Outrage in Nice

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff,

My guess is that it would only play into extremist hands and make the problem worse. They want a reaction, and the killers are prepared to commit suicide to get it, and for any friends or family members with the same mindset to do the same. They attack innocent people indiscriminately, making victims of children and adults, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. How would we go about taking out only those who are prepared to die anyway for their murderous 'cause'? And why would we want to take out anyone who has no involvement?

Love,

Caz
X

Humanely you are right Caz, but if the possibility of their successful achieving of the extremist Islamic version of heaven could be successfully denied them, they would tremble and fall. But it is a big if...possibly too big.

Jeff

[Pcdunn]

Tragedy on Bastille Day

Early days yet. Terrorist organisations are often quick to claim responsibility whether they had anything to do with it or not. All we know of this guy so far is that he was a Frenchman of Tunisian descent. So he could have been ISIS, or maybe he radicalised himself like Omar Mateen did. It strikes me more as the act of a loner than something organised.

If it was a pickup-truck or a sports utility vehicle, I'd agree with you about the lone wolf, but it was a honking big cargo truck (lorry, for our British friends)-- and now they say the explosives and weapons were fake?!

Something very hinky about all this...

[Karl]

If it was a pickup-truck or a sports utility vehicle, I'd agree with you about the lone wolf, but it was a honking big cargo truck (lorry, for our British friends)-- and now they say the explosives and weapons were fake?!

Something very hinky about all this...

He could have had access to that truck through his profession - I don't know what his profession was yet, but if not alone, where are the other attackers? It is not like ISIS to send just one solitary assassin. And on an occasion such as the Bastille Day, they could do a great deal more damage with more terrorists wreaking havoc.

Also, the guns and grenades were in the truck, presumably in the back. What good were they to him back there? At what point did the terrorist hope to have the opportunity to stop and get a chance to use them? It seems that he was going to keep on driving until he was stopped by force, which is indeed what happened.

[Karl]

Humanely you are right Caz, but if the possibility of their successful achieving of the extremist Islamic version of heaven could be successfully denied them, they would tremble and fall. But it is a big if...possibly too big.

How would that work? How would killing their families in any way, shape or form deny them the possibility of achieving the extremist Islamic version of heaven?

And how would we then be able to claim the moral high ground? It's ok for us to do it to them, because... because they started it? Even if one were to accept such an infantile argument, it isn't even true. There wouldn't be any ISIS if not for Western "intervention" in Iraq, getting rid of Saddam. The same guy we supported and supplied with biological weapons to help him fight Iran. The West has a long history of destabilising the Middle East, for our own purposes. The very best way to fight terrorism is to not cultivate it in the first place.

[MsWeatherwax]

Early days yet. Terrorist organisations are often quick to claim responsibility whether they had anything to do with it or not. All we know of this guy so far is that he was a Frenchman of Tunisian descent. So he could have been ISIS, or maybe he radicalised himself like Omar Mateen did. It strikes me more as the act of a loner than something organised.

Agree. I've seen something about him recently appearing in court on charges of violent conduct. I have a feeling this is going to stem from a mental health issue, possibly similar to James Holmes.

[Robert]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36801763

[Abby Normal]

Thanks Robert and GUT,

I had not heard by 8:30 EST in New York City. I'll catch the news at ten.

Somebody should pull one of these on ISIS or ISIL's own people - I shouldn't wish that, but I'd wonder what would happen if their families were similarly slaughtered by a suicide squad of killers.

Jeff

heart and prayers go out to all victims and there family and once again to the French people.

Somebody should pull one of these on ISIS or ISIL's own people - I shouldn't wish that, but I'd wonder what would happen if their families were similarly slaughtered by a suicide squad of killers.

Nahhh. All we need to do is take out Isis. we know where they are, we know their HQ-Raqqa. only miles from Turkish border. just need someone to take the lead and do it. air superiority. overwhelming intel, tech and troops.it would be pretty easy and quick-just need someone, anybody with the balls to step up.

and I guess if the US wont do it-nobody will.

[jason_c]

heart and prayers go out to all victims and there family and once again to the French people.



Nahhh. All we need to do is take out Isis. we know where they are, we know their HQ-Raqqa. only miles from Turkish border. just need someone to take the lead and do it. air superiority. overwhelming intel, tech and troops.it would be pretty easy and quick-just need someone, anybody with the balls to step up.

and I guess if the US wont do it-nobody will.

Im not sure its as easy as this. Sure, ISIS may be destroyed by the West. ISIS is not the problem though; the problem is militant Islam. We have already seen ISIS succeed Al Qaeda in the hearts and minds of Islamic militants. In all probability another militant group simply succeeds ISIS if we destroy it.

[Abby Normal]

Im not sure its as easy as this. Sure, ISIS may be destroyed by the West. ISIS is not the problem though; the problem is militant Islam. We have already seen ISIS succeed Al Qaeda in the hearts and minds of Islamic militants. In all probability another militant group simply succeeds ISIS if we destroy it.

maybe. maybe not.
And Ohhh yes Isis IS the problem now. but one things for sure-more of the same if we don't take them out now.
and that's not really a valid reason for not confronting and defeating an enemy like Isis that's a present threat any way.

