Terror Attack at Nice, France

[Ein]

84 people killed and around 50 in intensive care by a Muslim man driving a truck through a family event in Nice, France.

People are framing this as though it was a freak accident or that the fucking truck itself was responsible such as The New York Times and several Arab news outlets including the English Aljezeera News network.

People are not being allowed to even bring up the issue of these attacks because then they will be shut down due to pointing out that the ones responsible for the attacks are Islamists and that doing so is not politically correct.

An example would be the fact that France suppressed information of the French Bataclan concert in that the attackers went around mutilating and torturing several of their their victims.

An ideology that claims to be peaceful but has many passages within their own text that say otherwise. Whether it is how women are to behave or be treated, what to do with apostates, what to do with non-believers or those who refuse to convert, what to do homosexuals, that criticism of Muhammad or the text is not allowed. The very fact that people are committing these terrible attacks in name of their ideology while others claim it to be a religion of peace is simply baffling and the media and social outlets only further hamper the ability to speak of it in the open.

[Lord Raven]

I have no idea why people dont respond to stuff like the last paragraph ever because it's thrown out a lot in this forum

but we should not pretend that many major religions haven't had many similar issues. the west is fairly christian as a whole (but not ruled by christianity) and we shouldn't pretend it took them until the 20s/30s for women's sovereignty with still many issues with women in the work place

we also shouldn't pretend america didn't just recently allow gay marriage universally. Furthermore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_States#1969.E2.80.931979

FURTHERMORE I do not think christians are allowed to criticize jesus. Did you also know Mormons were chased off of the east coast + it was legal to kill a Mormon in Missouri until 1976? I mean, granted, the law would not have been upheld then, but the fact that it was legal in the 19th century should speak to how uncivilized the west had been up until modern times.

shit like Fox News are definitely speaking about it in the open too - don't get me wrong here. And don't even get me started on people who thought that me and a few other Muslim-born children around me growing up would turn into devout terrorists when they grew up. The point isn't to criticize Islam, because criticizing Islam means criticizing other Abrahamic religions for doing basically the same thing (but the cultures have becoming gradually more tolerant). The point is that it should not turn into an east vs west thing, and out and out singling out Islam for something that's relatively universal is showing more of a combative mentality towards domestic citizens and otherwise innocent people (so basically an entire group of people), which tends to incite more of this. I don't think people really realize that the middle east is in a state of flux for reasons unrelated to Islamic aggression. If we are to criticize Islam, so be it, but let's separate the religion from the people who do not necessarily believe in that ideology to as fundamental of an extent.

[Tryhard]

As well as the above, there's a reason Christians no longer engage in stoning people to death for crimes. There's some pretty terrible things in the bible, some may still hold to such as the interpretation that gays are an abomination. For an example, the majority of terrorism in the UK in the years preceding 1998 were from the 'The Troubles' in Ireland where the Irish Republican Army carried out many terrorist attacks for political and religious (in this case, between Protestant and Catholic Christians) differences. It happens to be that Islam extremism has been the most common motive in recent years.

So what exactly is being brought up? That Islamic terrorism is bad and we should do what we can to stop it? Yes, absolutely - within reason.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Tryhard

[Soapbar]

Ok first of all source your shit

Second of all, simply getting up, using a terror attack that has killed 84 people and injured 202 others to make a point about Islam does not make you look like a bastion of truth. No, it makes you look an asshole who uses shit like this to further an anti-Islamic agenda with no respect for anybody who was affected by this attack. While the Islamic religon is flawed (all religions are), an argument criticizing them should be looking at their texts and beliefs, and not the radicals associated with them. Every single ideology thought up by the people of this planet has at least one person who has militarized, radicalized, or otherwise used it to cause harm. Islam is no different.

My heart goes out to those who've lost loved ones to this and a prayer to those in critical condition/comatose.

