At least 73 killed in Nice, Hundreds injured

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

i don't see a substantive difference here.

Essentially now: 'By refusing entry to those who advocate for sexual mutilation and the stoning of homosexuals, the state is signalling that those who believe sexual mutilation and the stoning of homosexuals is wrong have legitimacy. '.

Which of course, they do.

This is different than what you previously wrote. And for what it's worth we're now in agreement. 

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Who was talking about banning all Muslims? 

Commodore. Nestor changed the nature of the conversation to remove a specific religion and broaden it to actual behaviors, which is a more reasonable way to look at the issue. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

This is different than what you previously wrote. And for what it's worth we're now in agreement. 

Commodore. Nestor changed the nature of the conversation to remove a specific religion and broaden it to actual behaviors, which is a more reasonable way to look at the issue. 

Except the issue is, ya know, that those behaviors aren't particularly linked with terrorism. There aren't a whole lot of FGM cases in the US, nor are there a whole lot of stoning of gays, and there's very little to indicate that those that might cause terror are actually believers of these things. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

Except the issue is, ya know, that those behaviors aren't particularly linked with terrorism. There aren't a whole lot of FGM cases in the US, nor are there a whole lot of stoning of gays, and there's very little to indicate that those that might cause terror are actually believers of these things. 

Kal, keep in mind this is a discussion that's jumping between two different threads. I am in agreement with you. I was just pointing out how the discussion changed. Both screening examples are misguided Imo, but one is less problematic than the other.  

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

6 hours ago, James Arryn said:

1) There would be a lot more if Vietnam lost the conventional war, I'd imagine.

 

 

Then again, Algeria won it's war with France and it and Tunisia are independent from France now. While it's true that there aren't very many Vietnamese immigrants to France, it's Algerian and Tunisian immigrants causing these issues, not Vietnamese.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Kal, keep in mind this is a discussion that's jumping between two different threads. I am in agreement with you. I was just pointing out how the discussion changed. Both screening examples are misguided Imo, but one is less problematic than the other.  

Oh, I know. 

But yeah, we could in theory decide to restrict people's citizenship or rights to get into the US based on certain held beliefs, but the first thing I'd ask is simply 'why'? 

If the goal is to do a shady version of the no muslims allowed thing Gingrich said he wants, it should at least be based somewhat on some actual markers that make sense. (and point of fact, this is something that the US already does via background checks and security checks). If you're just saying what bad ideas should be kept out, some actual basis of deciding what said bad ideas are should be done before actually stating just things that you personally think suck. 

In either case, neither would have helped France in this case. There's no reason to think that this driver was radicalized at this point. France screening every muslim doesn't matter; the problem is that there are always going to be people who believe their lives are over and want to do something with them. The Sandy Hook shooter wasn't a muslim, and neither was Micah Johnson. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

Oh, I know. 

But yeah, we could in theory decide to restrict people's citizenship or rights to get into the US based on certain held beliefs, but the first thing I'd ask is simply 'why'? 

I think it's a bad idea because it requires the person in question to be honest. It wouldn't be a reliable means to screen people. 

And frankly, the screening part is a red herring, The main problem is home grown terrorism here in the U.S., not people trying to sneak in and do us harm. And as I've said multiple times now, I think it's unwise to implement policies that probably would not make much of difference in preventing terrorism, but will likely lead to more self radicalization, or in other words, what we should actually be trying to prevent. 

 

[Fragile Bird]

This guy who committed the attack might be a lone wolf, but I think you would be kidding yourself if you don't think he hasn't been influenced by ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.  We still mainly use ISIS in Canada.

The Muslim population in France is about 8 or 9% of the country, and make up 60% of the prison population.  This guy had a criminal record and was in and out of jail, he was bound to be exposed to extremist influences while in jail.  Radicalization in the prisons is a well known fact of life.

Nice is the second biggest centre of radicalization in France.  Security services know of at least 50 youth from Nice who have joined ISIS.

