Truck Drives Through Crowd in Nice, France

[Dameth]

Don't expect help if all you do is criticize the helper.

According to the YPG communications, carpets bombings are useful, but achieve nothing on their own. What matters are troops on the ground.

If you don't want to deploy, don't deploy. I'm not even mad at the 80 ish people who died. French are strong people and we'll suck it up, while the rest of the world fall into tears on our behalf. And I know for a fact those deaths will be paid dearly in Syria.

I'm mad because it will give people hell bent on doing absolutely nothinga reason to have their feel good moment.

[Patridam]

Well, as much as I like to think that armed civilians helps in terrorists attacks - and it definitely makes sense that it helps stop shooting attacks; well I don't think it would have helped in this case. Even if some of the folks in the crowd had guns it would have been damn near impossible to shoot the driver through the glass of a moving truck, in the evening. More likely they would've hurt other civilians or been run over themselves.

But this attack shouldn't be politicized for gun control, for sure. The man had guns despite Frances incredibly strict laws, it would appear to be evident they must have come from the black market or from ISIS sponsors.

The Pulse nightclub in Orlando was a Gun-Free zone... So is pretty much all of France, yet they get attacked by Islamist gunmen... The last major attack caused by a white man with guns was in Norway 2011.

Well, in the case of the pulse club, armed civilians may have helped... maybe not a ton thanks to the crap lighting in most clubs, but some. But, since the guy did indeed get his weapon legally, I understand why it was politicized into a gun control issue. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

It will take a world record of mental gymnastics to turn this attack into a gun control issue. I'm sure somebody will somehow manage to do it though. Sometime tomorrow I expect Clinton to blame Trump for it as well.

[Ardoki]

This is an attack against secularism and republicanism!

[Gauthier]

The Pulse nightclub in Orlando was a Gun-Free zone... So is pretty much all of France, yet they get attacked by Islamist gunmen... The last major attack caused by a white man with guns was in Norway 2011.

Well, in the case of the pulse club, armed civilians may have helped... maybe not a ton thanks to the crap lighting in most clubs, but some. But, since the guy did indeed get his weapon legally, I understand why it was politicized into a gun control issue. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

It will take a world record of mental gymnastics to turn this attack into a gun control issue. I'm sure somebody will somehow manage to do it though.

You mean besides the "lol ban assalt trukks" lines that have been spewed to excess in this thread?

[Kelinfort]

Could you expand on how they would pursue Islamists?

The FN has called for closing all radical (a broad term to them) mosques, on banning funding for Islamic (it will have to be all religious if they actually make this law) institutions from overseas. They support stripping terrorists of their nationalities, and sending the army to the banlieues. They support drastically reducing immigration, and I believe they are formulating the idea of reintroducing military conscription, at least for failed school students. The rest of their program I am unaware of.

It doesn't seem to really solve the underlying discontent, seek to preempt terror attacks, or dismantle ISIS.

[IndependentGreenland]

The Pulse nightclub in Orlando was a Gun-Free zone... So is pretty much all of France, yet they get attacked by Islamist gunmen... The last major attack caused by a white man with guns was in Norway 2011.

Well, in the case of the pulse club, armed civilians may have helped... maybe not a ton thanks to the crap lighting in most clubs, but some. But, since the guy did indeed get his weapon legally, I understand why it was politicized into a gun control issue. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

It will take a world record of mental gymnastics to turn this attack into a gun control issue. I'm sure somebody will somehow manage to do it though. Sometime tomorrow I expect Clinton to blame Trump for it as well.

I think we should look far less at guns and more at the people carrying them. In America, they will blame guns and Trump... here in Europe, they will blame Brexit...

[Eol Sha]

Too bad, I suppose. Then again, I find the right wing insistence on using a near meaningless phrase to be equally tiring and stupid. What an impasse we are at.

Hmpf, whatever. If you want to take lessons from the president who called ISIS the JV team that's your business. I'm just curious as to how you can fight an enemy without combating the ideology that drives them.

You can combat the ideology. I just fail to see how that phrase is actually combating the ideology. Or, to be more specific, how it would effectively combat the ideology. Just calling the ideology of groups like ISIL or Boko Haram "radical" and "terrorism" and "Islamic" is preaching to the fucking choir. The Muslims you are ultimately trying to reach in such a propaganda (please look up the word "propaganda" before you get your undies in a twist) campaign are the ones who know that the most. That's part of either the draw or repulsion of said groups. For those prone to support such an ideology, they know that ISIL is a radical group. That's what they like about them. Non-radical groups don't commit acts of terrorism, after all.

If you want to combat the jihadist ideology then you have to actually explain why its bad. Just saying "radical Islamic terrorism" isn't doing that. All it is is bullshit machismo.

[Talvezout]

While I don't know if it's conclusive that this was terrorism or if this was a lone wolf attack, I don't know what's worse. Terrorism, on one hand, you can at least sort of prevent albeit with less then scrupulous tactics. A lone wolf attack, especially if this is like the Austrian Grand Prix driver mentioned earlier in the thread, is something you can't exactly predict for...

[Olerand]

Could you expand on how they would pursue Islamists?

The FN has called for closing all radical (a broad term to them) mosques, on banning funding for Islamic (it will have to be all religious if they actually make this law) institutions from overseas. They support stripping terrorists of their nationalities, and sending the army to the banlieues. They support drastically reducing immigration, and I believe they are formulating the idea of reintroducing military conscription, at least for failed school students. The rest of their program I am unaware of.

Reading their program, they would also introduce more nationalistic school programs, change the cultural festivals, and on foreign policy, they say that terrorism has so far been discussed as if it is an activity occurring outside of the State, while it is in fact a tool of certain States. With that in mind, they would formulate their anti-terrorist policies accordingly.

