Eyewitness: Truck slams into crowd in Nice

[Kiwiken]

Isil has claimed responsibility and said the Perpetrator was One of their Soldiers no surprise there . Surprised they have not claimed Timothy McVeigh as One of theirs.

These people do not represent mainstream. Let us not forget Muslims were killed in this attack too.

He was apparently recently and quickly radicalised. Maybe £82,000 was motivation for a loser to throw away his life and murder others. I just hope that the murder of innocents what ever their beliefs are not killed are not killed in the name of payback.

[mopar71]

The Nice terrorist (that sounds odd) certainly does not represent Islam. But he does represent Islamic Jihadist terrorism. Such scum are often not good practicing Muslims. Perhaps that's too much contradiction for some to grasp but welcome to the real world. Within the Islamic texts you can find teachings of peace and also teachings of horrific violence. The Jihadists like the violent parts. It's not Islamophobic to be open about this truthiness.

How foolish.

The lunatic liberal line appears to be as follows:

Good practicing Muslims are peaceful.

This man in Nice committed an atrocity, therefore he cannot be a Muslim.

Therefore it follows that ISIS are non-Muslim, Osama Bin Laden was a non-Muslim, the 9-11 attackers were non-Muslims, Mullah Omar was a non-Muslim.

In fact - it is hereby declared by Jingthing that committing an atrocity automatically makes you a non-Muslim. Even if you were somehow convinced that you were a Muslim and acting on the name of your faith. It still makes you a non-Muslim.

This also means that all sectarian violence in the Middle East is committed by atheists. When primarily Sunni ISIS recently bombed a shopping district full of Shiiite Muslims that were shopping, breaking their fast, watching soccer, training at the gym - the bombers weren't Sunni's at all. They were atheists because liberals decided that they were atheists the moment they committed the atrocity.

Looking back in Ireland, it now seems that all sectarian violence there must have been committed by warring atheists because good, practicing religious people wouldn't do that.

Somehow liberals have forgotten that hundreds of millions of people have been killed by violent minorities throughout history.

Nobody says all Muslims are bad but this claim that no Muslims can be bad is silly. It's like saying no Catholics can be bad.

"They were atheists because liberals decided that they were atheists the moment they committed the atrocity."

Liberals love atheists. They hate God, yet love Allah (without realizing Muslims consider them the same). Therefore, when ISIS commits an atrocity, liberals will deny the attackers were Muslim, but would be more readily believe that these Middle Eastern terrorists were actually redneck, Republican-voting, homo-phobic Christians (just like they attempted to do after the Orlando shooting). After all, from the liberal point of view that group that embodies all evil in the world from.

[Kiwiken]

The Nice terrorist (that sounds odd) certainly does not represent Islam. But he does represent Islamic Jihadist terrorism. Such scum are often not good practicing Muslims. Perhaps that's too much contradiction for some to grasp but welcome to the real world. Within the Islamic texts you can find teachings of peace and also teachings of horrific violence. The Jihadists like the violent parts. It's not Islamophobic to be open about this truthiness.

How foolish.

The lunatic liberal line appears to be as follows:

Good practicing Muslims are peaceful.

This man in Nice committed an atrocity, therefore he cannot be a Muslim.

Therefore it follows that ISIS are non-Muslim, Osama Bin Laden was a non-Muslim, the 9-11 attackers were non-Muslims, Mullah Omar was a non-Muslim.

In fact - it is hereby declared by Jingthing that committing an atrocity automatically makes you a non-Muslim. Even if you were somehow convinced that you were a Muslim and acting on the name of your faith. It still makes you a non-Muslim.

This also means that all sectarian violence in the Middle East is committed by atheists. When primarily Sunni ISIS recently bombed a shopping district full of Shiiite Muslims that were shopping, breaking their fast, watching soccer, training at the gym - the bombers weren't Sunni's at all. They were atheists because liberals decided that they were atheists the moment they committed the atrocity.

Looking back in Ireland, it now seems that all sectarian violence there must have been committed by warring atheists because good, practicing religious people wouldn't do that.

Somehow liberals have forgotten that hundreds of millions of people have been killed by violent minorities throughout history.

Nobody says all Muslims are bad but this claim that no Muslims can be bad is silly. It's like saying no Catholics can be bad.

"They were atheists because liberals decided that they were atheists the moment they committed the atrocity."

Liberals love atheists. They hate God, yet love Allah (without realizing Muslims consider them the same). Therefore, when ISIS commits an atrocity, liberals will deny the attackers were Muslim, but would be more readily believe that these Middle Eastern terrorists were actually redneck, Republican-voting, homo-phobic Christians (just like they attempted to do after the Orlando shooting). After all, from the liberal point of view that group that embodies all evil in the world from.

In some things I would be considered a Liberal but anyone who commits mindless killing of Women and children in the name of anything is something less than human. You dress it up in following the call of their Religion, Faith, Political leaning but in then end they are what they are Self serving deluded Maniacs. But they exist in all our societies. So this Guy was a Muslim practicing or not. He was a nut case. The One in Orlando a Nut case. Religious fanatic = Nut Case. But that does not mean we should hate all Muslims. Or tar them with the same brush. That is when you find yourself crossing onto the same path these demented people have chosen. Turn the other cheek no. But mindless retaliation makes you no better than them.

[Dagnabbit]

The Nice terrorist (that sounds odd) certainly does not represent Islam. But he does represent Islamic Jihadist terrorism. Such scum are often not good practicing Muslims. Perhaps that's too much contradiction for some to grasp but welcome to the real world. Within the Islamic texts you can find teachings of peace and also teachings of horrific violence. The Jihadists like the violent parts. It's not Islamophobic to be open about this truthiness.

