Many Killed in Attack in Nice

[Danoff]

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?

I'll respond in the America thread.

 

[dxm8975]

Meanwhile I also read a few articles from the website called "El Pais", and they said the truck the Tunisian guy purportedly used so as to run over the spectators ran approximately 90km/h of speed when it slammed into the crowd, zig-zagging to kill as many as possible.

Another article said about how the truck moved along the street and about the "accomplices" of the perpetrator.

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 !

So should Nice be not too nice to them.

 

[mister dog]

ut 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?

In all fairness, when the west goes and bombs there, at least they try not to kill civilians deliberately but hit the armies that fights them. That set aside from the fact that the 2003 invasion by Bush and his cronies indeed opened up Pandora's box.

I guess we can all conclude now that all these countries that are warn torn were better off under their former rulers/ dictators. Like you say people there still have a huge tribal culture of clans, and there's the mix between Shia and Sunni to boot. So what illusion didn't these fools have, to think that they would just go in there, topple the dictator, get rich, leave and all of the locals would just join together in a government and run Iraq properly?

They should have stayed out of that whole Arab spring too, and not go there and sponsor it. That doubled the size of the problem at least as you can now add Lybia and Syria to the list. IMO those countries are lost forever and will live in chaos for many more years to come.

 

[RX-7_FD3S]

From what I've read on French papers, its not clear he have ties to isis or even being a Muslim. It looks like he's just a crazy nuts, he used to hit his wife and when she divorced him he ****ted all over the flat and stab his son teddybear multiple times.

 

[mister dog]

From what I've read on French papers, its not clear he have ties to isis or even being a Muslim. It looks like he's just a crazy nuts, he used to hit his wife and when she divorced him he ****ted all over the flat and stab his son teddybear multiple times.

Wanna bet he will have pledged alliance to IS? They can go from being hopeless street thugs to radical Muslims very fast. It's a way for them to redeem for their wasted lives and hope for glory in the afterlife.

 

[RX-7_FD3S]

I just hate shortcut, it's not good for anyone, let's see what the truth is before jumping to conclusion. And that's what isis want too.

 

[mustafur]

Delete.

 

[Sanji Himura]

From what I've read on French papers, its not clear he have ties to isis or even being a Muslim. It looks like he's just a crazy nuts, he used to hit his wife and when she divorced him he ****ted all over the flat and stab his son teddybear multiple times.

Two things wrong with that statement:

1. According to a former Hamas Jihadi who now runs a counter-terrorism think tank out of London, ISIS has the reach today where they don't have to hardly have to do anything to inspire terrorism. Anybody with a computer, smartphone or tablet can access ISIS propaganda and become inspired to commit acts of terror like the attack last night. It is those actions that we need to be careful in labeling as "Lone Wolf" acts of terror because, in the strictest sense of the word, lone wolf terrorism is pretty much dead.

2. As I told Dotini, there are plenty of videos out there on the internet where Islamic Imams are encouraging spousal abuse as if it is religiously, and civilly legal. You see, to a fundamental Islamist, the justification on abusing their spouse is that the man is trying to bring her closer to Allah.

So if you take those two facts into consideration, he is indeed acting like a fundamental Islamist. The question becomes was he radicalized, and if so where. My fair bet is at his local Mosque.

 

[mister dog]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...8/What-is-going-wrong-in-Frances-prisons.html

 

[MCFerocious]

I am disgusted with this disgusting person who has gone on to kill several innocents including children.

I am a Muslim and I practice my faith properly. It is not about being an 'extremist' or a 'moderate'. There is no room for extremism in Islam, indeed the Prophet condemned it.

Islam is one thing and Muslims are another. If Muslims cannot understand the beauty, simplicity and authenticity of Islam then that is not the fault of Islam.

If a religion, any religion, recommends going and killing innocents, then that religion cannot be the true religion. Islam does not allow such appalling behaviour.

