Nice mayor: 'Tens of dead' when truck runs into crowd

[ExPatty 502]

I eagerly await for Newt to call for xenophobia tests. That should eliminate a significant portion of our population.

Right. The West are the xenophobic ones.

[John Miller 761]

Just a few of them. Most people in the West are quite open. It's over on the right that they're not.

[EyeofNewt 4]

Newt is obviously very correct.

[John Miller 761]

You better tell him. He backpedaled his comments hastily already. Would be odd if he thought he was right.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Right. The West are the xenophobic ones.

For a moment I thought you had posted a pic of the Aurora CO movie theater. Then I remembered that for you only one type of violence matters, the overwhelming cacophony of senseless gun violence in the US is something that you barely notice.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

France dosent have Madd killings like the USA, cause they have gun control policies that make sense.

[John Miller 761]

This is true. Despite being hit by acts of terror, the body count in France - even on a per capita basis - is not in any danger of reaching US levels.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

This is true. Despite being hit by acts of terror, the body count in France - even on a per capita basis - is not in any danger of reaching US levels.

That's cause they are over there. When Trump is elected he will stop Obama's idiot plan to move them here. Believe me it's going to happen.

[John Miller 761]

That's cause they are over there. When Trump is elected he will stop Obama's idiot plan to move them here. Believe me it's going to happen.

You really believe that nonsense, don't you? And again, we have more killers here than they have over there. The body count shows that rather impressively. Nobody can compete with this country on dead bodies. Nobody.

[JayJayH 546]

4 is not true

5 repeat

I'm just the messenger, conveying the common narrative.

Not real muslims, though.

Where is the real one?

Sunnis keep telling me shias are not real. Shias keep telling me Ahmadiyas are not real. Ahmadiyas keep telling me Sufis are not real. Sufis keep telling me Sunnis are not real.

Either 1.6 billion Muslims are not real Muslims, or there is no such thing as a "real Muslim" and thus "nothing to do with Islam" is redundant and moot.

For a moment I thought you had posted a pic of the Aurora CO movie theater. Then I remembered that for you only one type of violence matters, the overwhelming cacophony of senseless gun violence in the US is something that you barely notice.

False.

But please show me the million man strong, global network of Batman-dressed movie theater shooters dead set on imposing schizophrenic law onto the West. There is none.

The difference between a "lone wolf" lunatic and a jihadist is the organization behind it.

There's quite a significant difference between a lone conman scamming you, and a global organization with millions of sympathizers scamming you.

The two are dealt with differently, because on the whole, they are different problems.

When a lone gunman opens fire on civilians, there is usually a mental illness involved. They don't typically have a global or even national network behind them. Maybe a cousin or two at most.

If you want to convince me that the millions of people who have joined ISIS, Al Qaida, Boko Haram, Jemaah Islamiyyah, Abu Sayyaf, Ansar al-Islam, Hezbollah, Jabath al-Nusra, Al Shabaab etc. etc. etc. are all mentally ill, then you'll also have to explain to me why it is that Muslims have a much higher rate of mental illness than adherents of any other religion.

Mass shootings in the U.S. are no different than Islamist and jihadist-inspired attacks? I know where you're getting at - Crazies exist everywhere, and we shouldn't single out any particular group. I'm sure the intention is good. I'll quote the great Muslim reformist Maajid Nawaz when I say that "there is a crisis within Islam" and trying to write it off as mental illness or comparing it to crazy lone wolves helps no one but the Islamists. You can either argue that Islam is perfect as it is today, or you could argue that it badly needs a reformation. I think most of us, deep down, would argue for the latter, rather than the former.

Edited July 16, 2016 by JayJayH

[JayJayH 546]

You really believe that nonsense, don't you? And again, we have more killers here than they have over there. The body count shows that rather impressively. Nobody can compete with this country on dead bodies. Nobody.

If you're counting by sheer numbers, I would agree. Of course, you have to adjust for the fact that the U.S. has a population 5x bigger than France.

But I think you're getting a few things mixed up. I would argue that there is a significant difference when a person is killed by a religiously/ideologically inspired terrorist whose main objective is to impose havoc on a civilian population, and a death following i.e. a domestic dispute - Just as there is a difference between a death following a drug deal gone bad and a DUI.

I know, a death is a death is a death, and one death is one too many.

However, different crimes have different roots and different solutions.

Gang violence in the U.S. for example can be brought down by bringing people out of poverty and ensuring young people in inner cities have a future.

Lone wolf attacks in the U.S. can be brought down by ensuring that people with a history of serious mental illness cannot purchase firearms.