How foolish.

The lunatic liberal line appears to be as follows:

Good practicing Muslims are peaceful.

This man in Nice committed an atrocity, therefore he cannot be a Muslim.

Therefore it follows that ISIS are non-Muslim, Osama Bin Laden was a non-Muslim, the 9-11 attackers were non-Muslims, Mullah Omar was a non-Muslim.

In fact - it is hereby declared by Jingthing that committing an atrocity automatically makes you a non-Muslim. Even if you were somehow convinced that you were a Muslim and acting on the name of your faith. It still makes you a non-Muslim.

This also means that all sectarian violence in the Middle East is committed by atheists. When primarily Sunni ISIS recently bombed a shopping district full of Shiiite Muslims that were shopping, breaking their fast, watching soccer, training at the gym - the bombers weren't Sunni's at all. They were atheists because liberals decided that they were atheists the moment they committed the atrocity.

Looking back in Ireland, it now seems that all sectarian violence there must have been committed by warring atheists because good, practicing religious people wouldn't do that.

Somehow liberals have forgotten that hundreds of millions of people have been killed by violent minorities throughout history.

Nobody says all Muslims are bad but this claim that no Muslims can be bad is silly. It's like saying no Catholics can be bad.

"They were atheists because liberals decided that they were atheists the moment they committed the atrocity."

Liberals love atheists. They hate God, yet love Allah (without realizing Muslims consider them the same). Therefore, when ISIS commits an atrocity, liberals will deny the attackers were Muslim, but would be more readily believe that these Middle Eastern terrorists were actually redneck, Republican-voting, homo-phobic Christians (just like they attempted to do after the Orlando shooting). After all, from the liberal point of view that group that embodies all evil in the world from.

In some things I would be considered a Liberal but anyone who commits mindless killing of Women and children in the name of anything is something less than human. You dress it up in following the call of their Religion, Faith, Political leaning but in then end they are what they are Self serving deluded Maniacs. But they exist in all our societies. So this Guy was a Muslim practicing or not. He was a nut case. The One in Orlando a Nut case. Religious fanatic = Nut Case. But that does not mean we should hate all Muslims. Or tar them with the same brush. That is when you find yourself crossing onto the same path these demented people have chosen. Turn the other cheek no. But mindless retaliation makes you no better than them.

Nobody is tarring them with the same brush. No-one is saying all Muslims are bad.

Liberals are saying that these people cannot possibly be Muslims. That is a problem.

This is the issue - complete denial that the Islamic faith of the perpetrators had any bearing on the attacks.

If you ignore the cause like this, the issue will never be resolved.

ISIS are not a bunch of lone wolves but an organised group of fanatics. They are not dissimilar to the Nazis.

They are a violent minority of Muslims.

I have never seen an entrance exam for any faith. In short, you are whichever religion you claim to be. These jihadis claim to be Muslims. By what measure can we claim that they are not Muslims?

Edited July 17, 2016 by Dagnabbit

[Kiwiken]

Nobody is tarring them with the same brush. No-one is saying all Muslims are bad.

Liberals are saying that these people cannot possibly be Muslims. That is a problem.

This is the issue - complete denial that the Islamic faith of the perpetrators had any bearing on the attacks.

If you ignore the cause like this, the issue will never be resolved.

ISIS are not a bunch of lone wolves but an organised group of fanatics. They are not dissimilar to the Nazis.

They are a violent minority of Muslims.

I have never seen an entrance exam for any faith. In short, you are whichever religion you claim to be. These jihadis claim to be Muslims. By what measure can we claim that they are not Muslims?

{ I take the point that as this nut case fanatic was a Muslim then we must not miss the point of what he was. But by the rationale given then Adolf Hitler was a Roman Catholics therefore all non Muslim Mass Murderers must be Roman Catholics? and Nazis.

But would you then deny by your analogy that this now says All Roman Catholics are Nazis by implication?

[Credo]

The basic problem with the Muslim-anti Muslim, Immigrant/refugee discussion is that it is relatively moot. The vast majority of these people are born and raised in the country they are targeting.

[balo]

In case you didnt notice IS has taken responsibility for the atttack. So the man was probably brainwashed by online propaganda.

[Jingthing]

In case you didnt notice IS has taken responsibility for the atttack. So the man was probably brainwashed by online propaganda.

Inspiring independent actors globally is part of the Islamic Jihadist tactics these days. The specific brand of Islamic Jihad is not all that relevant. Crush Daeah and there will be others. This is with us all for a very long time.

[theguyfromanotherforum]

Looks like the racists on this forum don't care if the OP perp was a Muslim by birth alone or not, whatever evidence is presented. They simply want any excuse to spout their vile bigoted nonsense.

I was baptized a Christian (long ago lapsed), but it doesn't make me responsible for the troubles in N. Ireland or the bombings of abortion clinics.

I regard racism/religionism as a form of inferiority complex. It's all very weird and tribal. One can make oneself feel big, because one belongs to what one regards as a superior tribe. Boost your own ego at the expense of someone else.

Why not just treat people as you find them on a one to one basis? We are all the same species after all...human beings.

No likes. You lose.

[keemapoot]

Looks like the racists on this forum don't care if the OP perp was a Muslim by birth alone or not, whatever evidence is presented. They simply want any excuse to spout their vile bigoted nonsense.

I was baptized a Christian (long ago lapsed), but it doesn't make me responsible for the troubles in N. Ireland or the bombings of abortion clinics.

I regard racism/religionism as a form of inferiority complex. It's all very weird and tribal. One can make oneself feel big, because one belongs to what one regards as a superior tribe. Boost your own ego at the expense of someone else.