[blah the Prussian]

I think the issue is fairly obvious: Islamic civilization is going through its own version of the Dark Ages. ISIS, Hezbollah, Wahhabism: this was Western Civilization centuries ago, and if you look at the time difference between the rise of Western Civilization and the rise of Islam, the timetables match up. In the years following the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe degenerated into greater religious fundamentalism and the Middle Ages, and in the years following the fall of the Ottoman's the same thing essentially happened to the Middle East. To pretend that this is a problem with Islam is to ignore history; it is a problem with the general decline of the power and importance of the Middle East since the 1700s. Eventually, the Middle East will experience a Renniassance. Until then, though, we would do well to remember the achievements of the Ummayads, the Abbasids, and the Ottomans alongside the evil of ISIS.

[Tryhard]

The IRA hasn't killed nearly as much as ISIS, al qaeda, hamas, and hezbollah however. Radical christianity does exist, however this shouldn't be used to excuse the issue of radical islam.

Once radical christianity becomes as big an issue, we will focus on it more, however right now it should be obvious Islam is in need of reform and it's members need to really focus on clarifying their doctrine.

Sure, I agree. I should have stated that I wasn't intending to be seen as "defending Islam" or "condemning Christianity", and I wouldn't excuse extremist Islamists. My point was that in the past in the UK at the very least, Christianity was the main reason for terrorism, and nobody questioned the teachings of it then. I feel as though the turbulent state of the Muslim world is contributing to this.

My sister lives in Nice and was in the crowd and had to flee, fortunately she seems to be okay. One of the people killed was said to be a "60-year-old Moroccan named Fatima Charrihi was killed, according to her son Hamza. He told local media that she was a devout Muslim who practiced “real Islam, not that of the terrorists”." Most in these countries like France just want to live in peace.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Tryhard

[Rapier]

The problem with putting the terrorists responsible for the attacks and common muslims in the same sack is that the latter group, while religious, usually won't retort to violence or force to further impose their beliefs (at least in the west, since the east is full of fundamentalist maniacs), so the generalization doesn't follow. If there is evidence of the contrary, I'm all ears (well, eyes).

By the way, that's also like the difference between common christians and the Westboro church or the KKK. "Radicals" is a subgroup of "religious", but "religious" doesn't necessarily mean "radical", since that group is so ample. I dislike to say the obvious, that being religious doesn't make you a radical, but that radicals can be religious, and they can't be mistaken merely because they share the same beliefs since that is bullshit reasoning.

The guy behind the attack on Nice (be it really a terrorist attack or not) wasn't just a muslim, he was a pretty psychologically messed up person, from what the news say. Someone who commited crimes before and who already retorted to violence. Religion wasn't the only necessary factor for this incident.

This however doesn't mean there is nothing wrong with islam. Far from it. It needs to secularize, and muslims living in the west need to secularize, just like christians did, in order to live here without religious conflicts. Barbaric practices such as punishing someone (with death?) for drawing Muhammad from stoning gay people or your own daughter for being raped "because it is a shame for the family" need to be acted against, among other anti-LGBT and minorities practices, religious fundamentalism of any kind must be weakened until it becomes extinct, and those who can not bring themselves to respect individual liberties and coexist peacefully have no place to live on the west. I will speak against people who put muslims on the same sack, but I'll fight people who pretend there is nothing wrong all the same. If that includes facing both the left and the right simultaneously, I'll deal with both sides in the same way.

[Hli Tshiab]

? Who do you mean will be seen as innocent?

Gonna post this here, because the other topic is suppose to be a news topic and not to be talked about.

But the people I'm talking about are those radical Islamist.

Ben Shapiro made a video explaining radical and if it's a minority... https://youtu.be/g7TAAw3oQvg

If you don't like him, or focus to much on statistics possibly being skewed/biased/etc, then at least watch it to ponder. If anyone thinks that they'll be offended then DO AVOID THE VIDEO, it's not required to watch.

[Rapier]

Gonna post this here, because the other topic is suppose to be a news topic and not to be talked about.

But the people I'm talking about are those radical Islamist.