Traffic deaths can be brought down by i.e. aggressive policing of drunk drivers.

Deaths caused by radical Islamists can be limited by preventing radicalization.

Why doesn't the U.S. have the radicalization problem that most of western Europe deals with every day? Because we've never had large scale influxes of low skilled immigrants from the Middle East. Funny too that those same countries (i.e. Sweden, France, Belgium) have ran the "inclusion", "multiculturalism" and "it's their culture" policies for three decades.

The U.S has nearly 30x the population of Sweden, yet, we have the same number of ISIS recruits as Sweden. Why? Because we've "spread them thin", we haven't worried about "racist" labels, and we've never allowed for the formation of "Muslim ghettos."

Edited July 16, 2016 by JayJayH

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Just as some have issues with proper spelling. We each have our own crosses to bear, eh?

Analogy and subtlty are concepts that escape you.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I'm just the messenger, conveying the common narrative.

Where is the real one?

Sunnis keep telling me shias are not real. Shias keep telling me Ahmadiyas are not real. Ahmadiyas keep telling me Sufis are not real. Sufis keep telling me Sunnis are not real.

Either 1.6 billion Muslims are not real Muslims, or there is no such thing as a "real Muslim" and thus "nothing to do with Islam" is redundant and moot.

False.

But please show me the million man strong, global network of Batman-dressed movie theater shooters dead set on imposing schizophrenic law onto the West. There is none.

The difference between a "lone wolf" lunatic and a jihadist is the organization behind it.

There's quite a significant difference between a lone conman scamming you, and a global organization with millions of sympathizers scamming you.

The two are dealt with differently, because on the whole, they are different problems.

When a lone gunman opens fire on civilians, there is usually a mental illness involved. They don't typically have a global or even national network behind them. Maybe a cousin or two at most.

If you want to convince me that the millions of people who have joined ISIS, Al Qaida, Boko Haram, Jemaah Islamiyyah, Abu Sayyaf, Ansar al-Islam, Hezbollah, Jabath al-Nusra, Al Shabaab etc. etc. etc. are all mentally ill, then you'll also have to explain to me why it is that Muslims have a much higher rate of mental illness than adherents of any other religion.

Mass shootings in the U.S. are no different than Islamist and jihadist-inspired attacks? I know where you're getting at - Crazies exist everywhere, and we shouldn't single out any particular group. I'm sure the intention is good. I'll quote the great Muslim reformist Maajid Nawaz when I say that "there is a crisis within Islam" and trying to write it off as mental illness or comparing it to crazy lone wolves helps no one but the Islamists. You can either argue that Islam is perfect as it is today, or you could argue that it badly needs a reformation. I think most of us, deep down, would argue for the latter, rather than the former.

I don't discount that there are Islamic Jihadis, nor do I discount that the US suffers a tremendous amount of deaths by gun violence. But you can go all the way back to the 911 attacks in 2001 and still be nowhere near the death toll since January 1st of this year.

Although the Right Wing Echo Chamber got fired up with joy, the only way to describe the high fiving in the early portion of this thread, it remains to be seen what the driver of this truck was motivated by. I'm noticing that there is no mention that he wasn't a newly minted refugee from Syria.

I am sure you understand that there are over a billion Muslim believers world wide. So let's give you a million Jihadis (a number you likely got from Jihadist propaganda or said Echo Chamber) and throw in two million alleged sympathizers. Using your own bogus numbers that makes a fairly tiny fraction of Muslims involved in Jihadist activities. Not saying that they are not a problem needing to be dealt with, but even your own bogus numbers should be a clue as to how foolish you sound? I'm going with not.

[JayJayH 546]

I don't discount that there are Islamic Jihadis, nor do I discount that the US suffers a tremendous amount of deaths by gun violence. But you can go all the way back to the 911 attacks in 2001 and still be nowhere near the death toll since January 1st of this year.

Although the Right Wing Echo Chamber got fired up with joy, the only way to describe the high fiving in the early portion of this thread, it remains to be seen what the driver of this truck was motivated by. I'm noticing that there is no mention that he wasn't a newly minted refugee from Syria.

I am sure you understand that there are over a billion Muslim believers world wide. So let's give you a million Jihadis (a number you likely got from Jihadist propaganda or said Echo Chamber) and throw in two million alleged sympathizers. Using your own bogus numbers that makes a fairly tiny fraction of Muslims involved in Jihadist activities. Not saying that they are not a problem needing to be dealt with, but even your own bogus numbers should be a clue as to how foolish you sound? I'm going with not.

