hope after there middle east messing they think about all these attacks before going to sleep at night.
 
Please explain exactly what actions you think justify war crime charges against either individual.

1. Totally ignoring the United Nations vote of NO they shouldn't invade Iraq.
2. Murdering Iraqis when they had no right to be there.
3. Lying to the world about Weapons of Mass Destruction when we all know it was about oil.
4. Accepting the documentation on the searches in Iraq for WMD instead of ensuring they were correct and then acting on them. As we all know the info they had wasn't worth the paper it was written on which they were advised of but ignored it.

If I recall correctly the WMD found was a huge total of O NIL ZERO. I was surprised they didn't plant some to justify there actions.
I know it's only my view but the mass graves they showed on TV etc were they real?
They wanted Saddam out because he was like that bloke in charge of North Korea and wouldn't listen or bow to what the west UK USA and a few more so arrogantly think is there right way to boss the world.

I am not protecting Saddam the scenes in his country when his statues were dropped proved he wasn't Mr Popular but I suggest in any country there is for and against for all leaders.
I know he was the main suspect in gas attacks and a lot of other things but after a vote on to invade or not and the vote is no Bush and his lapdog Blair shouldn't have invaded.
Look what it has done to the world with these invasions on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Terrorism is on the rise more and more.

I ask the question who gave Blair and Bush the right to say ok we are going to invade Iraq?


Why was it UK USA why didn't Argentina lead the way or South Africa?
I believe the answer to my second question is because the USA and the UK think they have some divine right to police the world and act how they wish and it is acceptable because they are the UK and USA. Who made them the world police?
I don't believe half the propaganda I am fed by the media.
 
1. Totally ignoring the United Nations vote of NO they shouldn't invade Iraq.

Not a war crime. Also the UN taking no action does not mean that other countries cannot take action.

2. Murdering Iraqis when they had no right to be there.

Violation of the case fire terms of Gulf War I means we had a right to be there.

3. Lying to the world about Weapons of Mass Destruction when we all know it was about oil.

Chemical weapons (WMDs) were used to murder thousands of Iraqis and were found in Iraq.

4. Accepting the documentation on the searches in Iraq for WMD instead of ensuring they were correct and then acting on them. As we all know the info they had wasn't worth the paper it was written on which they were advised of but ignored it.

You're saying the listened to some people but not others? That's a war crime?

If I recall correctly the WMD found was a huge total of O NIL ZERO. I was surprised they didn't plant some to justify there actions.

They found plenty, what they didn't find was presence of an ongoing WMD program. It is well documented that Saddam had and used chemical weapons against his own people - they were there, and we found them.

I know it's only my view but the mass graves they showed on TV etc were they real?

What would they demonstrate?

They wanted Saddam out because he was like that bloke in charge of North Korea and wouldn't listen or bow to what the west UK USA and a few more so arrogantly think is there right way to boss the world.

A cease fire treaty to end a war is kinda critical to adhere to.

I am not protecting Saddam the scenes in his country when his statues were dropped proved he wasn't Mr Popular but I suggest in any country there is for and against for all leaders.

Especially when that leader is a mass murderer guilty the genocide of a quarter of a million of his own people (and apparently that's a low estimate). So yea, not Mr. Popular.

I know he was the main suspect in gas attacks and a lot of other things but after a vote on to invade or not and the vote is no Bush and his lapdog Blair shouldn't have invaded.

I don't recall giving other nations a vote over whether or not the US is entitled to enforce its treaties. We are a sovereign nation after all.

Look what it has done to the world with these invasions on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Terrorism is on the rise more and more.

Always good to blame the victim. The US is responsible for the crimes of the middle east, awesome.

I ask the question who gave Blair and Bush the right to say ok we are going to invade Iraq?

Saddam Hussein, on multiple fronts. The most direct front is the violation of the cease fire terms of gulf war 1. The next front would be the rampant human rights violations of thousands upon thousands of Iraqis.

Why was it UK USA why didn't Argentina lead the way or South Africa?

I believe the answer to my second question is because the USA and the UK think they have some divine right to police the world and act how they wish and it is acceptable because they are the UK and USA. Who made them the world police?

...the people who violate human rights. Any individual or group of individuals is justified in protecting the rights of innocents in any circumstance.


It turns out I shouldn't have asked this question in this thread. If you want to discuss the Iraq war or US politics or Bush Jr. any further I think we should take it to a neighboring thread.
 
I happened to get to know about this messy news this evening when I booted up the PC in my school for doing my homework and for studying for preparation for the exams and on hitting yahoo news by chance it showed the articles about another horrifying terrorist attack in Nice all over the page, on the very day French people celebrated their Bastille day.... which made me glued to the screen for some while before actually getting down to them.

I'd love to say cliches such as "my hearts go to those victims / their families / close friends who ended up losing their precious lives", just because of this stupid act of violence by an ignorant dude apparently inspired by ISIL, just like in other terrorist attacks of this sort whenever they arise, but what struck in my heart the most is that there were, among the current death toll of 84, also some tiny children who have got obviously no responsibility for emboldening the terrorists of Middle Eastern origin to do such violence we observe in every part of the world nowadays, and what humans are in their very nature throughout history when it comes to try to live together with those with different religious beliefs or such, as well as who had the possibility of becoming a hope for their homeland in their future. I have absolutely no idea how the terrorists can be that cold-blooded and have the audacity to do all this crap outright, without even knowing what outcome they are to face after carrying out those bloody attacks, and afterwards they screw the pooch for some reason.

it's really a sad thing that today's world is no longer what we really think / thought being "desirable" for the next generations to live - not that had it been "perfect" all along, but it's getting worse and worse on the contrary to what we thought could help us to bring back this world to peace again, because of those some nonsense piece of 🤬 'wads.
 
Danoff under no way do I think the US are responsible for 9/11 I have seen all the conspiracy theories and my view is I don't think Bush had anything to do with it.

On violation of gulf war 1. Lets look at it from outside the box, Why did US UK or whoever was involved have the right to invade another country in the first place? who made them judge jury and executioner?
As you said the US can enforce it's treaties but what I mean is after they are enforced and the enemy (lets call them) hit back why are people so surprised.
Hitler had no right to invade Poland and at the cost of millions of lives he was put back in his place I would have thought lessons might have be learned.
Ok as I said Saddam was a bad egg and when he was gone his own police and army fell apart and it was common knowledge this would happen.
So why even if it took a few years didn't the so called world police infiltrate and take out Saddam instead of a full scale war?

Just seen the take it to another thread which one is the correct thread to discuss this?
 
Back