Many Killed in Attack in Nice

[MatskiMonk]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/15/europe/nice-france-truck/

You're either trying to make out this was actually a mass shooting, or you're trying to be a smart ass over a technicality...

A thread about violence => Political implications = perfectly reasonable
A thread about violence => Political implications = not reasonable at all

Hypocrisy

How do the political implications for France, the people of Nice, the families of those killed, and those that were injured relate to a mass-shooting in a gay club in Florida? If gun fans want to go around parading this as an example of how anti-gun Americans should look at mass-shootings then fine, but surely that is more relevant to post it when the next US mass shooting happens? (I bolded "relevant" because you seem to have misinterpreted me saying "I don't think it relevant", as "not reasonable at all").. and the thing that seems to have taken Michael's post from simply being irrelevant to this event, to being one worthy of discussion is because he was doing exactly what he was complaining about others doing (and perhaps the kind of thing you're labeling me as a hypocrite for doing!).

 

[Sanji Himura]

You're either trying to make out this was actually a mass shooting, or you're trying to be a smart ass over a technicality...

Nice was never about the gun, that much I do concede. The issue is when people like you and the media in general is trying to point out the fact that shootings, in particular when they happen in the US, has always been about the gun when it should have been on the person pulling the trigger. To put it another way, take a look at the major crimes committed within the last six months and the related media coverage about them.

Orlando: Mass Shooting: Blame the gun instead of the shooter.
Turkey: Bombing: ISIS is blamed
Nice: Truck/Gun: Don't blame ISIS nor the gun.

Starting to see the hypocrisy here?

 

[Danoff]

How do the political implications for France, the people of Nice, the families of those killed, and those that were injured relate to a mass-shooting in a gay club in Florida? If gun fans want to go around parading this as an example of how anti-gun Americans should look at mass-shootings then fine, but surely that is more relevant to post it when the next US mass shooting happens? (I bolded "relevant" because you seem to have misinterpreted me saying "I don't think it relevant", as "not reasonable at all").. and the thing that seems to have taken Michael's post from simply being irrelevant to this event, to being one worthy of discussion is because he was doing exactly what he was complaining about others doing (and perhaps the kind of thing you're labeling me as a hypocrite for doing!).

You're drawing a distinction about what is relevant to a discussion about gun regulation. You're saying that tragic events which involve guns are pertinent to the gun conversation, and that tragic events which do not involve guns are not pertinent to the gun conversation. In fact, whether banning guns would prevent mass killings is one of the primary focuses of the gun discussion. This is an example of confirmation bias - a refusal to consider information that does not confirm a predetermined position.

I'm perfectly fine with not talking about the political implications of these events in the thread about them. I'd prefer that we discuss the incident only and leave the political discussion for other threads. But to say that the discussion, even though it is pertinent to the gun conversation, is not pertinent to this thread about a tragedy but would be pertinent to a thread about a different tragedy if that one involves guns is hypocritical.

Think about what you're saying for a second. You literally just argued that people should talk about the Nice event in a thread that isn't about the Nice event instead of here.

Maybe we should just all agree that the gun ban talk belongs in a thread other than the one discussing the facts about the latest tragedy, and let's agree to do that for ALL threads, not just the ones that confirm our biases.

 

[Zenith]

No, we're only allowed to talk about guns when we can make them out to be the bad guy!

I wonder how the Nice attacker was stopped... I bet the police used a truck.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Nice was never about the gun, that much I do concede. The issue is when people like you and the media in general is trying to point out the fact that shootings, in particular when they happen in the US, has always been about the gun when it should have been on the person pulling the trigger.

I understand that, but this isn't a thread about an event that is being unjustly blamed on something that wasn't at fault... so why bring it up here, other than to hi-jack the debate and try and play the victim card?

To put it another way, take a look at the major crimes committed within the last six months and the related media coverage about them.

Orlando: Mass Shooting: Blame the gun instead of the shooter.
Turkey: Bombing: ISIS is blamed
Nice: Truck/Gun: Don't blame ISIS nor the gun.

Starting to see the hypocrisy here?

