Truck Drives Through Crowd in Nice, France

[Novus America]

Which we don't seem to be getting any of.

It's not about GETTING the gold, it is about making sure THEY don't back their currency up with it. Saddam also only traded with nations that would trade in GOLD backed currency, so he would not sell oil to nations that paid in USD, So america put on its freedom hat and decided to put in a government that would not do that

No, because nobody was willing to pay in gold in the first place. And Saddam definitely sold oil to countries for USD.

[The Celtic British Isles]

MONEY MONEY MONEY! Saddam had tons of oil, but also backed up his currency with gold. Qaddafi did the same with his currency, also Libya just had massive gold reserves in general

So where is the money? We lost money on Iraq.

It's not about GETTING the gold, it is about making sure THEY don't back their currency up with it. Saddam also only traded with nations that would trade in GOLD backed currency, so he would not sell oil to nations that paid in USD, So america put on its freedom hat and decided to put in a government that would not do that

[Impireacht]

Who the hell said that they're terrorists because of their ethnicity, regardless of which Muslims we're talking about? I'm sure that a lot of people would agree that the Middle East would be a very different place with another religion in place. It's not at all about the race, now take your "everything is racist" spewings elsewhere or actually defend the religion beyond "if you don't support Islam you're a racist imperialist bastard", please.

And my argument is that it clearly would not. Burma is a poor, largely Buddhist nation, and they experience Buddhist terrorism. Ireland was a poor Christian nation and it experienced sectarian terrorism too. Remove the political instability and economic issues, and the terrorism leaves too.

If you don't agree with the fact that these root causes are the problem, you've said that Islam is the problem and Muslims are dull for believing it, or that Muslims are the problem and that they are intrinsically worse, more violent people. Tell me why that doesn't hold up.

Religious Terrorism is, by name, religious. Protestants in England imposed their religion on the entirety of the British Isles for quite a while in acts that would nowadays be called terrorism, despite being, for it's time, a well-developed nation. Religious terrorism comes from religious beliefs, not socio-economics, and while I'm not saying all Muslims are inherently violent, those who have violent interpretations of the religion certainly are religiously motivated. I'm tired and I've had enough of your liberal shaming, if you wish to continue this please TG me.

[Dameth]

So where is the money? We lost money on Iraq.

I'm pretty sure the Iraq war was what happens when someone panicks with a big gun, at a governmental level.

[Minzerland]

You've constantly dismissed the actions of Islamic colonialism as not 'worse', and you maybe correct, however you go on to say that France, and other European colonisers , have a historical guilt, this implies that the current French population must carry guilt implicitly.

Yes, it is certain that European powers have caused terrorism by their strategic exploitation of the other peoples of the world. That doesn't mean I condone terrorism, nor that I think French people deserve to pay for the guilt of people they have little to do with. Simply that there is an easy cause and effect that blames, not Middle Easterners nor French people, but rather inequality for the plight of all groups.

You've said they have 'historical guilt', this implicitly means that the current French population is guilty because of their abhorrent past.

[Soviet Armadillos]

Christ almighty. I really, really hope this was a tragically timed accident. As an American, I legitimately shudder at the thought of a deadly terrorist attack on Independence day.

However, I think people aren't taking note of one thing. Yes, people are acknowledging he was a truck driver and it terrorist attacks are easier than they seem, but we're forgetting something. The nature of his occupation as a truck driver. It may be different in other countries, but driving trucks seems like a job that involves long periods of solitude, being in a claustrophobic space all day, and if anything just a terribly mundane and probably not-so-well paying job. Basically what I'm trying to say, is that this guy wasn't playing with a full deck of cards to begin with, truck driving was the only occupation he could find, and the job slowly drove him over the edge. Eventually, he went postal and decided to go out in some blaze of glory and kill a bunch of people. Just a theory. It was indeed an attack of some sort, but possibly more a domestic tragedy than a terror attack.

[Novus America]

So where is the money? We lost money on Iraq.

It's not about GETTING the gold, it is about making sure THEY don't back their currency up with it. Saddam also only traded with nations that would trade in GOLD backed currency, so he would not sell oil to nations that paid in USD, So america put on its freedom hat and decided to put in a government that would not do that

Again Saddam most certainly took USD and nobody paid gold for his oil. Nor would they. Nobody is going to buy oil with actual gold.

[Stucco Houses]

Don't forget that time the Catholics completely dismissed science for centuries and required Muslim scholars to rewrite their classics, advance math and science, and then give it back to them. But Islam is a stupid religion for violent stupid people, unlike the constantly warring (and comparatively poor) Catholics of medieval Europe.

