Dozens feared dead after truck strikes crowd in Nice, France

[DeadPresident]

The internet is written in pen.

And if we were talking about white supremacists everyone would probably be more likely to say "Yes, take them out, we don't need those kinds of people".

 

[DeadPresident]

Some of the comments in this thread make the posters sound really terrible. Detain innocent people because they had the misfortune to be related to a terrorist?

Kill enough people and we win?

Let's start a religious war with Islam and see how much we can recreate the Crusades?

What's next? Nuking Iraq and Syria? A few comments already hinted at doing that.

More than 80 people are dead and the response in here is let's go kill a whole lot more to get revenge.

The problem is a lack of force means we just continue as we are, all of us rolling the dice every day hoping to not be run over by a truck or blown up in an airport. At what point does a nation state use the necessary force to protect its citizens? Is killing or mistreating people palatable? Not in the slightest. Is there an amicable way to navigate this issue? Not one that's come to light yet.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

And if we were talking about white supremacists everyone would probably be more likely to say "Yes, take them out, we don't need those kinds of people".

People didn't even want to call Dylann Roof's mass murder "terrorism".

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Some of the comments in this thread make the posters sound really terrible. Detain innocent people because they had the misfortune to be related to a terrorist?

Kill enough people and we win?

Let's start a religious war with Islam and see how much we can recreate the Crusades?

What's next? Nuking Iraq and Syria? A few comments already hinted at doing that.

More than 80 people are dead and the response in here is let's go kill a whole lot more to get revenge.

Yup, this kind of fear and anger is how genocides start.

 

[Shikamaru]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/



How do Muslims feel about groups like ISIS?

Recent surveys show that most people in several countries with significant Muslim populations have an unfavorable view of ISIS, including virtually all respondents in Lebanon and 94% in Jordan. Relatively small shares say they see ISIS favorably. In some countries, considerable portions of the population do not offer an opinion about ISIS, including a majority (62%) of Pakistanis.

Favorable views of ISIS are somewhat higher in Nigeria (14%) than most other nations. Among Nigerian Muslims, 20% say they see ISIS favorably (compared with 7% of Nigerian Christians). The Nigerian militant group Boko Haram, which has been conducting a terrorist campaign in the country for years, has sworn allegiance to ISIS.

More generally, Muslims mostly say that suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam are rarely or never justified, including 92% in Indonesia and 91% in Iraq. In the United States, a 2011 survey found that 86% of Muslims say that such tactics are rarely or never justified. An additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified and 1% say they are often justified in these circumstances.

In a few countries, a quarter or more of Muslims say that these acts of violence are at least sometimes justified, including 40% in the Palestinian territories, 39% in Afghanistan, 29% in Egypt and 26% in Bangladesh.

In many cases, people in countries with large Muslim populations are as concerned as Western nations about the threat of Islamic extremism, and have become increasingly concerned in recent years. About two-thirds of people in Nigeria (68%) and Lebanon (67%) said earlier this year they are very concerned about Islamic extremism in their country, both up significantly since 2013.

None of those numbers contradict the 22% figure, though I'm somewhat skeptical of the Iraq one.

Also, being against ISIS is slightly misleading. Al-Qaeda and the Saudi government are also against ISIS.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/?utm_source=mandiner&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=mandiner_201309

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/07/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

 

[DeadPresident]

People didn't even want to call Dylann Roof's mass murder "terrorism".

True, but if you ask most liberals whether they'd rather exterminate white supremacists (who may or may not be physically harming anyone) or radical Islamists they'd probably opt for the rednecks. I'm not sure when it happened but in the eyes of liberals the world over Islam has suddenly become a sacred topic. When it's Christians/Jews/Atheists they have no trouble condemning the actual set of beliefs, but for some reason they won't do it with extremists acting in the name of Islam.

Are we suddenly going to start claiming the Crusades had nothing to do with Christianity? "They're not real Christians!".

There's a hypocrisy present when the discussion of how to deal with radical Islam comes up.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Forgive me, again, there is a real threat to people from Islamic terrorism, but I can't believe that a survey of 38,000 automatically equals 322 million people should be labeled as "fanatics" out to destroy the West. That is painting with a broad brush, and I say this as an atheist with no particular love of actions taken in the name of religion.

 

[Marvolo]

“My husband picked up the kids and started running, I turned around and just saw so many dead people. I even saw a baby with its head totally crushed,” Linda, an eyewitness, told France’s iTélé over the phone.

The piece of **** that did this deserves to burn in hell.

 

[Shikamaru]

Forgive me, again, there is a real threat to people from Islamic terrorism, but I can't believe that a survey of 38,000 automatically equals 322 million people should be labeled as "fanatics" out to destroy the West. That is painting with a broad brush, and I say this as an atheist with no particular love of actions taken in the name of religion.