Starting to see why gun talk is irrelevant in this thread?

You're drawing a distinction about what is relevant to a discussion about gun regulation. You're saying that tragic events which involve guns are pertinent to the gun conversation, and that tragic events which do not involve guns are not pertinent to the gun conversation.

The gun conversation has no relevance to this thread! I'm saying that the gun conversation is relevant to tragic events which involve guns, and the gun conversation is (generally*) not pertinent to events that don't involve guns.

*unless the discussion was about if the people of Nice were all armed for self defence... might make sense then..

Maybe we should just all agree that the gun ban talk belongs in a thread other than the one discussing the facts about the latest tragedy, and let's agree to do that for ALL threads, not just the ones that confirm our biases.

I wouldn't have much of an issue with that. Gun control has no bearing on this, so why discuss it here. If this has a bearing on gun control, why not bring it up in the gun control debate.

 

[Danoff]

The gun conversation has no relevance to this thread! I'm saying that the gun conversation is relevant to tragic events which involve guns, and the gun conversation is (generally*) not pertinent to events that don't involve guns.

Only if you're practicing confirmation bias is that true. The arguments made in tragic events involving guns are directly related to tragic events which do not involve guns. If you limit the discussion in the way you propose you basically only allow discussion of events that confirm one side of the argument. I'm surprised you're not seeing that.

I wouldn't have much of an issue with that. Gun control has no bearing on this, so why discuss it here. If this has a bearing on gun control, why not bring it up in the gun control debate.

Deal. Let's take the position that gun control debates have no place in threads regarding tragedies - regardless of the tragedy.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

No, we're only allowed to talk about guns when we can make them out to be the bad guy!

I wonder how the Nice attacker was stopped... I bet the police used a truck.

Laughed at this more than I should have.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Deal.

Out of interest I checked the Guns thread. Seems Michael only decided to try and get a rise out of this thread after you were the only one to acknowledge his point in that thread.

But yeah, Deal.

 

[DCP]

I thought as much, this short clip explains allot of what is actually happening

 

[TenEightyOne]

I don't see Islamic scholars going around and making another version of the Quran just because they don't like something in it.

Yes, you do.

 

[Scaff]

I thought as much, this short clip explains allot of what is actually happening

A rather obvious mix of truth and assumptive nonsense, with nice graphes unsupported by any sources data at all.

It's also simply not true to say that it's unique to France or that France are doing nothing about it. The French media do most certainly challenge the absurd points of religion, one magazine in particular.

 

[mister dog]

A rather obvious mix of truth and assumptive nonsense, with nice graphes unsupported by any sources data at all.

He explains pretty good what drives what we call 'bad muslims' to turn Jihadi as an ultimate way of getting a ticket to paradise. It's also hard to deny that the Koran itself contains many verses that inspire them to do so. So i wouldn't call it assumptive nonsense unless you could pinpoint what you are referring to.

It's also simply not true to say that it's unique to France or that France are doing nothing about it. The French media do most certainly challenge the absurd points of religion, one magazine in particular.

I guess you mean Charlie Hebdo right? You think a satirical cartoon magazine has as big as an influence as mainstream media outlets, newspapers and television stations? The lovely fella that butchered the priest in his own church was released with an ankle bracelet even though authorities knew he was an IS fan and was eager to perform jihad.

For Nice there was reportedly one police car present at a mass event, and no concrete blocks to prevent unwanted individuals to drive up the promenade. Easy to say so afterwards i know, but in times of a high nationwide terror alert one could argue that French authorities could do more to protect their people.

 

[Scaff]

He explains pretty good what drives what we call 'bad muslims' to turn Jihadi as an ultimate way of getting a ticket to paradise. It's also hard to deny that the Koran itself contains many verses that inspire them to do so. So i wouldn't call it assumptive nonsense unless you could pinpoint what you are referring to.

Its assumptive and over-simplistic. It totally ignores any other driving factor, such as the historic French involvement in Algeria and the long running socio-economic factors faced by a large number of French Muslims. It claims that the Koran instructs Muslims to attack when they are in the majority, odd then that Muslims in France are far from a majority. Its uses visuals to attempt to show that these 'bad Muslims' turned killers form a significant proportion of the Muslim community, yet fails to back that up with any source what so ever.