Oh wait, the violence of medieval Europe corresponded with its poverty and focused on consolidation of political power with religion as a faulty pretext just like modern Islam!

If we accept your twisted view that all violence comes from people being poor (never mind the fact that wealthy nations are often violent, often in the pursuit of further wealth), then what exactly do you do to solve the poverty and magically make all muslims middle class nonreligious peaceniks?

Aid? Western countries are going bankrupt, can barely help themselves, and whenever we make infrastructure for them it inevtiably gets blown up. Plus aid is imperailism, which is ebul!

Wealthy nations are statistically less violent than poor ones.

The fact is that there is no easy way to end world poverty, but we can start by identifying colonialist practices and stopping them and seeking more equitable societies and international relations. I don't have all the answers for you, but jumping to bigotry is not one of them, and interventionism is not another.

[Patridam]

Christ almighty. I really, really hope this was a tragically timed accident. As an American, I legitimately shudder at the thought of a deadly terrorist attack on Independence day.

However, I think people aren't taking note of one thing. Yes, people are acknowledging he was a truck driver and it terrorist attacks are easier than they seem, but we're forgetting something. The nature of his occupation as a truck driver. It may be different in other countries, but driving trucks seems like a job that involves long periods of solitude, being in a claustrophobic space all day, and if anything just a terribly mundane and probably not-so-well paying job. Basically what I'm trying to say, is that this guy wasn't playing with a full deck of cards to begin with, truck driving was the only occupation he could find, and the job slowly drove him over the edge. Eventually, he went postal and decided to go out in some blaze of glory and kill a bunch of people. Just a theory. It was indeed an attack of some sort, but possibly more a domestic tragedy than a terror attack.

Eh, truck driving is decently paying, and it takes a good bit of education and training to get in (I mean, not college, but you know, a course and a special license, especially in Europe).

I am waiting to see if he was radicalized before or after he became a truck driver. I'm sure solitude doesn't help with making you susceptible to influence, but its by no means an excuse to the man.

[Stucco Houses]

Yes, it is certain that European powers have caused terrorism by their strategic exploitation of the other peoples of the world. That doesn't mean I condone terrorism, nor that I think French people deserve to pay for the guilt of people they have little to do with. Simply that there is an easy cause and effect that blames, not Middle Easterners nor French people, but rather inequality for the plight of all groups.

You've said they have 'historical guilt', this implicitly means that the current French population is guilty because of their abhorrent past.

Nope. The French State is not congruent with the French people in this case. It's about understanding, not about crime and punishment, something you can't seem to grasp.

[The Alma Mater]

Riiigghhhtttt, so because several hundred years ago that happened in Catholicism that somehow justifies what's going on now? Thanks for the history overview, but can we please focus on modern times? Why are medieval practices occurring today? And why are you so hellbent on defending Islam?

Because the history overview I provided you with shows that the underlying factors behind terrorism are poverty and political instability, not any creed.

The reason I'm hellbent on defending Islam is because Islam and Muslims are not to blame for terrorism, poverty and colonialism are. That's how we really stop terrorism, not by playing to the fear and bigotry that empower terrorist groups but by combating the factors that let them get powerful.

Hypothetically, if statistics would show that a muslim is 17x as likely as a Hindu to be a criminal/terrorist/whatever when in the same situation caused by poverty and colonialism... would we then be allowed to take religion into account ?

[Unified Governments]

Riiigghhhtttt, so because several hundred years ago that happened in Catholicism that somehow justifies what's going on now? Thanks for the history overview, but can we please focus on modern times? Why are medieval practices occurring today? And why are you so hellbent on defending Islam?

Because the history overview I provided you with shows that the underlying factors behind terrorism are poverty and political instability, not any creed.

The reason I'm hellbent on defending Islam is because Islam and Muslims are not to blame for terrorism, poverty and colonialism are. That's how we really stop terrorism, not by playing to the fear and bigotry that empower terrorist groups but by combating the factors that let them get powerful.

You're kidding, right? You're using medieval Europe as an example for what is going on today? Tell me, if poverty and colonialism are to blame, why is terrorism not also rampant in South America or Asia for that matter? This level of terrorism is unique to the Middle East, especially considering that the Middle East by and large tends to be a middle income area. The Middle East is simply culturally backwards. Islam has yet to go through a Reformation or and Enlightenment like Christianity did.