MC

 

[RX-7_FD3S]

Two things wrong with that statement:

1. According to a former Hamas Jihadi who now runs a counter-terrorism think tank out of London, ISIS has the reach today where they don't have to hardly have to do anything to inspire terrorism. Anybody with a computer, smartphone or tablet can access ISIS propaganda and become inspired to commit acts of terror like the attack last night. It is those actions that we need to be careful in labeling as "Lone Wolf" acts of terror because, in the strictest sense of the word, lone wolf terrorism is pretty much dead.

2. As I told Dotini, there are plenty of videos out there on the internet where Islamic Imams are encouraging spousal abuse as if it is religiously, and civilly legal. You see, to a fundamental Islamist, the justification on abusing their spouse is that the man is trying to bring her closer to Allah.

So if you take those two facts into consideration, he is indeed acting like a fundamental Islamist. The question becomes was he radicalized, and if so where. My fair bet is at his local Mosque.

You're taking shortcut and assuming things, its dangerous. Im all for blaming people but on facts.

Bertrand Cazeneuve, the minister of interior said when asked if the killer was tied to jhiadishm, that at the moment with the informations they had, it wasn't the case.

 

[Milouse]

I practice my faith properly

Yesterday, a truck driver in Nice did practiced "his" faith "properly". Both of you just ignored different Koran verses.

Anyway, my point is that you don't need to mention "properly" in your sentence, as what makes it proper is defined by the "my" preceding the word "faith".

 

[Danoff]

I am disgusted with this disgusting person who has gone on to kill several innocents including children.

I am a Muslim and I practice my faith properly. It is not about being an 'extremist' or a 'moderate'. There is no room for extremism in Islam, indeed the Prophet condemned it.

Islam is one thing and Muslims are another. If Muslims cannot understand the beauty, simplicity and authenticity of Islam then that is not the fault of Islam.

If a religion, any religion, recommends going and killing innocents, then that religion cannot be the true religion. Islam does not allow such appalling behaviour.

MC

I'm not familiar with the Qur'an, but I know that it builds upon at a bare minimum the old testament bible and that book is full of this kind of appalling behavior. So Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Mormons all share the same bloodthirsty God.

 

[mister dog]

If a religion, any religion, recommends going and killing innocents, then that religion cannot be the true religion. Islam does not allow such appalling behaviour.

Doesn't the koran have many quotes about killing infidels?:

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Wanna bet he will have pledged alliance to IS? They can go from being hopeless street thugs to radical Muslims very fast. It's a way for them to redeem for their wasted lives and hope for glory in the afterlife.

If you credit ISIL, you empower ISIL.

The common belief among analysts is that ISIL are carrying out these attacks in a bid to show that they are as strong as ever, even though they have lost a lot of ground in Iraq and Syria. I have heard it suggested that they could be defeated militarily within a year. So why legitimise them? Why credit them with this attack when it's just playing into their hands?

It's one thing to defeat ISIL on the ground. It's another thing entirely to defeat them outright. Maybe it's time to push back - deny that this was the work of a terrorist; instead, characterise it as the work of a common criminal. It might not be enough to bring ISIL's well-oiled propaganda machine to a grinding halt, but if we can't slow that machine down, they'll only continue to fuel the fires of radicalisation.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If you credit ISIL, you empower ISIL.

The common belief among analysts is that ISIL are carrying out these attacks in a bid to show that they are as strong as ever, even though they have lost a lot of ground in Iraq and Syria. I have heard it suggested that they could be defeated militarily within a year. So why legitimise them? Why credit them with this attack when it's just playing into their hands?

It's one thing to defeat ISIL on the ground. It's another thing entirely to defeat them outright. Maybe it's time to push back - deny that this was the work of a terrorist; instead, characterise it as the work of a common criminal. It might not be enough to bring ISIL's well-oiled propaganda machine to a grinding halt, but if we can't slow that machine down, they'll only continue to fuel the fires of radicalisation.

Yeah, that'll work.

"Hey Mohammed, the western media isn't giving us credit for that Tunisian guy mowing people down in Nice"

"Oh no, I guess we're done for, pack up your RPG's and shoulder fired SAM's and let's get the heck out of here. It was fun while it lasted. That darn western media, outsmarted us again!"