[Pcdunn]

Identification of the Bastille Day attacker-- "well-known French-Tunisian criminal"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/07/15/details-nice-attack-suspect-emerge/87117642

[Abby Normal]

Identification of the Bastille Day attacker-- "well-known French-Tunisian criminal"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...merge/87117642

first name-Mohamed

[Harry D]

first name-Mohamed

Peace be upon him.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Peace be upon him.

I think we are the people who need 'peace be upon him'. Because Christ, do we ever need some sort of moral compass.

We think it's fine to go into other people's countries and hand them instructions on how to run their lives while re-arranging the furniture.

Now of course your average man/woman on the street has paid the price, was it ever thus.

But, I don't recall people from the Middle East and places such as North Africa having a problem with us before we began to throw our collective weight about.

You waltz into someone else's country and they're not gonna like it, nor are they gonna play by your rules in a game they can't win with three or four proto-tanks.

'Time we looked in the mirror and left these places. History supports my point of view, it usually starts one way and ends one way; and this will not end until we leave.

[Karl]

I think we are the people who need 'peace be upon him'. Because Christ, do we ever need some sort of moral compass.

We think it's fine to go into other people's countries and hand them instructions on how to run their lives while re-arranging the furniture.

Now of course your average man/woman on the street has paid the price, was it ever thus.

But, I don't recall people from the Middle East and places such as North Africa having a problem with us before we began to throw our collective weight about.

You waltz into someone else's country and they're not gonna like it, nor are they gonna play by your rules in a game they can't win with three or four proto-tanks.

'Time we looked in the mirror and left these places. History supports my point of view, it usually starts one way and ends one way; and this will not end until we leave.

Very well put, and in that context I find this Youtube video very relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUEGHdQO7WA

It is very naive to think it is because they are Muslim, and they are somehow commanded by their religion to be our enemies. They naturally invoke their faith in any greater enterprise they undertake, same as any religious person of any faith ("Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition"), so no wonder they say "Allahu akhbar" at every turn. Two reasons for that, depending on whether they are religious or not: the religious say it to boost their courage, and the irreligious - the ones recruited locally in the West - because of the notoriety associated with the phrase.

The reason for the terrorist attacks, however, is not religious. Both (or rather, all) sides believe themselves to be on the defensive. "They want to change our way of life" - there's your reason, in a nutshell, why everybody is hating everybody else. It may be religious in the sense that "they hate us, want to destroy us, because we are Christian/Muslim; we are fighting for our very existence". Even ISIS sprang from this mentality, not the desire for worldwide Islamic theocracy. That's how we see their motives, but that is not how they see their own motives. Which reminds me of an interview with German U-boat ace Otto Kretschmer, where he muses on his time as a POW and reading American Newspapers. He was amused to read how Americans apparently thought the Germans wanted to take over the world, whereas that was not a motivation he identified with in the slightest.

In short, it is very easy to have a very skewed idea of why other people do the things they do. We always tend to view them in the way that lands as little responsibility as possible on ourselves.

And why terrorist tactics? Because in any given conflict, you fight the way you can. They do not stand a chance in the open, so they don't fight in the open. The fact that they are resorting to terrorism proves they are on the defensive, rather than the offensive.

In this particular case, however, I think it was the act of a single lunatic - much as the Orlando shooter. Coming from a minority background, especially one which is very popular to hate, surely helped push them over the edge. And ditto the Dallas shooter, for that matter. Anyone belonging to a group that is being marginalised is bound to feel less kinship and loyalty to what is perceived as an oppressive majority. And while it is easy for us, the majority, to expect them to be grateful for partaking of the benefits of living in our society, it is human nature to always focus on what we don't have. And it doesn't help to feel constantly unwelcome, and on top of that expected to feel grateful. I certainly understand why minorities would feel embittered.

[Mayerling]

Very well put, and in that context I find this Youtube video very relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUEGHdQO7WA

The reason for the terrorist attacks, however, is not religious. Both (or rather, all) sides believe themselves to be on the defensive. "They want to change our way of life" - there's your reason, in a nutshell, why everybody is hating everybody else.

Which reminds me of an interview with German U-boat ace Otto Kretschmer, where he muses on his time as a POW and reading American Newspapers. He was amused to read how Americans apparently thought the Germans wanted to take over the world, whereas that was not a motivation he identified with in the slightest.

On the level of Kretschmer himself, he probably did not personally seek that kind of global power. But he was probably aware of how the regime in Germany had been acting since 1933, and that it had (by 1941) conquered or controlled most of the continent of Europe and North Africa. As a U-boat ace he was told to sink ships of the Allies. He never doubted he was right to do that. Did he ever wonder about the eventual result of sinking those ships? You may argue that his view in doing this was patriotic, but he must have realized that if "Operation Drum-beat" in the Atlantic Ocean had succeeded the Hitler regime would have won - and that regime was not interested in self-agrandizement and conquest? There was a little ingenuousness there.

Jeff