[The Celtic British Isles]

It's not about GETTING the gold, it is about making sure THEY don't back their currency up with it. Saddam also only traded with nations that would trade in GOLD backed currency, so he would not sell oil to nations that paid in USD, So america put on its freedom hat and decided to put in a government that would not do that

No, because nobody was willing to pay in gold in the first place. And Saddam definitely sold oil to countries for USD.

Does not matter if they wanted to trade in gold or not. Iraq was a main supplier of oil, and while nations like the USA and Russia would be fine, smaller nations would either have to pay in gold, or rack up debt to get oil from iraq. Look at Gadhafi's gold money plan for a more recent attempt at a plan like this

[Stucco Houses]

And my argument is that it clearly would not. Burma is a poor, largely Buddhist nation, and they experience Buddhist terrorism. Ireland was a poor Christian nation and it experienced sectarian terrorism too. Remove the political instability and economic issues, and the terrorism leaves too.

If you don't agree with the fact that these root causes are the problem, you've said that Islam is the problem and Muslims are dull for believing it, or that Muslims are the problem and that they are intrinsically worse, more violent people. Tell me why that doesn't hold up.

Religious Terrorism is, by name, religious. Protestants in England imposed their religion on the entirety of the British Isles for quite a while in acts that would nowadays be called terrorism, despite being, for it's time, a well-developed nation. Religious terrorism comes from religious beliefs, not socio-economics, and while I'm not saying all Muslims are inherently violent, those who have violent interpretations of the religion certainly are religiously motivated. I'm tired and I've had enough of your liberal shaming, if you wish to continue this please TG me.

Socio-economics are the underlying cause of religious terrorism.

[The Celtic British Isles]

It's not about GETTING the gold, it is about making sure THEY don't back their currency up with it. Saddam also only traded with nations that would trade in GOLD backed currency, so he would not sell oil to nations that paid in USD, So america put on its freedom hat and decided to put in a government that would not do that

Again Saddam most certainly took USD and nobody paid good for his oil. Nor would they. Nobody is going to buy oil with actual gold.

Not LITERAL gold, Gold backed currency. Currency that can be traded in for gold, if so wished.

[Soviet Armadillos]

The Religion of Peace strikes again.
And the media will do same bullshit that they all ways do " Not all Muslims" Islam is Peace" and "Pray for Nice" But i know that a lot of Muslim do not support this but lot of them do like
90% Muslim Teens in Brussels call jadiist hero, 23% Uk Muslims want Sharia,27% Young French Muslims back ISIS. Islam needs to change.

Some sources would be nice, habibi.

[Dameth]

Christ almighty. I really, really hope this was a tragically timed accident. As an American, I legitimately shudder at the thought of a deadly terrorist attack on Independence day.

Nah, we don't make a big deal of the national day in France. That really doesn't have the same meaning for the bulk of us.
In France, if you put a french flag on your house when it's not soccer time, you pass for a weirdo, it's just not our thing.

Just a theory. It was indeed an attack of some sort, but possibly more a domestic tragedy than a terror attack.

I somewhat want it to be the case. Just so I can feel good and slap the "white guilt retribution" crowd for using the death of 80 people to advocate for radical islam. But at this point I'm pretty sure he was pupeteered by some ISIS dude.

[Stucco Houses]

Because the history overview I provided you with shows that the underlying factors behind terrorism are poverty and political instability, not any creed.

The reason I'm hellbent on defending Islam is because Islam and Muslims are not to blame for terrorism, poverty and colonialism are. That's how we really stop terrorism, not by playing to the fear and bigotry that empower terrorist groups but by combating the factors that let them get powerful.

You're kidding, right? You're using medieval Europe as an example for what is going on today? Tell me, if poverty and colonialism are to blame, why is terrorism not also rampant in South America or Asia for that matter? This level of terrorism is unique to the Middle East, especially considering that the Middle East by and large tends to be a middle income area. The Middle East is simply culturally backwards. Islam has yet to go through a Reformation or and Enlightenment like Christianity did.

In a word, terrorism is absolutely as rampant in South America and Asia.

The insinuation that Islam is culturally backward is ignorant and bigoted. I will not debate it.

[Confederation de Shyra]

Just watched BFMTV, the equivalent of CNN in France , they say the death toll has been augmented : it goes from 80 to 84 dead persons and still around twenty persons in a highly critical condition by now.

[Novus America]

No, because nobody was willing to pay in gold in the first place. And Saddam definitely sold oil to countries for USD.