[Kalbear]

16 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

This guy who committed the attack might be a lone wolf, but I think you would be kidding yourself if you don't think he hasn't been influenced by ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.  We still mainly use ISIS in Canada.

The Muslim population in France is about 8 or 9% of the country, and make up 60% of the prison population.  This guy had a criminal record and was in and out of jail, he was bound to be exposed to extremist influences while in jail.  Radicalization in the prisons is a well known fact of life.

Nice is the second biggest centre of radicalization in France.  Security services know of at least 50 youth from Nice who have joined ISIS.

Sure. It's certainly possible he was radicalized. 

But it's also really likely that he did this the same way that Omar Shaheen did - because he was angry about his life. That he wasn't a particularly strong believer in anything and saw in this a way to make others hurt the way he was hurting. 

Also, let's not actually talk about things as facts when they're not, shall we? The perpetrator was never actually in jail. Not once.

Quote

Bouhlel was known to police because of allegations of threats, violence and thefts over the last six years, and he was given a suspended six-month prison sentence this year after being convicted of violence with a weapon, Molins said.

And here's more on Bouhlel.

Quote

 

“From 2002 to 2004, he had problems that caused a nervous breakdown. He would become angry and he shouted … he would break anything he saw in front of him,” Mohamed Mondher Lahouaiej-Bouhlel said outside his home in M’saken. He said he was prescribed medication to treat his depression.

He said they had heard nothing from him after he left for France. He also agreed that he had little to do with religion. “He didn’t pray, he didn’t fast, he drank alcohol and even used drugs,” he told AFP.

 

He wasn't on intellgence sources' radars at all, hadn't any radical ties that anyone knew of, wasn't acting particularly religious, had suffered from mental health issues and had recently lost his job and gotten divorced. 

But sure, it's ISIS that was the real problem.

[Fragile Bird]

3 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

Sure. It's certainly possible he was radicalized. 

But it's also really likely that he did this the same way that Omar Shaheen did - because he was angry about his life. That he wasn't a particularly strong believer in anything and saw in this a way to make others hurt the way he was hurting. 

Also, let's not actually talk about things as facts when they're not, shall we? The perpetrator was never actually in jail. Not once.

And here's more on Bouhlel.

He wasn't on intellgence sources' radars at all, hadn't any radical ties that anyone knew of, wasn't acting particularly religious, had suffered from mental health issues and had recently lost his job and gotten divorced. 

But sure, it's ISIS that was the real problem.

Ok, I had seen various reports that he had been in and out of jail, which means exposure to radicalization was a real possibility.

Even if he wasn't, Nice still is a centre of radicalism, and self-radicalization through the internet, the mosque, by reading news reports about terrorist acts or by hanging out with the guys on the corner is a possibility you have to take seriously.  Whether or not he belonged to a group followed by security services, he could still have decided to go out in a blaze of glory as a good soldier.  As I said, whether or not he was a lone wolf, you can't discount those influences, a problem in France, Germany, the UK, the USA, Canada and a lot of other countries.  The two guys who committed terrorist acts in Canada two years ago weren't members of any cells either, and seem to have decided that if life is shitty, going out in a blaze of glory by killing people is the way to go.  That's a really scary thought.

[Swordfish]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is different than what you previously wrote. And for what it's worth we're now in agreement. 

 

I don't see how the two are any different,but ok.

 

Quote

Commodore. Nestor changed the nature of the conversation to remove a specific religion and broaden it to actual behaviors, which is a more reasonable way to look at the issue. 

OK.  i think I'm getting lost between the two discussions.

[Swordfish]

1 hour ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

 

In either case, neither would have helped France in this case. There's no reason to think that this driver was radicalized at this point. France screening every muslim doesn't matter; the problem is that there are always going to be people who believe their lives are over and want to do something with them. The Sandy Hook shooter wasn't a muslim, and neither was Micah Johnson. 

it's interesting that you make this argument and reference Sandy Hook, but that's probably a topic for a different thread.