Why not just treat people as you find them on a one to one basis? We are all the same species after all...human beings.

Your arguments are often good and reasonable, but also often ill-founded and unrealistic in their defense of Islam and acts committed by Islamists.

The French Interior Minister came out today and announced that somehow the perp became radicalized very quickly.

"This is a new type of attack," Cazeneuve said. "We are now confronted with individuals that are sensitive to the message of ISIS and are committed to extremely violent actions without necessarily being trained by them."

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/16/europe/france-attack-on-nice-isis/

It seems the permutations of radical Islam continue to take new forms, and new incarnations, which makes your job of defending Islam much more difficult by the day.

[Jingthing]

But Islam is fine. Islamic Jihadist terrorism isn't.

[ddavidovsky]

I'm talking about ISIS and Al Qaeda type terrorism - the sort that takes its struggle to the west. That's the theme of this thread.

I'm not talking about internal strife within Islam (Sunni/Shia) which I presume you are referring to in the middle east - that has been there for millennia, with wars on and off - they have never taken that out on the west. Let's clearly differentiate that.

My theory (and I haven't seen a better one on this thread, or anywhere the world's media) is that ISIS is driven by bitterness due to a sense of inferiority and the quest for an identity they can take pride in. The psychology behind this is commonly (not exclusively) a sense of displacement - many ISIS mercenarys were immigrants in western countries, and many immigrants in the world are posing a terrorist threat to their hosts. What is eating them that sparked this sense of bittnerness? In a single word: Globalisation. This has brought restrictive Islamic traditions clashing against the freedoms of the modern world. It's a struggle between tradition and modernity, and that's bound to be bad-tempered. All the more reason for them to have their own secure homelands where they can rule themselves as they like without oppressing others.

So far so logical.

The solution therefore is to restore pride to the Islamic world by restoring (or establishing) stable nationhood for all. And that doesn't mean immigration to Europe - just the opposite. They need their own nations - nations that former immigrants will want to go back to, just as Jews have been happy to go to Israel.

What single act would restore pride to Islam and help de-escalate the tension more than anything? The answer to that, in all objective rationality, is independence for Palestine, the positive effect of which would spread a warm glow of pride through the Islamic world. That's the start. Then partition of the 'artificial' states of Iraq, Syria and Libya is the next step, just as it was inevitable to partition Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union.

Long way to go then, but without that start I mentioned, there may be no solution at all.

Yes - I know what you are talking about. You are trying to claim European based attackers are victims of a kind. It's nonsense because when you look at EXACTLY the same sort of behavior elsewhere, your "Cause" is not there. The effect is the same.

You should stop with this victimhood theory.

What would restore pride to Islam? Well - quite simple, reform. Stop imprisoning women for being raped. Stop hanging homosexuals. Stop making women walk around in bin-liners. You know - basic freedoms, that sort of thing.

You wouldn't need secret polices in Islamic states if the general populace were happy living in one, would you?

So your solution is to change Islam. Would that it were so simple. What practical process do you suggest for bring that about?

Actually, coexistence between all manner of different groups is perfectly possible - as long as each group is basically happy in itself. It's when they get unhappy that strife occurs, and when they become bitter, terrorism occurs. When you say 'the same sort of behaviour elsewhere' - where do you mean? In Nigeria? In Bangladesh? In Southern Thailand? In Mindanao? - those all display exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. It's the same principle: reassertion of identity due to damaged self-esteem.

Muslims are bitter because the modern world is leaving them behind on all sorts of issues - they are literally outcast from several aspects of life's feast (need I list them?). Yes, you could change all that by throwing out the Koran and creating a new Islam, but it's a fair bet that isn't going to happen for a few millennia - and in the meantime there is a slow agonising inner turmoil that radical, macho elements are taking out on the perceived cause - the decadent infidel west.

It's almost hopeless, but politics is the more immediate, more practical fix that would at least make Muslims happier about themselves. I've suggested the specific example that I believe has been the root cause of all this tension and is therefore the key to de-escalating it. It should be up to the UN to fix that, but the UN is an unmitigated and comprehensive failure.

[FinChin67]

I was baptized a Christian (long ago lapsed), but it doesn't make me responsible for the troubles in N. Ireland or the bombings of abortion clinics.

If you subscribe to a religion better swallow it whole. I regard all religious people as potential nutters.

When you unsubscribe from islam you lose your head. Pretty hefty exit fee.

Usual gross exaggeration. I know more that a few people raised as Muslims who have walked away from their religion without any threats whatsoever. Sadly in some countries there are deaths threats and and actual killings for apostasy, but relatively a small number.

Any facts to support your "research"? Because it is not a "relatively small number" who gets killed because of this. There are plenty of people living in fear even in EU. Of course, they must be silly because islam is religion of pieces peace and harms nobody...

Edited July 17, 2016 by Scott

[FinChin67]

Lunatic leftist PC / JSW activists on steroids.

In Finland they took in muslim "refugees" who travelled through many safe countries but their real motivation was of course generous welfare payments. The complaining started right away (food is bad, give us OUR money etc...). There were war criminals mixed in but the government people (leftist idiots) thought it's racist? to check their background and it's NOT a reason to reject their asylum application - even they lie their age and what not.

This is where it gets really screwed up. Some of these people who got refugee status and started to get government benefits traveled BACK to their countries of origin for HOLIDAY. Wait, that's not all, some went back to FIGHT.

Now the leftist idiots are putting massive amounts of money to TREATMENT of these "war heroes" who come wounded back from killing innocent people. Not only that, they have now a plan for a SPECIAL PROGRAM to help them to return - again - to normal life in Finland to PREVENT them from radicalising. Really??? People who come back from slashing throats and bombing people are getting a VIP treatment.