It takes a singular view of how you get into heaven that is both not mainstream, nor unique to Islam (take a similar view to that based on both the Torah and the Bible and its actually more extreme, given that only 144,000 are getting into heaven).

It also take a singular view that Jihad can only be violent, when it simply means 'struggle'; as such one doesn't have to die practicing violent Jihad to get in, but could be as simple a situation as striving to be better person and still qualify.

Nor do I deny that the Koran contains chapters that can be used as an inspiration to violence, in exactly the same way that almost every religious text does (and reference by reference the Bible is far more violent).

I guess you mean Charlie Hebdo right? You think a satirical cartoon magazine has as big as an influence as mainstream media outlets, newspapers and television stations?

And? He clearly states that no part of the French media challenge Islamic extremism and that is quite clearly nonsense, and all that is required to show that is a singular example (he was quite specific in saying that the French media does nothing to challenge it).

He also fails to mention that the French government is has for example banned the wearing of face coverings in public places (with no religious exemptions), banned all religious symbols in schools (with no exemptions to any faith) and has a strict separation of Church and State (for all faiths).

To attempt to claim that France is soft on offending religious sensibilities in bollocks to the point of hilarity.

The lovely fella that butchered the priest in his own church was released with an ankle bracelet even though authorities knew he was an IS fan and was eager to perform jihad.

For Nice there was reportedly one police car present at a mass event, and no concrete blocks to prevent unwanted individuals to drive up the promenade. Easy to say so afterwards i know, but in times of a high nationwide terror alert one could argue that French authorities could do more to protect their people.

Which is an issue with police failures and nothing at all to do with the points raised in that video.

 

[mister dog]

Its assumptive and over-simplistic. It totally ignores any other driving factor, such as the historic French involvement in Algeria and the long running socio-economic factors faced by a large number of French Muslims.

Which doesn't take away from the fact that some Muslims that have ignored the prescriptions of the Koran (by living western lifestyles or getting involved in criminal acts), do think slaughtering infidels is a one way ticket to paradise?
I doubt the French involvement in Algeria last century, or social economic factors are a driving factor of wanting to become a mass murderer.

It claims that the Koran instructs Muslims to attack when they are in the majority, odd then that Muslims in France are far from a majority. Its uses visuals to attempt to show that these 'bad Muslims' turned killers form a significant proportion of the Muslim community, yet fails to back that up with any source what so ever.

Sources are all the Jihadi's that have committed attacks in France in the past years. That speaks for itself doesn't it? The majority statement is applicable to countries were that actually is a factor. He wasn't referring to France there.

It takes a singular view of how you get into heaven that is both not mainstream, nor unique to Islam (take a similar view to that based on both the Torah and the Bible and its actually more extreme, given that only 144,000 are getting into heaven).

Do other religious books literally state that killing grants you access to heaven? If so please give a source.

It also take a singular view that Jihad can only be violent, when it simply means 'struggle'; as such one doesn't have to die practicing violent Jihad to get in, but could be as simple a situation as striving to be better person and still qualify.

True.

Its
Nor do I deny that the Koran contains chapters that can be used as an inspiration to violence, in exactly the same way that almost every religious text does (and reference by reference the Bible is far more violent).

Again, please give a source that the Bible states you earn a pass to heaven if you kill someone.

And? He clearly states that no part of the French media challenge Islamic extremism and that is quite clearly nonsense, and all that is required to show that is a singular example (he was quite specific in saying that the French media does nothing to challenge it).

He also fails to mention that the French government is has for example banned the wearing of face coverings in public places (with no religious exemptions), banned all religious symbols in schools (with no exemptions to any faith) and has a strict separation of Church and State (for all faiths).

To attempt to claim that France is soft on offending religious sensibilities in bollocks to the point of hilarity.

The one that slit the 84 year old priests throat, was released and walked around with an ankle bracelet. Banning religious symbols or the separation of Church and state have nothing to do with the crackdown on Jihadi's or Islamic extremism.