Does not matter if they wanted to trade in gold or not. Iraq was a main supplier of oil, and while nations like the USA and Russia would be fine, smaller nations would either have to pay in gold, or rack up debt to get oil from iraq. Look at Gadhafi's gold money plan for a more recent attempt at a plan like this

Saddam was always quite willing to take USD from anybody. He was a greedy fuck looking to make a buck, not trying to undermine the dollar with some nonsensical scheme.

Said poor countries would just buy oil elsewhere. Nobody is going to pay gold. Nobody will trade in gold. Gaddafi was insane, and his plan was a stupid idea that could never be implemented.

[Novus America]

Again Saddam most certainly took USD and nobody paid good for his oil. Nor would they. Nobody is going to buy oil with actual gold.

Not LITERAL gold, Gold backed currency. Currency that can be traded in for gold, if so wished.

True Gold backed currency cannot exist in the modern world. There is not nearly enough gold. And Saddam always took dollars. Saddam was very willing to trade in dollars.

[The Celtic British Isles]

Does not matter if they wanted to trade in gold or not. Iraq was a main supplier of oil, and while nations like the USA and Russia would be fine, smaller nations would either have to pay in gold, or rack up debt to get oil from iraq. Look at Gadhafi's gold money plan for a more recent attempt at a plan like this

Saddam was always quite willing to take USD from anybody. He was a greedy fuck looking to make a buck, not trying to undermine the dollar with some nonsensical scheme.

Said poor countries would just buy oil elsewhere. Nobody is going to pay gold. Nobody will trade in gold. Gaddafi was insane, and his plan was a stupid idea that could never be implemented.

Explain to me why Gaddafi's plan would fail, i have an open mind,and am willing to hear your opinion.

[Patridam]

If we accept your twisted view that all violence comes from people being poor (never mind the fact that wealthy nations are often violent, often in the pursuit of further wealth), then what exactly do you do to solve the poverty and magically make all muslims middle class nonreligious peaceniks?

Aid? Western countries are going bankrupt, can barely help themselves, and whenever we make infrastructure for them it inevtiably gets blown up. Plus aid is imperailism, which is ebul!

Wealthy nations are statistically less violent than poor ones.

The fact is that there is no easy way to end world poverty, but we can start by identifying colonialist practices and stopping them and seeking more equitable societies and international relations. I don't have all the answers for you, but jumping to bigotry is not one of them, and interventionism is not another.

Hell, if you're method of dealing with the problem terrorism is solving the impossible to solve problem of globabl poverty, gee, why don't you share that with the US government! Hell you could sooner remove Islam from existance than you could remove global poverty. And removing islam is a shoe in to stop islamic terror, whereas the results of removing poverty is up in the air.

And believe it or not colonialism isn't the source of global poverty. Hell, it probably has made plenty of colonies richer and more developed in a shorter time than they ever would have done now, in which case continued failure of ex colonial countries to succeed economical by themselves is just them falling back to where they would have been without colonialism in the first place.

So, if interventionism is not a solution, well, we just let ISIS grow and don't try to stop them, don't help those who fight back against them, don't provide aid to the impoverished Muslims, don't take any refugees (is that non interventionism, not taking refugees? Or is taking infinite refugees non interventionism?) just go all star trek prime directive on them even as they blow our civilians up every other week as they slowly engulf the entire middle east and probably Europe. Great, I'm sure they'll work it out eventually, probably about 50 years after the world is destroyed by nuclear fire.

[Minzerland]

You've said they have 'historical guilt', this implicitly means that the current French population is guilty because of their abhorrent past.

Nope. The French State is not congruent with the French people in this case. It's about understanding, not about crime and punishment, something you can't seem to grasp.

So, it is the country that is guilty? That is just as absurd as saying the current generation is guilty for the fathers actions.

[Unified Governments]

You're kidding, right? You're using medieval Europe as an example for what is going on today? Tell me, if poverty and colonialism are to blame, why is terrorism not also rampant in South America or Asia for that matter? This level of terrorism is unique to the Middle East, especially considering that the Middle East by and large tends to be a middle income area. The Middle East is simply culturally backwards. Islam has yet to go through a Reformation or and Enlightenment like Christianity did.

In a word, terrorism is absolutely as rampant in South America and Asia.

The insinuation that Islam is culturally backward is ignorant and bigoted. I will not debate it.

No, it isn't. It's certainly not as rampant as it is in the Middle East.

If you're not willing to debate something then that is the height of ignorance. Calling something bigoted is not a response. Though I never did say Islam is culturally backwards. I said the Middle East is. Please, tell me how I'm wrong.

I'm going to bed. Goodnight.