All this while the government takes more debt, cuts social security from elderly people and others who desperately need it. There was no money for children's hospital (35million) but IMMIDIATELY they found 1.5 BILLION for refugees and that number is growing rapidly (as they bring their families after).

How the "refugees" thank Finnish people? By killing and raping. One of these heroes raped a girl and burned her alive. Some muslims cheered him on social media.

I say these people are NOT compatible and NOT welcome unless they agree to live with our laws. Keep and feed them in camps. It is also more cheap and effective.

Now we have millions of these in EU and Merkel is bringing in more. It is going to get a lot worse and very rapidly. This Nice incident will catapult many others into action. The imaams are already hard at work.

[Dagnabbit]

Nobody is tarring them with the same brush. No-one is saying all Muslims are bad.

Liberals are saying that these people cannot possibly be Muslims. That is a problem.

This is the issue - complete denial that the Islamic faith of the perpetrators had any bearing on the attacks.

If you ignore the cause like this, the issue will never be resolved.

ISIS are not a bunch of lone wolves but an organised group of fanatics. They are not dissimilar to the Nazis.

They are a violent minority of Muslims.

I have never seen an entrance exam for any faith. In short, you are whichever religion you claim to be. These jihadis claim to be Muslims. By what measure can we claim that they are not Muslims?

{ I take the point that as this nut case fanatic was a Muslim then we must not miss the point of what he was. But by the rationale given then Adolf Hitler was a Roman Catholics therefore all non Muslim Mass Murderers must be Roman Catholics? and Nazis.

But would you then deny by your analogy that this now says All Roman Catholics are Nazis by implication?

Hitler was German Nazi. He took Germans to war, not Roman Catholics. His was not a religious war.

So your analogy is off the mark.

It would be correct to say that the Nazis were a violent minority of Germans. Hitler did what he did in the name of the state and Aryan supremacy. The Nazis were not a religious group. They were a racist, homophobic and anti-disabled group.

In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge were not a majority but they managed to kill 20% of the population. They did so in the name of communism. Same happened in Russia and China.

Throughout history people have committed atrocities for various reasons but there is a common thread of the violent MINORITY being the perpetrators. Some of these have been driven by religion, some by politics, some by tribalism.

The current wave of terrorism around the world is perpetrated by a violent minority of Muslims.

[Kiwiken]

Nobody is tarring them with the same brush. No-one is saying all Muslims are bad.

Liberals are saying that these people cannot possibly be Muslims. That is a problem.

This is the issue - complete denial that the Islamic faith of the perpetrators had any bearing on the attacks.

If you ignore the cause like this, the issue will never be resolved.

ISIS are not a bunch of lone wolves but an organised group of fanatics. They are not dissimilar to the Nazis.

They are a violent minority of Muslims.

I have never seen an entrance exam for any faith. In short, you are whichever religion you claim to be. These jihadis claim to be Muslims. By what measure can we claim that they are not Muslims?

{ I take the point that as this nut case fanatic was a Muslim then we must not miss the point of what he was. But by the rationale given then Adolf Hitler was a Roman Catholics therefore all non Muslim Mass Murderers must be Roman Catholics? and Nazis.

But would you then deny by your analogy that this now says All Roman Catholics are Nazis by implication?

Hitler was German Nazi. He took Germans to war, not Roman Catholics. His was not a religious war.

So your analogy is off the mark.

It would be correct to say that the Nazis were a violent minority of Germans. Hitler did what he did in the name of the state and Aryan supremacy. The Nazis were not a religious group. They were a racist, homophobic and anti-disabled group.

In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge were not a majority but they managed to kill 20% of the population. They did so in the name of communism. Same happened in Russia and China.

Throughout history people have committed atrocities for various reasons but there is a common thread of the violent MINORITY being the perpetrators. Some of these have been driven by religion, some by politics, some by tribalism.

The current wave of terrorism around the world is perpetrated by a violent minority of Muslims.

Hitler by his own Admission admitted he was of the Roman Catholic faith and in Mein Kampf urges a Holy war to rid the World of Jewry. He was also not a German. Hitler was an Austrian.

But I agree atm the most International terror acts are committed by a small Group of Islamic Radicals. And just that a small Group not the Religion as a whole which is itself divided Sunni/Shiite

[FinChin67]

One leftist idiot in Sweden pointed out that they have a solution already

[Dagnabbit]

I'm talking about ISIS and Al Qaeda type terrorism - the sort that takes its struggle to the west. That's the theme of this thread.

I'm not talking about internal strife within Islam (Sunni/Shia) which I presume you are referring to in the middle east - that has been there for millennia, with wars on and off - they have never taken that out on the west. Let's clearly differentiate that.

My theory (and I haven't seen a better one on this thread, or anywhere the world's media) is that ISIS is driven by bitterness due to a sense of inferiority and the quest for an identity they can take pride in. The psychology behind this is commonly (not exclusively) a sense of displacement - many ISIS mercenarys were immigrants in western countries, and many immigrants in the world are posing a terrorist threat to their hosts. What is eating them that sparked this sense of bittnerness? In a single word: Globalisation. This has brought restrictive Islamic traditions clashing against the freedoms of the modern world. It's a struggle between tradition and modernity, and that's bound to be bad-tempered. All the more reason for them to have their own secure homelands where they can rule themselves as they like without oppressing others.

So far so logical.

The solution therefore is to restore pride to the Islamic world by restoring (or establishing) stable nationhood for all. And that doesn't mean immigration to Europe - just the opposite. They need their own nations - nations that former immigrants will want to go back to, just as Jews have been happy to go to Israel.