Ben Shapiro made a video explaining radical and if it's a minority... https://youtu.be/g7TAAw3oQvg

If you don't like him, or focus to much on statistics possibly being skewed/biased/etc, then at least watch it to ponder. If anyone thinks that they'll be offended then DO AVOID THE VIDEO, it's not required to watch.

I'd watch the video but I can't understand english. Maybe you could share the sources he uses on his video and how he "proves that it is not just a minority"?

tbh I don't really like Ben Shapiro. I saw one video of him back then that was about how to discuss with leftists, painting them as evil, dishonest people that need to be unmasked by the morally and intelectually superior right-wing. I try to distance from people with this political mentality as much as I can. Not only did Shapiro miss the point (that it is dumb people hardly capable of making logical arguments or being coherent that make political discussions bad, instead of being one side's entire fault), but the notion of the right-wing being intelectually superior is laughable (hi, Fox News, Ann Coulter and other nutjobs). Once I noticed this smugness from conservatives and saw how many of their arguments were flawed, I left their boat.

it could have merit though.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Rapier

[Lord Raven]

I think the issue is fairly obvious: Islamic civilization is going through its own version of the Dark Ages. ISIS, Hezbollah, Wahhabism: this was Western Civilization centuries ago, and if you look at the time difference between the rise of Western Civilization and the rise of Islam, the timetables match up. In the years following the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe degenerated into greater religious fundamentalism and the Middle Ages, and in the years following the fall of the Ottoman's the same thing essentially happened to the Middle East. To pretend that this is a problem with Islam is to ignore history; it is a problem with the general decline of the power and importance of the Middle East since the 1700s. Eventually, the Middle East will experience a Renniassance. Until then, though, we would do well to remember the achievements of the Ummayads, the Abbasids, and the Ottomans alongside the evil of ISIS.

I think this sums up my viewpoint perfectly. I basically don't have enough of a grasp on history to make this point, but effectively I think this is the best way to word "the nations in the middle east are in a state of chaos."

[Rapier]

And what could trigger a "rennaissance" on the Middle East? IIRC it was triggered in the west from western thoughts that were heavily inspired on greek philosophy and roman law (like freedom of thought), and those eventually gave rise to liberalism and secularism. The Middle East couldn't care less about personal freedom, individuality and the separation of religion and law, among other thoughts that inspired the west to gradually secularize. How are they going to reach a "rennaissance" point if they share nothing in common with the thoughts that kicked in the rennaissance at the west?

Edited July 15, 2016 by Rapier

[Lord Raven]

i mean the point is that they aren't going through the exact dark ages, they're going through an equivalent

i mean you're still acting like some youth out east are completely indoctrinated in middle eastern ideals. yes, many are, but western culture has found its way out east

my mom went to pakistan a few years back and was surprised at how much western culture had influenced it. sure it's nowhere close, but it's still there

[Tryhard]

Too many young muslims in vulnerable conditions are being radicalized and many clerics in these areas are actually facilitating this.

I'm not saying this to put the blame on that 90% of muslims, but the leadership figures.

I think what a lot of Canadian Imams are currently undergoing is what the rest should strive for:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-council-of-imams-to-open-deradicalization-clinics-to-battle-growing-problem-of-extremism

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-imams-on-isil-hit-list-for-preaching-against-extremism-and-steering-muslims-away-from-jihad

Obviously they can identify the problems, this was the same sort of relationship that a certain Imam had with the police that lead to the foiling of a terrorist plot in 2013:

http://www.vosizneias.com/129138/2013/04/23/toronto-canada-lawyer-canadian-imam-tipped-off-rcmp-in-train-plot/

I think a better relationship for the local enforcement and government with the regular Muslim communities instead of fear will be very helpful.

[blah the Prussian]

And what could trigger a "rennaissance" on the Middle East? IIRC it was triggered in the west from western thoughts that were heavily inspired on greek philosophy and roman law (like freedom of thought), and those eventually gave rise to liberalism and secularism. The Middle East couldn't care less about personal freedom, individuality and the separation of religion and law, among other thoughts that inspired the west to gradually secularize. How are they going to reach a "rennaissance" point if they share nothing in common with the thoughts that kicked in the rennaissance at the west?