[The Fallen]

3 hours ago, Crixus said:

But that's retroactive. This dude and hundreds of thousands of other Muslims are already living in France, for years and as legit citizens. 

So does that imply expelling all current Muslim citizens across Europe or the west? 

An outcome some posters here would probably support.

3 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

On what grounds?

I'm sure Commodore can come up with reasons.

This is not my position by the way. But we have posters that feel Europe should do everything it possibly can to remain European (white) and to hell with the brown people. 

[HexMachina]

1 minute ago, The Fallen said:

An outcome some posters here would probably support.

I'm sure Commodore can come up with reasons.

This is not my position by the way. But we have posters that feel Europe should do everything it possibly can to remain European (white) and to hell with the brown people. 

Ah I see. Apologies, I thought it was something you were suggesting

[DunderMifflin]

Seems the killer had no known ties to any terrorist organizations.

Criminal record is made up of petty crimes and such. Alleged claims of spousal abuse.

Aquiantances say he didn't go to mosques and wasn't any sort of practicing Muslim.

Supposedly was into bodybuilding.

That just leaves the very specific terrorist endorsed method of using a truck for his killing. And he was from Tunisia.

Western leaders were quick to mention Islam and even ISIS so no doubt there's incentive to connect dots there. Wouldnt be surprised if something pops up.

 

[Les Météores D]

14 hours ago, Commodore said:

but it's way too late for France, they are already infiltrated beyond fixing

You don't know much about the history of terrorism in France do you? Or terrorism in Europe for that matter. Hint: it didn't start 20 years ago. And yes, we can fix it (if there is such a thing as fixing extremism) but it takes time and a lot of money. 

[Dofs]

6 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

Seems the killer had no known ties to any terrorist organizations.

Criminal record is made up of petty crimes and such. Alleged claims of spousal abuse.

Aquiantances say he didn't go to mosques and wasn't any sort of practicing Muslim.

Supposedly was into bodybuilding.

That just leaves the very specific terrorist endorsed method of using a truck for his killing. And he was from Tunisia.

Western leaders were quick to mention Islam and even ISIS so no doubt there's incentive to connect dots there. Wouldnt be surprised if something pops up.

 

Almost none of those who committed terrorist acts in the West were actual member of ISIS. They were just sympathetic to the cause, which the Nice terrorist might be as well (the fact that he wasn't a heavily practising Muslim before doesn't mean anything, really).

[Which Tyler]

From the BBC

Quote

 

So-called Islamic State claims the lorry attack was carried out by one of its followers.

A news agency linked to the group, Amaq Agency, said: "He did the attack in response to calls to target the citizens of the coalition that is fighting the Islamic State."

 

AKA: "no idea who this person is, but we welcome his actions"

As far as I can tell the only thing so far linking Lahouaiej-Bouhlel to Daesh is the reflex quote from Hollande before anything at all was known, and that rather lukewarm statement by Amaq Agency.

I'm sure though, that if they look hard enough, use the right language, and turn things to their own ends (planting evidence? never!) they'll be able to find a link. After all, with the right language you could say that several people here (myself included) "regularly discuss the motivations and tactics used by terrorists".

Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was almost certainly someone with mental health issues and a history of externalising his problems, who decided that his life had hit rock bottom and he wanted to go out in a blaze of glory. He just happens to have been born muslim. He may or may not have been broadly sympathetic to the cause, but I very much doubt that that played any part in his motivation.

[Dofs]

Islamic faith rewards martyrs. He may have hit rock bottom and decided to end his life, but it's very likely he'd made his decision to go and kill people because he was hoping to get into heaven and get his 72 virgin for killing 'infidels'.

[Which Tyler]

From all reports he holds no islamic faith; though it may have played a part. Either way - not a Daesh attack.

[Dofs]

No, from all reports he just wasn't a very religious Muslim some months before the attack.