I'm not disputing that more people are killed in the U.S. by "everyday" gun violence than jihadists. I don't think anyone does. What I'm getting at is that they're very different crimes that have very different solutions. Domestic disputes and gang violence can both end in a gun death, but we don't deal with them the same way. You don't assign domestic disputes to the gang squad. If 100,000 people die every year from cancer, we don't say "but look at all the people who died from all these other diseases!"

I've been a liberal most of my life, I favor certain restrictions on gun ownership. But all too often I hear of "guns" being addressed as a cause of violence. They are not. They are a tool to commit violence. Ultimately, when a person is shot, the only person responsible is the one who decided that one life was worth more than another - The person pulling the trigger. Not the GOP. Not the NRA. Not the DNC.

Compare jihadism to gang violence, sure. Compare it to DUIs, sure. Compare it to domestic violence, sure. Compare it to mentally ill people killing for no apparent reason sure. Comparing to "gun violence" as a cover-all however makes little sense, unless the goal is to "stick it" to conservatives.

When the person pulling the trigger (or hitting the gas pedal) has one goal in mind - To kill as many infidels as possible in order to restore the caliphate - This is a very different crime from that of an MS-13 gang member driving by an 18th Street Gang house. When the network behind the person pulling the trigger is supported by tens of millions of people worldwide, is well funded and global, it's on a very different scale.

"Although the Right Wing Echo Chamber got fired up with joy, the only way to describe the high fiving in the early portion of this thread, it remains to be seen what the driver of this truck was motivated by. I'm noticing that there is no mention that he wasn't a newly minted refugee from Syria." While I'm usually weary of jumping to early conclusions, the attack in Nice had every single hallmark of an Islamist-inspired attack:

1. Person with Middle Eastern immigrant background.

2. Criminal record.

3. Used nontraditional weapon.

4. Aimed to kill as many civilians as possible.

5. Described by neighbors as "calm, nice, quiet."

6. (Nothing to do with Islam.)

I don't think anyone actually believes that the majority of Syrian refugees are ISIS sympathizers. It's mostly a cover for arguing that taking in large amounts of unskilled workers from the Middle East has never been a success, anywhere in the west, at any point in recent history. Really, I can't think of a single western country that has succeeded in integrating large numbers of unskilled Muslim migrants - Unless spread thin. I find it equally troubling that there has never been any mention, from anyone on the left, that most homegrown jihadists are second generation. "Second generation" has generally, instead, been used as "evidence" that taking in large amounts of Middle Eastern refugees is not a problem, because it's the second generation that radicalizes, not the refugees themselves. Sounds like climate denial logic to me.

As far as my "bogus" numbers, ISIS alone is a quarter million man army, though luckily, many of these have been granted their wish and have now met their maker instead of pestering us mortals. That of course does not include support for groups like the Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, Jemaah (nothing to do with)Islamiyyah, Abu Sayyaf, Ansar al-(nothing to do with)Islam, Jabath al-Nusra, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaida in the (nothing to do with)Islamic Maghreb, Al Qaida in Iraq, Al Shabaab, Ansar al-(nothing to do with)Shariah, Khorasan, Fatah al-(nothing to do with)Islam, Tawhid al-(nothing to do with)Jihad and so forth and so forth. I could also mention that according to Pew Research, 34% of Palestinian Muslims expressed support for Osama bin Laden in 2011, along with 26% of Indonesians, 22% of Egyptians, 13% of Jordanians, while 18% of Pakistanis viewed Al Qaida favorably, alongside 49% of Nigerian Muslims.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-largely-discredited-among-muslim-publics-in-recent-years/

There is this notion that only a tiny, tiny minority of Muslims support jihadism. This just simply isn't true. While 82% of Pakistani Muslims thankfully do not express support for Al Qaida, 18% still equates to roughly 40 million people. In Pakistan alone.

This of course doesn't include the numbers of people who express support for chopping the heads off blasphemers, atheists, adulterers, homosexuals, apostates, witches, sorcerers etc. (they number in the hundreds of millions http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/07/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/)

Again, I am in no way suggesting "all Muslims." I'm suggesting that there is a crisis within Islam, where many on "the left" today, under the guise of "tolerance", would rather throw reformers under the bus than ever admit that Islam has one big foot still stuck in the 7th century.

Edited July 16, 2016 by JayJayH

[Jacque67 7,328]

I'm not disputing that more people are killed in the U.S. by "everyday" gun violence than jihadists. I don't think anyone does. What I'm getting at is that they're very different crimes that have very different solutions. Domestic disputes and gang violence can both end in a gun death, but we don't deal with them the same way. You don't assign domestic disputes to the gang squad. If 100,000 people die every year from cancer, we don't say "but look at all the people who died from all these other diseases!"