As others have said, the Abbasid Caliphate was significantly more enlightened than the Islam of Iran and Saudi Arabia. In my view the Middle East would experience a Renniasance in much the same way that Jordan has avoided falling to either Baathism or fundamentalism: gradual reform. And to say that either the Greeks or the Romans, much as I love them, were secular, is absurd. Again, Jordan under Hussein and continuing under Abdullah is already experiencing something of a Renniassance in the form of gradual political reform and secularization. The rest of the Middle East is more complicated. Saudi Arabia is the biggest hurdle here, since Wahhabism is so ingrained in society. To be honest I don't know how Saudi Arabia will be solved, and it will take a lot of dead people before Saudi Arabia is an even slightly decent place to live. As for ISIS, both the Syrian army and the Iraqi army are slowly pushing them back, especially the Iraqis after Fallujah. ISIS, at this point, are absolutely losing. Once ISIS are defeated, Syria and Iraq should follow the model of Jordan. Syria is obviously the harder version, and I don't expect it's full revival to come in my lifetime, but for Iraq, it's quite doable. To the end of secularizing, I think Iraq should restore the Hashemite Monarchy, simply because Republicanism, as demonstrated many times by history, is the system worst suited to handling such extremely unstable times. I could do a whole essay on King Hussein and his role in the development of Jordan, but suffice it to say that the strong Monarchies present in Jordan and Morocco were essential to those two being the only Arab countries that were not hellholes to be still recognizable from their forms in 1948. But basically, a precedent for a Renniassance has already been shown in Jordan, so I think that the answer to how the Middle East will experience this is clear.

[Ansem]

I like to consider myself liberal, but terrorism confuses me. Emotionally I side with conservatives on terrorism, and Trump's policy is the only one that appeals to me. I am in no way trying to justify the taking of innocent lives, but I know one liberal argument is that these terrorist attack occur because of the Western world's foreign policy and how we are constantly bombing their land with no regard for their citizen's lives. Despite this, I do not think that halting the bombing would stop these attacks. These fanatics have perverted their thoughts to the point that they believe harming innocent will bring them prosperity in the afterlife, what is stopping them from resorting to violence even after the West hypothetically pulls out of the Middle East? In addition, the internet is a powerful tool, and ISIS is an ideology(not Islam) regardless of having bases in Syria, meaning people around the world are loyal to it. How do can we fight an ideology that does not have one static base?

[Moblin Major General]

I think politicians and military leaders aren't on the same page, because so many generals seem to be treating it like a Crusade rather than a police action. I'm honestly surprised the UN hasn't taken steps to condemn all parties involved in all Middle Eastern conflicts from 1991 onward, sans Israel's Rocket War with Hezbollah. Iraqi freedom was economically motivated and also part of a cover-up of the US illegally producing and selling gas-based weapons to powers it had no business dealing with.

[dondon151]

I like to consider myself liberal, but terrorism confuses me. Emotionally I side with conservatives on terrorism, and Trump's policy is the only one that appeals to me. I am in no way trying to justify the taking of innocent lives, but I know one liberal argument is that these terrorist attack occur because of the Western world's foreign policy and how we are constantly bombing their land with no regard for their citizen's lives. Despite this, I do not think that halting the bombing would stop these attacks.

we (the bush administration) seeded the rise of ISIS through our actions in iraq

i mean i think it's pretty clear that if costly military intervention can lead to ISIS then the obvious alternative is to not partake in the same flavor of costly military intervention

military intervention leads to instability which strengthens radicalism. iraq under hussein was a mess, but at least it was stable.

now as far as trump's foreign policy goes, aside from it being as incoherent as the rest of his policies, there's no guarantee that it won't create more problems that it's supposed to solve, and if our recent history of foreign interventions is any indication, it won't point the US in some arbitrary direction of "greatness."