What single act would restore pride to Islam and help de-escalate the tension more than anything? The answer to that, in all objective rationality, is independence for Palestine, the positive effect of which would spread a warm glow of pride through the Islamic world. That's the start. Then partition of the 'artificial' states of Iraq, Syria and Libya is the next step, just as it was inevitable to partition Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union.

Long way to go then, but without that start I mentioned, there may be no solution at all.

Yes - I know what you are talking about. You are trying to claim European based attackers are victims of a kind. It's nonsense because when you look at EXACTLY the same sort of behavior elsewhere, your "Cause" is not there. The effect is the same.

You should stop with this victimhood theory.

What would restore pride to Islam? Well - quite simple, reform. Stop imprisoning women for being raped. Stop hanging homosexuals. Stop making women walk around in bin-liners. You know - basic freedoms, that sort of thing.

You wouldn't need secret polices in Islamic states if the general populace were happy living in one, would you?

So your solution is to change Islam. Would that it were so simple. What practical process do you suggest for bring that about?

Actually, coexistence between all manner of different groups is perfectly possible - as long as each group is basically happy in itself. It's when they get unhappy that strife occurs, and when they become bitter, terrorism occurs. When you say 'the same sort of behaviour elsewhere' - where do you mean? In Nigeria? In Bangladesh? In Southern Thailand? In Mindanao? - those all display exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. It's the same principle: reassertion of identity due to damaged self-esteem.

Muslims are bitter because the modern world is leaving them behind on all sorts of issues - they are literally outcast from several aspects of life's feast (need I list them?). Yes, you could change all that by throwing out the Koran and creating a new Islam, but it's a fair bet that isn't going to happen for a few millennia - and in the meantime there is a slow agonising inner turmoil that radical, macho elements are taking out on the perceived cause - the decadent infidel west.

It's almost hopeless, but politics is the more immediate, more practical fix that would at least make Muslims happier about themselves. I've suggested the specific example that I believe has been the root cause of all this tension and is therefore the key to de-escalating it. It should be up to the UN to fix that, but the UN is an unmitigated and comprehensive failure.

You still try to pin this on your cause of Muslims as victims. The Muslim world is rife with SECTARIAN violence. You ask where this occurs?

Bahrain

Indonesia

Iran (a terrorist state that executes it's own people on religions, free speech or sexual basis)

Iraq

Lebanon

Libya

Pakistan (a backwards state where honor killings are the norm.

Saudi Arabia (any country that needs secret religious police to suppress the population is a terrorist state)

Somalia

Syria

Yemen

And to be honest, I am sure you can look the rest up yourself.

The modern world has not left these countries behind. How on earth have we held Saudi Arabia behind? We send them cash for oil by the truckload. They should be the most advanced state on the planet, yet women are second class citizens there.

You are trying to make victims of these states when the reality is that it is Islam that has held them back. Not us. They have done this to themselves.

As for religious reform - it will not take Millennia. It will take support of the countries that are sponsoring extremism around the world. You do not need to throw away the Koran any more than you needed to throw away the bible.

I am sure most Mulsims in Iran would be more than happy if their government were oppressing them en-masse. That government is a violent minority that has a stranglehold on the population. Iran was a thriving nation before the mad Mullahs took over. It could go back to the way it was before. The people there haven't changed fundamentally but their oppressors have.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Dagnabbit

[Dagnabbit]

Nobody is tarring them with the same brush. No-one is saying all Muslims are bad.

Liberals are saying that these people cannot possibly be Muslims. That is a problem.

This is the issue - complete denial that the Islamic faith of the perpetrators had any bearing on the attacks.

If you ignore the cause like this, the issue will never be resolved.

ISIS are not a bunch of lone wolves but an organised group of fanatics. They are not dissimilar to the Nazis.

They are a violent minority of Muslims.

I have never seen an entrance exam for any faith. In short, you are whichever religion you claim to be. These jihadis claim to be Muslims. By what measure can we claim that they are not Muslims?

{ I take the point that as this nut case fanatic was a Muslim then we must not miss the point of what he was. But by the rationale given then Adolf Hitler was a Roman Catholics therefore all non Muslim Mass Murderers must be Roman Catholics? and Nazis.

But would you then deny by your analogy that this now says All Roman Catholics are Nazis by implication?

Hitler was German Nazi. He took Germans to war, not Roman Catholics. His was not a religious war.

So your analogy is off the mark.

It would be correct to say that the Nazis were a violent minority of Germans. Hitler did what he did in the name of the state and Aryan supremacy. The Nazis were not a religious group. They were a racist, homophobic and anti-disabled group.

In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge were not a majority but they managed to kill 20% of the population. They did so in the name of communism. Same happened in Russia and China.

Throughout history people have committed atrocities for various reasons but there is a common thread of the violent MINORITY being the perpetrators. Some of these have been driven by religion, some by politics, some by tribalism.

The current wave of terrorism around the world is perpetrated by a violent minority of Muslims.

Hitler by his own Admission admitted he was of the Roman Catholic faith and in Mein Kampf urges a Holy war to rid the World of Jewry. He was also not a German. Hitler was an Austrian.

But I agree atm the most International terror acts are committed by a small Group of Islamic Radicals. And just that a small Group not the Religion as a whole which is itself divided Sunni/Shiite

Hitler was not a religious extremist.

He killed people on the basis of THEIR religion, disability, country of origin and race.

Perhaps you can show me which excerpts of the Bible he was following as he did this? We all know which parts of the Koran promote killing infidels.