It only seems like a huge number until you account for the number of Muslims in the world. How can it be painting with a broad brush when we're talking about exact statistics here? 22% isn't even a majority of Muslims.

And again, you're not taking into account the 22% consists of Jihadists and Islamists. Islamists aren't terrorists but want to implement Sharia through the political system. So technically even less than 22% of Muslims hold Jihadist beliefs.

 

[Teelie]

True, but if you ask most liberals whether they'd rather exterminate white supremacists (who may or may not be physically harming anyone) or radical Islamists they'd probably opt for the rednecks. I'm not sure when it happened but in the eyes of liberals the world over Islam has suddenly become a sacred topic. When it's Christians/Jews/Atheists they have no trouble condemning the actual set of beliefs, but for some reason they won't do it with extremists acting in the name of Islam.

Are we suddenly going to start claiming the Crusades had nothing to do with Christianity? "They're not real Christians!".

There's a hypocrisy present when the discussion of how to deal with radical Islam comes up.

Now you are just making up hypotheticals to justify an extreme solution.

What liberals are we talking about that would say kill rednecks but let radical Islamists live? You have invented an entirely new stereotype to justify the mass imprisonment of innocent people or the mass murder of innocent people to kill some terrorists because you can't seperate the two and call it merely "distasteful" without looking for perhaps the nongenocidal/non-war crimes solution instead.

It's easier to just kill loads of people than find a solution that only stops the actual terrorists. Your solution ironically just creates more of them. How the hell do you think ISIS got a start? By the very thing you suggest doing. Indiscriminate imprisonment and killing of innocent people.

 

[terry78]

They've given themselves quite the loophole.

Attack us, and you've proven us right about you western warmongers.

Leave us alone and we'll continue to do what we do to those we deem against our cause.

Unless somebody within the ranks decides to do something from within, yeah. They're basically the epitome of insane troll logic.

 

[chamber-music]

I watched Ross Kemp: The Fight Against Isis the other night.
[YT]/YQrI50f8pxc[/YT]
Kemp traveled to parts of Iraq and Syria only recently taken back from Isis by Kurdish forces.

Some of the stories he got from the people he interviewed were horrific.

One Yazidi mother who's family was captured by ISIS told how her husband was taken away and probably killed. Her 11 year old daughter was taken from her and sold to slavery. She tried to escape with her three remaining children. ISIS caught her, they poisoned her remaining children and took photos to show others what happens if people try to escape. They handed her the body of her baby boy which died in her arms. She did get to see her other two dead children besides the photos.

Kemp visited the liberated ruins of a mostly Yazidi Kurdish town which was destroyed. He found a man who told him ISIS killed his mother in front of him.

 

[jr24tw]

Just wait until next week. Belgium have their national holiday and are already ****ting themselves to fall victim of an attack, AGAIN.

The problem is as long as the West supplies these terrorists with weapons (mostly via Saudi Arabia) while pretending to fight them nothing will change. The elite who is only interested in globalisation and doesn't give a damn about their own people. Plus the added bonus of terror on their own turf allows for a status quo (and the passing of certain laws). Buying the press and supressing information while flooding the news with right-wing party crap and right extremist activities also helps their agenda. However more people are waking up to this madness and if people can't change anything politically (via Selections/Voting) they will take matters into their own hands eventually. And then we have civil war. It's the only future for Europe for example that I currently see.

 

[Teelie]

Now we are devolving into civil war is the only solution...

 

[DeadPresident]

Now you are just making up hypotheticals to justify an extreme solution.

What liberals are we talking about that would say kill rednecks but let radical Islamists live? You have invented an entirely new stereotype to justify the mass imprisonment of innocent people or the mass murder of innocent people to kill some terrorists because you can't seperate the two and call it merely "distasteful" without looking for perhaps the nongenocidal/non-war crimes solution instead.

It's easier to just kill loads of people than find a solution that only stops the actual terrorists. Your solution ironically just creates more of them. How the hell do you think ISIS got a start? By the very thing you suggest doing. Indiscriminate imprisonment and killing of innocent people.

So suggest a solution. Tolerance seems to be working well so far, no?

And my hypothetical scenario was meant to illustrate the tolerance we've developed for one kind of religious extremism to avoid hurting people's feelings but people are draconian about others.

People are at some stage going to have to ask themselves if not defending themselves is worth 300-500 innocent lives a year, taken at random, in the most brutal ways possible. At what point are nation states going to start doing what they were designed to do; protect their citizens? Find me a non-violent and successful avenue that stops loss of life and I'll be the first guy to put my name down.

 

[Teelie]

Just like going into Iraq and Afganistan guns blazing has solved everything. Your ignorance is just baffling. We did exactly what you suggested and it created ****ing ISIS and you want to what, create Super ISIS now?