Edited July 16, 2016 by dondon151

[Ansem]

i mean i think it's pretty clear that if costly military intervention can lead to ISIS then the obvious alternative is to not partake in the same flavor of costly military intervention

military intervention leads to instability which strengthens radicalism. iraq under hussein was a mess, but at least it was stable.

now as far as trump's foreign policy goes, aside from it being as incoherent as the rest of his policies, there's no guarantee that it won't create more problems that it's supposed to solve, and if our recent history of foreign interventions is any indication, it won't point the US in some arbitrary direction of "greatness."

@ first statement: I feel the problem with scaling back military intervention is how the majority of people will react to it. I know that more Muslims were killed by Western powers than Western civilians by terrorist, but how many Americans know that. Source below for this btw.

http://qz.com/558597/charted-terror-attacks-in-western-europe-from-the-1970s-to-now/

http://www.statista.com/statistics/202871/number-of-fatalities-by-terrorist-attacks-worldwide/

Don't know how reliable this is because I could not find the original paper it was from, but I think it might be behind the paywall.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/unworthy-victims-western-wars-have-killed-four-million-muslims-1990-39149394

The four million statistic seems to be popular since I found multiple articles that cite it.

So my point was that what if terrorist keep attacking even if Western powers pull back from the Middle East? What if they still want revenge for the millions of Muslims killed? Also, I think it would be political suicide. Vietnam comes to mind of a war where pulling back was favored by the American people, but the war on terrorism isn't;

http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm

There are Gallup links that I would like to link, but I don't know the date of which the results were found because the site is offline for maintenance. I think it might have been an old poll since 72 is a high number. Might have been 2001 but I am not sure.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx

Here it is though

https://gyazo.com/93ce256926ccc5ffd233982305bdb0e2

This is from the first link, just one of the polls. I would link more but I think it is a good scroll for those interested. There is a lot of fear, but that is the primary motivation for why I don't think pulling out would work. The American people would not support it because it would be seen as being soft on terrorism. I'm not opposing it, I am just unsure of what exactly would work. For those that propose ravaging the homeland of the terrorists to win the war on terrorism(which is how I felt last night, ashamed to admit), we already have and that did not stop these attacks.

@bolded: I agree with this though. I live in a Muslim household, though I'm not religious. My father who is often says that the Middle East cannot handle "democracy," and the killing of Hussein and Ghaddafi destabilized the whole area. They need to be ruled with an iron fist.

@Trump's policy: I am a little calmer now, but when I posted that and all of last night, I was not in the right mind. I'm unsure about the whole matter now, but at the time I wanted to pay back blood with blood which is probably what Trump would also do(though I'm not fucking sure that guy doesn't even know what he wants). I am admitting this because I want to put into perspective the mindset of a lot of Westerners. Attacks like these anger a lot of people, myself included, and our primal urge is to fight back. That was why I said that, and there is still of bit of that bitterness inside me despite knowing how much the Western world hurt the middle east. For those that are able to keep calm and think rationally, I really do respect you. It takes a lot to not give into emotion like this. I'm not an islamophobe however and I won't attack people for being Muslim, radicals are not a part of the group they affiliate themselves with. I want to attack these terrorists, but I know this won't do much since they aren't afraid of dying.

[Magical CC]

Second of all, simply getting up, using a terror attack that has killed 84 people and injured 202 others to make a point about Islam does not make you look like a bastion of truth.

It does, actually, prove that the more Muslim you have in your country, the more chance for your country to be attacked by terrorists.

[dondon151]

I feel the problem with scaling back military intervention is how the majority of people will react to it. I know that more Muslims were killed by Western powers than Western civilians by terrorist, but how many Americans know that.

i'm well aware that the average american is woefully uninformed about various facts, unable to learn from mistakes, and driven by emotion rather than rational decision-making, which is exactly why our policy should not be dictated that way. americans as a whole have been schizophrenic about our involvement in the middle east: support for the iraq war was overwhelmingly positive in 2003 and support for a military withdrawal became the majority opinion after things started going badly. once ISIS destabilized the region, now you have the same crowd of warmongers pushing for stronger intervention. i bet you that they will be singing a different tune once things start going badly again.

whether a policy will be popular should have no bearing on whether a policy is correct.