It is a ridiculous argument to say that Hitler was a religious extremist.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Dagnabbit

[ddavidovsky]

So your solution is to change Islam. Would that it were so simple. What practical process do you suggest for bring that about?

Actually, coexistence between all manner of different groups is perfectly possible - as long as each group is basically happy in itself. It's when they get unhappy that strife occurs, and when they become bitter, terrorism occurs. When you say 'the same sort of behaviour elsewhere' - where do you mean? In Nigeria? In Bangladesh? In Southern Thailand? In Mindanao? - those all display exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. It's the same principle: reassertion of identity due to damaged self-esteem.

Muslims are bitter because the modern world is leaving them behind on all sorts of issues - they are literally outcast from several aspects of life's feast (need I list them?). Yes, you could change all that by throwing out the Koran and creating a new Islam, but it's a fair bet that isn't going to happen for a few millennia - and in the meantime there is a slow agonising inner turmoil that radical, macho elements are taking out on the perceived cause - the decadent infidel west.

It's almost hopeless, but politics is the more immediate, more practical fix that would at least make Muslims happier about themselves. I've suggested the specific example that I believe has been the root cause of all this tension and is therefore the key to de-escalating it. It should be up to the UN to fix that, but the UN is an unmitigated and comprehensive failure.

You still try to pin this on your cause of Muslims as victims. The Muslim world is rife with SECTARIAN violence. You ask where this occurs?

Bahrain

Indonesia

Iran (a terrorist state that executes it's own people on religions, free speech or sexual basis)

Iraq

Lebanon

Libya

Pakistan (a backwards state where honor killings are the norm.

Saudi Arabia (any country that needs secret religious police to suppress the population is a terrorist state)

Somalia

Syria

Yemen

And to be honest, I am sure you can look the rest up yourself.

The modern world has not left these countries behind. How on earth have we held Saudi Arabia behind? We send them cash for oil by the truckload. They should be the most advanced state on the planet, yet women are second class citizens there.

You are trying to make victims of these states when the reality is that it is Islam that has held them back. Not us. They have done this to themselves.

As for religious reform - it will not take Millennia. It will take support of the countries that are sponsoring extremism around the world. You do not need to throw away the Koran any more than you needed to throw away the bible.

I am sure most Mulsims in Iran would be more than happy if their government were oppressing them en-masse. That government is a violent minority that has a stranglehold on the population. Iran was a thriving nation before the mad Mullahs took over. It could go back to the way it was before. The people there haven't changed fundamentally but their oppressors have.

We both agreed above that we weren't talking about sectarian violence. We're not talking about the situation within Iran for example - it's different, and it's not relevant to ISIS or this thread. We're talking about why extremist Muslims are taking their pent up bitterness out on the west.

By the 'modern world leaving Islam behind', I mean social permissiveness - the whole par-tay of western civilisation to which they are not allowed to participate. The whole sexual liberation thing we have been having fun with since the 60s has bypassed them completely. And sexual repression creates a pressure cooker of social issues.

As to religious reform - that is impossible without in some way rewriting, or ignoring, the Koran. Get real. That's not going to happen.

[727Sky]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nice-attack-lorry-driver-killer-mohamed-lahouaiej-bouhlel-sent-84000-his-family-days-before-1570996

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/nice-terrorist-sent-84000-family-8435760

Quote: "Mohamed sent the family 240,000 Tunisian Dinars (£84,000) in the last few days," Bouhlel's brother told MailOnline. "He used to send us small sums of money regularly like most Tunisians working abroad. But then he sent us all that money, it was fortune. "He sent the money illegally. He gave cash to people he knew who were returning to our village and asked them to give it to the family." Bernard Cazeneuve, the French interior minister said the killer "appears to have become radicalised very quickly". while a neighbour of his ex-wife added: "Mohamed only started visiting a mosque in April." The Bastille Day attack was claimed by Isis and investigators say they have found proof that Bouhlel was in contact with known Islamic radicals by checking his phone records. End Quote:

[Jingthing]

So your solution is to change Islam. Would that it were so simple. What practical process do you suggest for bring that about?

Actually, coexistence between all manner of different groups is perfectly possible - as long as each group is basically happy in itself. It's when they get unhappy that strife occurs, and when they become bitter, terrorism occurs. When you say 'the same sort of behaviour elsewhere' - where do you mean? In Nigeria? In Bangladesh? In Southern Thailand? In Mindanao? - those all display exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. It's the same principle: reassertion of identity due to damaged self-esteem.

Muslims are bitter because the modern world is leaving them behind on all sorts of issues - they are literally outcast from several aspects of life's feast (need I list them?). Yes, you could change all that by throwing out the Koran and creating a new Islam, but it's a fair bet that isn't going to happen for a few millennia - and in the meantime there is a slow agonising inner turmoil that radical, macho elements are taking out on the perceived cause - the decadent infidel west.

It's almost hopeless, but politics is the more immediate, more practical fix that would at least make Muslims happier about themselves. I've suggested the specific example that I believe has been the root cause of all this tension and is therefore the key to de-escalating it. It should be up to the UN to fix that, but the UN is an unmitigated and comprehensive failure.

You still try to pin this on your cause of Muslims as victims. The Muslim world is rife with SECTARIAN violence. You ask where this occurs?

Bahrain

Indonesia

Iran (a terrorist state that executes it's own people on religions, free speech or sexual basis)

Iraq

Lebanon

Libya

Pakistan (a backwards state where honor killings are the norm.

Saudi Arabia (any country that needs secret religious police to suppress the population is a terrorist state)

Somalia

Syria

Yemen

And to be honest, I am sure you can look the rest up yourself.