Somehow I think it's smarter for us just to tell the truth instead of thinking that a billion people can keep a secret and the bad guys won't figure it out.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Somehow I think it's smarter for us just to tell the truth instead of thinking that a billion people can keep a secret and the bad guys won't figure it out.

Who said anything about keeping it secret? I certainly didn't say it, and I don't see anyone else who did.

And where is your evidence that he was affiliated with ISIL? You don't have any, except for your assumption that he was because of his background - which is racial profiling.

"Hey Mohammed, the western media isn't giving us credit for that Tunisian guy mowing people down in Nice"

"Oh no, I guess we're done for, pack up your RPG's and shoulder fired SAM's and let's get the heck out of here. It was fun while it lasted. That darn western media, outsmarted us again!"

That conversation might also go like this:

"Hey, Mohammed, the Western media say that Tunisian guy in Nice was one of us. I haven't heard of him, what about you?"

"Never met him, but don't let that stop us. Let's get more RPGs and more SAMs and encourage others to do it!"

So, show me some evidence that he was affiliated with ISIL. Or better yet, show the French.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Who said anything about keeping it secret? I certainly didn't say it, and I don't see anyone else who did.

And where is your evidence that he was affiliated with ISIL? You don't have any, except for your assumption that he was because of his background - which is racial profiling.

Who said anything about ISIL? Oh wait, you did. If we try to bring the western media into a giant conpsiracy to avoid mentioning any association with ISIL and effectively pretend that lone wolves inspired by ISIL or other terrorist organizations have nothing to do with Islamic jihad and Islamic terrorism, that's in effect keeping it a secret, a laughable, open secret. Obama tried that already with Omar Mateen. How did that turn out?

So, show me some evidence that he was affiliated with ISIL. Or better yet, show the French.

You're the one bringing up ISIL, you prove it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Who said anything about ISIL? Oh wait, you did.

This was in the post I quoted, which you then linked to:

Wanna bet he will have pledged alliance to IS? They can go from being hopeless street thugs to radical Muslims very fast. It's a way for them to redeem for their wasted lives and hope for glory in the afterlife.

If you want to try and use somebody's words against them, make sure you read everything first.

If we try to bring the western media into a giant conpsiracy to avoid mentioning any association with ISIL and effectively pretend that lone wolves inspired by ISIL or other terrorist organizations have nothing to do with Islamic jihad and Islamic terrorism, that's in effect keeping it a secret, a laughable, open secret.

What's the alternative? To do just enough to keep them at bay, but not enough to thwart them outright? All that's going to do is keep the spectre of extremism hanging over our heads. You know perfectly well that bombing them isn't enough - you have to fight against the ideology as well as against the action.

Obama tried that already with Omar Mateen. How did that turn out?

Pretty well, considering that we got practically no coverage of him.

You're the one bringing up ISIL, you prove it.

Wait, what? My whole argument is that we shouldn't be jumping to the conclusion that he was associated with ISIL? Why on earth would I then go and prove that he was?

 

[Rage Racer]

So, the "Islamic State" has claimed responsibility. Too bad the French security services couldn't protect their people from them and messed up third time.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Too bad the French security services couldn't protect their people from them and messed up third time.

How, exactly, are they supposed to be able to protect the people from one man who only has a history of petty crime, legally rents a roadworthy vehicle and causes carnage without carrying a weapon?

 

[Rage Racer]

How, exactly, are they supposed to be able to protect the people from one man who only has a history of petty crime, legally rents a roadworthy vehicle and causes carnage without carrying a weapon?

At least - secure the places of mass gatherings properly. I heard Promenade des Anglais was secured with nothing but a couple of police Peugeots (and the cops weren't wearing armor vests - some say they were barely even armed), and approaches to the walking area were blocked with only plastic blocks that could be knocked off by wind, let alone vehicle.

And, even if the attacker was one man who only has a history of petty crime - he did get the guns and grenades (found in the truck) somewhere? France isn't America, you can't buy these in a legal shop here. The would be even more casualties if he used them.

 

[Milouse]

he did get the guns and grenades (found in the truck) somewhere? (...) The would be even more casualties if he used them

These were plastic made. Toys. Only his hand gun was working, riffles and grenade were fake.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So, the "Islamic State" has claimed responsibility.