 

[Scaff]

Which doesn't take away from the fact that some Muslims that have ignored the prescriptions of the Koran (by living western lifestyles or getting involved in criminal acts), do think slaughtering infidels is a one way ticket to paradise?

I didn't say its doesn't play a part, I said the video ignores any other factor that drives extremist behavior.

I doubt the French involvement in Algeria last century, or social economic factors are a driving factor of wanting to become a mass murderer.

If the mass murder in question is a religious extremist then yes they would be. For a start the French involvement in Aleria is still living memory for a good number of people in both countries, and has parallels with the use of torture in the middle east, as such its rife for exploitation by those wishing to create extremists. As for socio-economic factors not being a factor? Are you actually seriously suggesting that poor populations, with lower prospects, who are marginalized (quite heavily in France's case) and have significantly lower education and employment prospects are not prime targets for easier radicalization?

Quite frankly if you aren't aware of that being a driving factor then you have no idea at all what you are on about.

Sources are all the Jihadi's that have committed attacks in France in the past years. That speaks for itself doesn't it? The majority statement is applicable to countries were that actually is a factor. He wasn't referring to France there.

Yes he was referring to France.

Do other religious books literally state that killing grants you access to heaven? If so please give a source.

How many do you want, the old testament is littered with people being directly order by God to kill people. Entire civilizations are demanded to be wiped out. Do you think anyone who said no was getting into heaven?

God demanded that people were killed on a regular basis just to stay his hand from murdering everyone of his followers, let alone to get you into heaven! So please don't try and claim that Judism or Christianity has some kind of moral high-ground when it comes to killing in the name of God. All three of the Abrahamic faiths allow for interpretation and direct reading that killing the unbelievers is required to enter heaven.

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die."

Not even remotely ambiguous.

You also seem unaware of what is required to get into heaven in Christianity (aside from only 144,00 places being available, and you have to be from one of the twelve tribes of Israel, and that's New Testament for you).....

Matthew 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

...so unless you have given everything away and devoting every part of your life to God (to the exclusion of everything else including your family) your not getting in.

Not to mentions Romans (just in case you think its all Old Testament stuff) in which a big list of people who are worthy of death...

"1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; that they are without excuse:
1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
1:31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

Gay? Worship another God? Lust after anything? Boast? Disobey your parents?

Any of those and more and you are worthy of death!

Its both hypocritical and nonsense to level the claims he did against one of the Abrahamic trio, when the other two are no different.

The one that slit the 84 year old priests throat, was released and walked around with an ankle bracelet.

And that indicates a failing of the French media to address radical Islam in what way?

Banning religious symbols or the separation of Church and state have nothing to do with the crackdown on Jihadi's or Islamic extremism.

Yes they do. The ban on face-coverings in public was brought into law as a direct response to it, as was the crack down in recent years on religious symbols in schools.

Its almost like you didn't bother to follow the links or read them!

 

[mister dog]

I didn't say its doesn't play a part, I said the video ignores any other factor that drives extremist behavior.

Extremist behavior (which is a very broad theme) VS a ticket to paradise by killing people, which is the point of his video. Although the 2 are interlocked it's a different discussion.

If the mass murder in question is a religious extremist then yes they would be. For a start the French involvement in Aleria is still living memory for a good number of people in both countries, and has parallels with the use of torture in the middle east, as such its rife for exploitation by those wishing to create extremists. As for socio-economic factors not being a factor? Are you actually seriously suggesting that poor populations, with lower prospects, who are marginalized (quite heavily in France's case) and have significantly lower education and employment prospects are not prime targets for easier radicalization?

Quite frankly if you aren't aware of that being a driving factor then you have no idea at all what you are on about

Like i said above, radicalization is one thing (and like it or not there is a direct link to Islam because of what is written in the Koran), and actually going out and performing a suicidal terrorist attack is another as that is inspired by the 'redemption' verse that states you get to enter paradise by doing so. Again the point of his video, and IMO the driving force behind radicals performing such horrible attacks.

Yes he was referring to France.

Nope as Muslims aren't a majority there.