The modern world has not left these countries behind. How on earth have we held Saudi Arabia behind? We send them cash for oil by the truckload. They should be the most advanced state on the planet, yet women are second class citizens there.

You are trying to make victims of these states when the reality is that it is Islam that has held them back. Not us. They have done this to themselves.

As for religious reform - it will not take Millennia. It will take support of the countries that are sponsoring extremism around the world. You do not need to throw away the Koran any more than you needed to throw away the bible.

I am sure most Mulsims in Iran would be more than happy if their government were oppressing them en-masse. That government is a violent minority that has a stranglehold on the population. Iran was a thriving nation before the mad Mullahs took over. It could go back to the way it was before. The people there haven't changed fundamentally but their oppressors have.

We both agreed above that we weren't talking about sectarian violence. We're not talking about the situation within Iran for example - it's different, and it's not relevant to ISIS or this thread. We're talking about why extremist Muslims are taking their pent up bitterness out on the west.

By the 'modern world leaving Islam behind', I mean social permissiveness - the whole par-tay of western civilisation to which they are not allowed to participate. The whole sexual liberation thing we have been having fun with since the 60s has bypassed them completely. And sexual repression creates a pressure cooker of social issues.

As to religious reform - that is impossible without in some way rewriting, or ignoring, the Koran. Get real. That's not going to happen.

It's not about the Islamic texts. It's about the CULTURES, politics, and ethnic aspects and conflicts of Muslim people. Reform is very difficult, yes. It means not being FUNDAMENTALIST about the nasty parts of the texts which has largely been done among most Jews and Christians, the fellow two Abrahamic religions. For example in the USA Christian fundamentalism is popular and some of them will point out religious justification to murder gays, but it has not become law and it likely won't and support for that is VERY unpopular.

Yes, of course, dude, Muslims are people and they are capable of not taking all of their religious texts LITERALLY just like other people.

There are parts of Muslim dogma that very peace promoting as well. I think most of would hope those parts WERE taken more literally!

Edited July 17, 2016 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nice-attack-lorry-driver-killer-mohamed-lahouaiej-bouhlel-sent-84000-his-family-days-before-1570996

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/nice-terrorist-sent-84000-family-8435760

Quote: "Mohamed sent the family 240,000 Tunisian Dinars (£84,000) in the last few days," Bouhlel's brother told MailOnline. "He used to send us small sums of money regularly like most Tunisians working abroad. But then he sent us all that money, it was fortune. "He sent the money illegally. He gave cash to people he knew who were returning to our village and asked them to give it to the family." Bernard Cazeneuve, the French interior minister said the killer "appears to have become radicalised very quickly". while a neighbour of his ex-wife added: "Mohamed only started visiting a mosque in April." The Bastille Day attack was claimed by Isis and investigators say they have found proof that Bouhlel was in contact with known Islamic radicals by checking his phone records. End Quote:

That's all pretty damning.

[Dagnabbit]

So your solution is to change Islam. Would that it were so simple. What practical process do you suggest for bring that about?

Actually, coexistence between all manner of different groups is perfectly possible - as long as each group is basically happy in itself. It's when they get unhappy that strife occurs, and when they become bitter, terrorism occurs. When you say 'the same sort of behaviour elsewhere' - where do you mean? In Nigeria? In Bangladesh? In Southern Thailand? In Mindanao? - those all display exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. It's the same principle: reassertion of identity due to damaged self-esteem.

Muslims are bitter because the modern world is leaving them behind on all sorts of issues - they are literally outcast from several aspects of life's feast (need I list them?). Yes, you could change all that by throwing out the Koran and creating a new Islam, but it's a fair bet that isn't going to happen for a few millennia - and in the meantime there is a slow agonising inner turmoil that radical, macho elements are taking out on the perceived cause - the decadent infidel west.

It's almost hopeless, but politics is the more immediate, more practical fix that would at least make Muslims happier about themselves. I've suggested the specific example that I believe has been the root cause of all this tension and is therefore the key to de-escalating it. It should be up to the UN to fix that, but the UN is an unmitigated and comprehensive failure.

You still try to pin this on your cause of Muslims as victims. The Muslim world is rife with SECTARIAN violence. You ask where this occurs?

Bahrain

Indonesia

Iran (a terrorist state that executes it's own people on religions, free speech or sexual basis)

Iraq

Lebanon

Libya

Pakistan (a backwards state where honor killings are the norm.

Saudi Arabia (any country that needs secret religious police to suppress the population is a terrorist state)

Somalia

Syria

Yemen

And to be honest, I am sure you can look the rest up yourself.

The modern world has not left these countries behind. How on earth have we held Saudi Arabia behind? We send them cash for oil by the truckload. They should be the most advanced state on the planet, yet women are second class citizens there.

You are trying to make victims of these states when the reality is that it is Islam that has held them back. Not us. They have done this to themselves.

As for religious reform - it will not take Millennia. It will take support of the countries that are sponsoring extremism around the world. You do not need to throw away the Koran any more than you needed to throw away the bible.

I am sure most Mulsims in Iran would be more than happy if their government were oppressing them en-masse. That government is a violent minority that has a stranglehold on the population. Iran was a thriving nation before the mad Mullahs took over. It could go back to the way it was before. The people there haven't changed fundamentally but their oppressors have.

We both agreed above that we weren't talking about sectarian violence. We're not talking about the situation within Iran for example - it's different, and it's not relevant to ISIS or this thread. We're talking about why extremist Muslims are taking their pent up bitterness out on the west.

By the 'modern world leaving Islam behind', I mean social permissiveness - the whole par-tay of western civilisation to which they are not allowed to participate. The whole sexual liberation thing we have been having fun with since the 60s has bypassed them completely. And sexual repression creates a pressure cooker of social issues.