I've been a liberal most of my life, I favor certain restrictions on gun ownership. But all too often I hear of "guns" being addressed as a cause of violence. They are not. They are a tool to commit violence. Ultimately, when a person is shot, the only person responsible is the one who decided that one life was worth more than another - The person pulling the trigger. Not the GOP. Not the NRA. Not the DNC.

Compare jihadism to gang violence, sure. Compare it to DUIs, sure. Compare it to domestic violence, sure. Compare it to mentally ill people killing for no apparent reason sure. Comparing to "gun violence" as a cover-all however makes little sense, unless the goal is to "stick it" to conservatives.

When the person pulling the trigger (or hitting the gas pedal) has one goal in mind - To kill as many infidels as possible in order to restore the caliphate - This is a very different crime from that of an MS-13 gang member driving by an 18th Street Gang house. When the network behind the person pulling the trigger is supported by tens of millions of people worldwide, is well funded and global, it's on a very different scale.

"Although the Right Wing Echo Chamber got fired up with joy, the only way to describe the high fiving in the early portion of this thread, it remains to be seen what the driver of this truck was motivated by. I'm noticing that there is no mention that he wasn't a newly minted refugee from Syria." While I'm usually weary of jumping to early conclusions, the attack in Nice had every single hallmark of an Islamist-inspired attack:

1. Person with Middle Eastern immigrant background.

2. Criminal record.

3. Used nontraditional weapon.

4. Aimed to kill as many civilians as possible.

5. Described by neighbors as "calm, nice, quiet."

6. (Nothing to do with Islam.)

I don't think anyone actually believes that the majority of Syrian refugees are ISIS sympathizers. It's mostly a cover for arguing that taking in large amounts of unskilled workers from the Middle East has never been a success, anywhere in the west, at any point in recent history. Really, I can't think of a single western country that has succeeded in integrating large numbers of unskilled Muslim migrants - Unless spread thin. I find it equally troubling that there has never been any mention, from anyone on the left, that most homegrown jihadists are second generation. "Second generation" has generally, instead, been used as "evidence" that taking in large amounts of Middle Eastern refugees is not a problem, because it's the second generation that radicalizes, not the refugees themselves. Sounds like climate denial logic to me.

As far as my "bogus" numbers, ISIS alone is a quarter million man army, though luckily, many of these have been granted their wish and have now met their maker instead of pestering us mortals. That of course does not include support for groups like the Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, Jemaah (nothing to do with)Islamiyyah, Abu Sayyaf, Ansar al-(nothing to do with)Islam, Jabath al-Nusra, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaida in the (nothing to do with)Islamic Maghreb, Al Qaida in Iraq, Al Shabaab, Ansar al-(nothing to do with)Shariah, Khorasan, Fatah al-(nothing to do with)Islam, Tawhid al-(nothing to do with)Jihad and so forth and so forth. I could also mention that according to Pew Research, 34% of Palestinian Muslims expressed support for Osama bin Laden in 2011, along with 26% of Indonesians, 22% of Egyptians, 13% of Jordanians, while 18% of Pakistanis viewed Al Qaida favorably, alongside 49% of Nigerian Muslims.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-largely-discredited-among-muslim-publics-in-recent-years/

There is this notion that only a tiny, tiny minority of Muslims support jihadism. This just simply isn't true. While 82% of Pakistani Muslims thankfully do not express support for Al Qaida, 18% still equates to roughly 40 million people. In Pakistan alone.

This of course doesn't include the numbers of people who express support for chopping the heads off blasphemers, atheists, adulterers, homosexuals, apostates, witches, sorcerers etc. (they number in the hundreds of millions http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/07/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/)

Again, I am in no way suggesting "all Muslims." I'm suggesting that there is a crisis within Islam, where many on "the left" today, under the guise of "tolerance", would rather throw reformers under the bus than ever admit that Islam has one big foot still stuck in the 7th century.

TL;DR.

Honestly do you belong to the Henry James school of writing-lol. Why use one word when you can use a hundred?

The common theme in your prose is that you are a reformed liberal. Just like a reformed alchoholic, expounding the evils of alchohol, you appear to be on a mission to destroy any liberal thought you might have.

You might get more willing readers on such a board if you edited and edited and edited.... Good luck!

Eta. Less polemics;)

Edited July 16, 2016 by Jacque67