 

[DeadPresident]

Just like going into Iraq and Afganistan guns blazing has solved everything. Your ignorance is just baffling. We did exactly what you suggested and it created ****ing ISIS and you want to what, create Super ISIS now?

What is your solution, pumpkin? Stop lamenting and give me an alternative, very simple task. When did everyone become a spineless coward? So long as we don't have human beings fit to occupy this social utopia everyone craves we've got the old rules to play by. The old rules dictate that when someone violates your sovereignty and kills your citizens you stop them from doing it.

You say I'm ignorant? I'm not the one ignoring human nature and apparently at ease with the fact that inaction makes an entire population victims of a sick roulette game of who's going to get killed next. As unpalatable as it might be for your sensitive sensibilities the correct response is not sitting and observing tragedies in idle anticipation of a miraculous solution. You're going to keep turning all your cheeks until it affects you personally and then you'll whine about why nobody stood up to do anything.

What would Churchill or Eisenhower or any other strong leader have done in this context?

 

[Teelie]

You are ignorant. Your answer was already tried and it failed. Your ignorance is doubly appearent when you think some random person on the internet is going to say "here's your solution to terrorism right here!" and then make peace in the world. I also never once suggested any of the ******** pacifist claims you are forcing into my mouth. That is all your creation, not mine.

You are really just wanting to fight over something that will never be won.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Some of the comments in this thread make the posters sound really terrible. Detain innocent people because they had the misfortune to be related to a terrorist?

Kill enough people and we win?

Let's start a religious war with Islam and see how much we can recreate the Crusades?

What's next? Nuking Iraq and Syria? A few comments already hinted at doing that.

More than 80 people are dead and the response in here is let's go kill a whole lot more to get revenge.

Well yes, killing people who are a part of ISIS does seem like the logical plan. Are you suggesting killing them isn't?

 

[Teelie]

But that isn't the suggestion, is it? It's to kill indiscriminately and without thought. That is what war is and what you are suggesting. That we go to war against ISIS which is really just a poorly covered up holy war on Islam and one that again, can never be won.

 

[DeadPresident]

You are ignorant. Your answer was already tried and it failed. Your ignorance is doubly appearent when you think some random person on the internet is going to say "here's your solution to terrorism right here!" and then make peace in the world. I also never once suggested any of the ******** pacifist claims you are forcing into my mouth. That is all your creation, not mine.

You are really just wanting to fight over something that will never be won.

My solution isn't to do "exactly what was done in Iraq and Afghanistan" - my solution is to defend innocent people. At the moment you're saying it's better to leave innocents to their fate than stand up and address barbarism, that's not only morally dubious it's also pathetic and cowardly. People are going to die in this scenario, one way or another, I find it charming that I'm the ignorant one but you're more comfortable with children holding teddy bears being mowed over by shipping trucks than attempting to kill the people who think that's a good use of a Thursday evening. There is no pacifist solution here, people can just elect to stop being the ideological and physical punching bags you're comfortable being.

I'm not claiming "it will ever be won", I'm saying it could stem the tide.

 

[Teelie]

No, you want to make internment camps for Muslims, you want to call anyone who dares disagree with your kill them all approach as pathetic and cowardly. You can't offer a solution that does not kill innocent people and not martyr them to create more ISIS soldiers. And yet you continue to bring into this comments I never once made. Quote me where I once said that innocent people should die to let ISIS go on. To where I said they shouldn't be stopped or dealt with in any way other than peacefully.

Find one quote where I said there was a peaceful answer.

 

[DeadPresident]

But that isn't the suggestion, is it? It's to kill indiscriminately and without thought. That is what war is and what you are suggesting. That we go to war against ISIS which is really just a poorly covered up holy war on Islam and one that again, can never be won.

Who said indiscriminately? This isn't about "winning", no armed conflict ever results in a victory - this is about defending innocent people. Would you tell any of the victims' families with a straight face this is the best way for this situation to pan out?

Grow a spine and face reality for a few minutes.

 

[Teelie]

You just keep on twisting those words.

 

[DeadPresident]

No, you want to make internment camps for Muslims, you want to call anyone who dares disagree with your kill them all approach as pathetic and cowardly. You can't offer a solution that does not kill innocent people and not martyr them to create more ISIS soldiers. And yet you continue to bring into this comments I never once made. Quote me where I once said that innocent people should die to let ISIS go on. To where I said they shouldn't be stopped or dealt with in any way other than peacefully.

Find one quote where I said there was a peaceful answer.

Quote me once where I said I wanted interment camps? I've used the words "defend innocent lives" - I didn't state any of the specific actions you've attributed to me and you're the one saying I'm putting words in your mouth?

I'm not advocating killing innocent people, Einstein, I'm saying that unfortunately we've reached an impasse where we now have a choice between innocent civilians dying, or those plotting to kill the innocent civilians dying.