Source? All the news have confirmed here is that Da'esh says he was one of their "followers", that hardly makes it one of their operations.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

he did get the guns and grenades (found in the truck) somewhere?

I recall reading somewhere that they were fakes.

At least - secure the places of mass gatherings properly. I heard Promenade des Anglais was secured with nothing but a couple of police Peugeots (and the cops weren't wearing armor vests - some say they were barely even armed)

And how do you expect the police to do that with no credible evidence of an imminent attack?

 

[Rage Racer]

These were plastic made. Toys. Only his hand gun was working, riffles and grenade were fake.

I recall reading somewhere that they were fakes.

Hmm... Alright, I'll believe for now. But that's still strange... Why? To scare? But they were in a closed box...

Source?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3693176/Four-arrested-Nice-terror-attack.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/17/world/europe/isis-nice-france-attack.html?_r=0
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/isis-claim-responsibility-nice-terrorist-8432501

And how do you expect the police to do that with no credible evidence of an imminent attack?

Naturally.
It was a national holiday with a lot of people to be walking in the specific areas of the city. Not the best time to relax after the Euro. And, moreover, France was still on the state of high terrorist alert that was yet to be lifted on 26th of July (or so), now it's extended on three more months (I heard). Didn't that suppose the police and other security services to exercise more caution than usual?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Didn't that suppose the police and other security services to exercise more caution than usual?

Resources are finite, and can only be directed where needed. With no cause to believe that an attack was imminent, there was no apparent need to use those resources there, especially since positioning them in Nice meant that they would not be stationed elsewhere. The only solution would be to constantly deploy resources everywhere, which not only turns the country into a police state, but also means changing your way of life as a response to terrorism - and, as is oft-quoted, that means the terrorists win.

Your entire argument hinges on the idea the police could somehow predict the actions of a lone individual who acted entirely within the bounds of the law until he hit the first person - which is impossible to do.

 

[Johnnypenso]

This was in the post I quoted, which you then linked to:
If you want to try and use somebody's words against them, make sure you read everything first.

I never mentioned ISIL once and you asked me to prove the link. You're very confused.

What's the alternative? To do just enough to keep them at bay, but not enough to thwart them outright? All that's going to do is keep the spectre of extremism hanging over our heads. You know perfectly well that bombing them isn't enough - you have to fight against the ideology as well as against the action.

There is no alternative. Tell the truth, don't pretend they don't exist, cut off their funding, cut off their supply routes as best you can, kill as many as you can. History has proven that you can't win over people who are delusional and homicidal, you can only kill them.

Pretty well, considering that we got practically no coverage of him.

You must live on a different planet than me. Where I live, planet Earth, we were deluged with coverage for days.

Wait, what? My whole argument is that we shouldn't be jumping to the conclusion that he was associated with ISIL? Why on earth would I then go and prove that he was?

It's called being facetious. You mentioned them 4 times in the post I quoted and I never mentioned them at all yet you quoted my post as if I did. You look very confused.

 

[mister dog]

In Dutch we have a word for people that like to pretend this has nothing to do with Islam, and say "there really is nothing to worry about as it's only a crazy individual here and there". It's called 'Wegkijkers' which means 'people who look away'.

To me these people are as much a threat to our Western societies as radical Islamists themselves, as it's because of them that we are currently stalling our defenses. We aren't even allowed to call the problem for what it is yet!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

We aren't even allowed to call the problem for what it is yet!

You're just making the assumption that it has something to do with radical Islam. You don't have any proof of it. Once you do have proof, then by all means, go ahead.

If "people who like to pretend this has nothing to do with Islam" are a threat, then surely people like yourself who rush to judgement are an equal threat. You have no proof that this was an attack carried out in the name of Islam, but you're happy to blame the religion. What happens when the dust settles from the next attack and the people responsible say that they did it because you assumed that they were guilty of the last one without proof? It is well-documented that alienating and ostracising parts of the community is a major cause of radicalisation.

We have a word in English for people who want to blame Muslims for everything that happens: Islamophobe.