[Magical CC]

i'm well aware that the average american is woefully uninformed about various facts, unable to learn from mistakes, and driven by emotion rather than rational decision-making, which is exactly why our policy should not be dictated that way. americans as a whole have been schizophrenic about our involvement in the middle east: support for the iraq war was overwhelmingly positive in 2003 and support for a military withdrawal became the majority opinion after things started going badly. once ISIS destabilized the region, now you have the same crowd of warmongers pushing for stronger intervention. i bet you that they will be singing a different tune once things start going badly again.

whether a policy will be popular should have no bearing on whether a policy is correct.

It's the same back in Vietnam war. Americans in general, are ignorant of world politic and are so absorbed in their fantasy super heroes garbage that their movies and comic books keep portraying while the truth is that there are many countries hate or despite US. Not even US allies are fond of US. It's American government to be blamed since it's them who keep pulling the "America is heroic and justice" propaganda crap to control their mindless sheep. They have many chances to wake up from their illusion but it seems like they dont care much about it.

[eclipse]

My sister lives in Nice and was in the crowd and had to flee, fortunately she seems to be okay. One of the people killed was said to be a "60-year-old Moroccan named Fatima Charrihi was killed, according to her son Hamza. He told local media that she was a devout Muslim who practiced real Islam, not that of the terrorists." Most in these countries like France just want to live in peace.

I'm really glad to hear that your sister's safe!

It does, actually, prove that the more Muslim you have in your country, the more chance for your country to be attacked by terrorists.

And right before the incident at Nice, the US dealt with a bunch of shootings. Want to say the same about America's police system? Because that's your logic, and it's bad.

---

For those who are desensitized, go find the videos on YouTube. Someone posted a translated transcript, and reading that was brutal enough. My condolences to the families involved, and I hope that one screaming kid's mother was okay. . .

[Lord Raven]

It's the same back in Vietnam war. Americans in general, are ignorant of world politic and are so absorbed in their fantasy super heroes garbage that their movies and comic books keep portraying while the truth is that there are many countries hate or despite US. Not even US allies are fond of US. It's American government to be blamed since it's them who keep pulling the "America is heroic and justice" propaganda crap to control their mindless sheep. They have many chances to wake up from their illusion but it seems like they dont care much about it.

I don't think this shit just applies to America. Do you even live here that you can say this? The vast majority of people I know - which is still not indicative of the whole - are pretty well aware of what's going on in the world. It just so happens there are a large number of people that remain willfully ignorant. This is not a new thing. This is just what your media and what the internet likes to tell you.

America has its problems, but don't generalize a whole population based on something you don't know shit about. Are you fucking serious? This country is massive, there are a lot of areas which are educated and a lot which are ignorant. Any given sample size in any city is not even close to a representation of the entire country, because those people came from vastly different backgrounds in vastly different parts of the country.

If you remind me sometime later (or if I remember) I'll post a snippet where Trevor Noah - a South African immigrant who is now host of the Daily Show - explains all of this significantly better than I ever will.

It does, actually, prove that the more Muslim you have in your country, the more chance for your country to be attacked by terrorists.

So where are you going with this point? Are you suggesting rounding them all up and deporting them or are you saying you isolate them from each other? But then, wouldn't this increase ignorance? I'm not really even sure why you're complaining about American propaganda despite preaching shit yourself that is clearly a result of propaganda. Edited July 16, 2016 by Lord Raven

[MisterIceTeaPeach]

I find it a bit strange that a discussion about Islam is raised since the motive of the culprit of Nizza isn't even clear yet.

He was a petty criminal and mentally ill (according to the statement of his father), but never was known to be an extremist.

This terror attack doesn't seem to have a religious backround.

It's not comparable to the terror attacks in Paris from the 13th November 2015 (although both were tragic equally).

But so much more it's tragic that it happened in France again.

My condolences to the family and friends of the victims.

[eclipse]

JUST a friendly mod reminder to not cross the line between disagreement and being a prick (not you, person above me, you're fine).