How many do you want, the old testament is littered with people being directly order by God to kill people. Entire civilizations are demanded to be wiped out. Do you think anyone who said no was getting into heaven?

God demanded that people were killed on a regular basis just to stay his hand from murdering everyone of his followers, let alone to get you into heaven! So please don't try and claim that Judism or Christianity has some kind of moral high-ground when it comes to killing in the name of God.

All three of the Abrahamic faiths allow for interpretation and direct reading that killing the unbelievers is required to enter heaven.

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die."

Not even remotely ambiguous.

You also seem unaware of what is required to get into heaven in Christianity (aside from only 144,00 places being available, and you have to be from one of the twelve tribes of Israel, and that's New Testament for you).....

Matthew 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

...so unless you have given everything away and devoting every part of your life to God (to the exclusion of everything else including your family) your not getting in.

Not to mentions Romans (just in case you think its all Old Testament stuff) in which a big list of people who are worthy of death...

"1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; that they are without excuse:
1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
1:31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

Gay? Worship another God? Lust after anything? Boast? Disobey your parents?

Any of those and more and you are worthy of death!

Violent verses that refer to punishment yes, but i see no literal sentence saying 'he who kills unbelievers is redeemed for all his sins and is getting into heaven'. Again the point of the mans video.

And that indicates a failing of the French media to address radical Islam in what way?

That was referring to the second part of your paragraph which you conveniently left out now:

He also fails to mention that the French government is has for example banned the wearing of face coverings in public places (with no religious exemptions), banned all religious symbols in schools (with no exemptions to any faith) and has a strict separation of Church and State (for all faiths).

To attempt to claim that France is soft on offending religious sensibilities in bollocks to the point of hilarity.

Its almost like you didn't bother to follow the links or read them!

It's almost like you turn around the discussion, using stuff that has nothing to do with 'that verse', as to take everyone's eye of the ball!

 

[Scaff]

Extremist behavior (which is a very broad theme) VS a ticket to paradise by killing people, which is the point of his video. Although the 2 are interlocked it's a different discussion.

No it was one point of his video, and in his argument the reason why France is suffering so many attacks. It doesn't explain why the same is not true of other countries at all, which would lead to a logical conclusion that other factors are also at play.

Like i said above, radicalization is one thing (and like it or not there is a direct link to Islam because of what is written in the Koran),...

I know, I pointed that out.

...and actually going out and performing a suicidal terrorist attack is another as that is inspired by the 'redemption' verse that states you get to enter paradise by doing so. Again the point of his video, and IMO the driving force behind radicals performing such horrible attacks.

Actually the verse says nothing at all about suicide.

Nope as Muslims aren't a majority there.

Then according to his claims no attacks at all should be being carried out, as they should be in 'hiding'; which is the exact contradiction I mentioned.

Violent verses that refer to punishment yes, but i see no literal sentence saying 'he who kills unbelievers is redeemed for all his sins and is getting into heaven'. Again the point of the mans video.

A point that is no more accepted by the vast, vast majority of Muslims than Christian who believe that people 'guilty' of those 'crimes' should be put to death!

Yet both have been used to justify acts of terrorism.

So why does he give one a free pass and infer that the other is going to happen to a significant number of French Muslims? Could it have something to do with him being an evangelical Christian with a track record of apologism for his own faith and attacks on other faiths (or absence of)?

That was referring to the second part of your paragraph which you conveniently left out now:

I didn't leave anything out. You quoted both pieces in your reply, without the ability to read minds I have no way of knowing which one you refer to at all.

However your clarification makes no difference, as none of those laws would have been applicable at all.

The point was however that his claims that French attitudes on radical Islam, i.e. the media is too soft on it and the country as a whole does nothing to deal with it, is simply not true.

It's almost like you turn around the discussion, using stuff that has nothing to do with 'that verse', as to take everyone's eye of the ball!

Well that's rather easy to address, given that its not as clear cut a situation he (and given your support I assume you as well) would like to make it out to be.

Sorry if it being a complex and multi-layered issues conflicts with the simplistic world view the pair of you seem to share.