As to religious reform - that is impossible without in some way rewriting, or ignoring, the Koran. Get real. That's not going to happen.

When Muslims kill people of different sects are religion it is for the same root cause.

They take out their bitterness on the West and the Middle East. It takes only a small difference in the way they worship Islam for Jihadi's to kill people. It does not matter where they do it.

It is now coming out that ISIS radicalized this man across the internet. ISIS are the ones that killed more than 200 mostly Muslims in Baghdad last month. Given that - how do you figure this man in Nice, radicalized by the same group that killed those people in Iraq, did it for a different reason.

So now you blame it on the sexual revolution of the West. Once again, making victims of the perpetrators. Your argument is shifting with each rebuttal. It is now somehow the "swinging 60's" that is the blame for Western Islamic terrorism? The fact that ISIS, a Middle Eastern group said they'd carry out attacks & they are now happening, doesn't sway you at all?

And anyway - I don't think the "swinging 60's" necessarily passed the Middle East by - take a look at this: http://9gag.com/gag/aWOpX3K/iran-in-the-60s-and-70s

The West never "left them behind" - the Mullahs sent them back to the middle ages.

[Berkshire]

Your logic makes even less sense. Your nuke argument aside (??), you seem to be insinuating that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims plotting to kill westerners. Ilost is right, there would be a heck of a lot more dead westerners if this was the case. If the world was at war with Islam, we'd all be in a lot of trouble. It seems that a lot of you right wing guys want just that. Can't you see that you're playing into the hands of the truly radical, who number only in the thousands? Yes, a few thousand can play havoc in the world, but imagine what hundreds of million can do.

France is at war or that's what they say themselves. In your opinion France is doing great? No problems with muslims?

Read this:

French Government Forced To Admit It "Suppressed News Of Gruesome Torture" At Bataclan Massacre

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-15/french-government-forced-admit-it-suppressed-news-gruesome-torture-bataclan-massacre

http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/rap-enq/r3922-t2.asp

Yes, France has been at war with Muslims and it's not working out so well. I posted a CNN article recently which talked to that. Daily harassment and isolation of the Muslim communities in France. They're creating more radical Muslims by the day. I don't think America should follow that path.

[Nasrullah]

driver was a criminal womanising drunk on antidepressants to control his bouts of rage. Naturally ISIS are proud to claim him.

[Scott]

A post with an inflammatory reference to CNN has been removed.

[sujoop]

Could all the typical reactionary 'they're gonna get us(!!!)', 'throw em all out', anti-Muslim, pro-Trump, pro-Brexit, pro-gun, afraid of your own shadows, big girls blouse types, please, please, please: STOP directly assisting ISIS with their recruitment and their desired clash of civilisations by your constant castigation of an ENTIRE religious group same as a relatively tiny group of extremist, radical, terrorist, murderers and some associated disenfranchised, demented, suicidal, losers.

Please STOP helping ISIS (also please adopt a wee bit of mettle and rational thinking). Thanks, much appreciated.

[Seraphina]

Update http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/17/nice-terror-attack-police-vans-blocking-promenade-withdrawn-hour1/

The death toll is rather more than several - in the 80s, and the injured more than 200 including children. Shots were fired both from inside the truck and into the truck by police.

I was in Nice on the Côte d'Azur on the day of this incident. It was noticable to me that security for the jazz festival on the Promenade des Anglais (where the incident happened) was far higher than it was at Nice international airport which is a 1.50 euro ride from the city centre. Indeed, the police weren't interested in either of the unattended baggage incidents that I personally pointed out.

I was particularly nervous that day because Bastille Day is all about the celebration of freedom and the French, despite Charlie Hebdo et al are not as bomb conscious as the Brits, especially those of us who lived through 30 years of IRA bomb scares.

Many won't know that the French police are split into two parts: the national and the local police. There is considerable rivalry between them. The local police go home at midnight on the dot - at least that's what they told me when I went to see them. At 11.30pm, the local police directed me to the national police.....so it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that's why they were unprepared in the late evening on Bastille Day. I'm guessing they were getting ready to go home after the fireworks and BEFORE the crowds had dispersed!

According to this BBC article (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36803542), the French authorities in charge of security (national and local), have still not learned to communicate with each other. Don't forget that Interpol's HQ is in France and that the football hooligan problem in Marseilles were similarly poorly managed by both the national police and Interpol - both of which have specialist football hooligan divisions.*

Mark my words, it will take the death of a politican's son or daughter to motivate French politicians to stop sitting on the fence about their lax and longstanding immigration policy. Unfortunately, noone dares approach this subject for fear of losing votes.

It will be interesting to see if incumbent government allows the French population to vote in or out of the EU. The last French referendum was in 2005 aimed at ratifying (or not) the EU constitution with a result of 55% of French saying, "No".

* Marseilles was a very good choice for the hooligans as the police there are very 'particuliers'.

[Dagnabbit]

Could all the typical reactionary 'they're gonna get us(!!!)', 'throw em all out', anti-Muslim, pro-Trump, pro-Brexit, pro-gun, afraid of your own shadows, big girls blouse types, please, please, please: STOP directly assisting ISIS with their recruitment and their desired clash of civilisations by your constant castigation of an ENTIRE religious group same as a relatively tiny group of extremist, radical, terrorist, murderers and some associated disenfranchised, demented, suicidal, losers.

Please STOP helping ISIS (also please adopt a wee bit of mettle and rational thinking). Thanks, much appreciated.

There is none of that on this thread.

The problems is that liberals, in their rush to call everyone xenophobic jump at shadows and see things that aren't actually being said.