[Patridam]

Well, in the case of the pulse club, armed civilians may have helped... maybe not a ton thanks to the crap lighting in most clubs, but some. But, since the guy did indeed get his weapon legally, I understand why it was politicized into a gun control issue. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

It will take a world record of mental gymnastics to turn this attack into a gun control issue. I'm sure somebody will somehow manage to do it though.

You mean besides the "lol ban assalt trukks" lines that have been spewed to excess in this thread?

Yes. I did just say I wouldn't be surprised, not that it would definitely happen.

I do definitely expect someone will very seriously blame Trump and/or Brexit for it though.

[Unified Governments]

The FN has called for closing all radical (a broad term to them) mosques, on banning funding for Islamic (it will have to be all religious if they actually make this law) institutions from overseas. They support stripping terrorists of their nationalities, and sending the army to the banlieues. They support drastically reducing immigration, and I believe they are formulating the idea of reintroducing military conscription, at least for failed school students. The rest of their program I am unaware of.

It doesn't seem to really solve the underlying discontent, seek to preempt terror attacks, or dismantle ISIS.

It's a good start, though.

[Olerand]

The FN has called for closing all radical (a broad term to them) mosques, on banning funding for Islamic (it will have to be all religious if they actually make this law) institutions from overseas. They support stripping terrorists of their nationalities, and sending the army to the banlieues. They support drastically reducing immigration, and I believe they are formulating the idea of reintroducing military conscription, at least for failed school students. The rest of their program I am unaware of.

It doesn't seem to really solve the underlying discontent, seek to preempt terror attacks, or dismantle ISIS.

No one in France believes it is our job to dismantle the IS, nor that we can preempt the attacks. The current Interior Minister keeps making the rounds saying that we can't preempt attacks. Their propositions to solving the underlying problems have been laid out. They might have some more I skimmed over.

[Patridam]

The FN has called for closing all radical (a broad term to them) mosques, on banning funding for Islamic (it will have to be all religious if they actually make this law) institutions from overseas. They support stripping terrorists of their nationalities, and sending the army to the banlieues. They support drastically reducing immigration, and I believe they are formulating the idea of reintroducing military conscription, at least for failed school students. The rest of their program I am unaware of.

It doesn't seem to really solve the underlying discontent, seek to preempt terror attacks, or dismantle ISIS.

Well it sounds like it would dismantle or at least discourage radical islamic sects in France, which would cut down on ISIS recruitment and moderate radicalization, as well as keeping young men (islamic or otherwise) from getting bored and disenfranchised enough to be able to be radicalized/converted.

Certainly nothing earth shattering though.

[Geilinor]

It's kind of like in WW2 if suddenly we weren't allowed to us the term "Nazi".

These are not true National Socialists. They don't represent the real mass of German National Socialists etc. etc.

It'd be more like "These are not true Germans. They don't represent the real mass of Germans."

Nazis were still German. Define "true German".

[Olerand]

Hmpf, whatever. If you want to take lessons from the president who called ISIS the JV team that's your business. I'm just curious as to how you can fight an enemy without combating the ideology that drives them.

You can combat the ideology. I just fail to see how that phrase is actually combating the ideology. Or, to be more specific, how it would effectively combat the ideology. Just calling the ideology of groups like ISIL or Boko Haram "radical" and "terrorism" and "Islamic" is preaching to the fucking choir. The Muslims you are ultimately trying to reach in such a propaganda (please look up the word "propaganda" before you get your undies in a twist) campaign are the ones who know that the most. That's part of either the draw or repulsion of said groups. For those prone to support such an ideology, they know that ISIL is a radical group. That's what they like about them. Non-radical groups don't commit acts of terrorism, after all.

If you want to combat the jihadist ideology then you have to actually explain why its bad. Just saying "radical Islamic terrorism" isn't doing that. All it is is bullshit machismo.

We cannot combat the ideology. We can incite Muslims, the only ones who can, to do so. And no, I don't mean not in my name campaigns or condemning this or whatever. I mean undergoing the necessary Enlightenment revolution that Christianity and Judaism have been subjected to.

[Unified Governments]

Hmpf, whatever. If you want to take lessons from the president who called ISIS the JV team that's your business. I'm just curious as to how you can fight an enemy without combating the ideology that drives them.

You can combat the ideology. I just fail to see how that phrase is actually combating the ideology. Or, to be more specific, how it would effectively combat the ideology. Just calling the ideology of groups like ISIL or Boko Haram "radical" and "extremist" and "Islamic" is preaching to the fucking choir. The Muslims you are ultimately trying to reach in such a propaganda (please look up the word "propaganda" before you get your undies in a twist) campaign are the ones who know that the most. That's part of either the draw or repulsion of said groups. For those prone to support such an ideology, they know that ISIL is a radical group. That's what they like about them. Non-radical groups don't commit acts of terrorism, after all.

What drives ISIS? What drives al-Qaeda? What drives Hamas? What drives all the cockroach terrorists? A belief in an extremist interpretation of Islam. The organizations may not all get along, but they're linked in their beliefs. They're driven by their beliefs. And if you can't even identify those beliefs then how can you hope to combat them? There is literally no rational reason why anyone should be opposed to using such a term. None.

[IndependentGreenland]

You mean besides the "lol ban assalt trukks" lines that have been spewed to excess in this thread?

Yes. I did just say I wouldn't be surprised, not that it would definitely happen.

I do definitely expect someone will very seriously blame Trump and/or Brexit for it though.

I'm betting people (IRL) that the mainstream media will blame Brexit/Trump... I feel like I'm going to win the bet very soon.

[Geilinor]

It doesn't seem to really solve the underlying discontent, seek to preempt terror attacks, or dismantle ISIS.

No one in France believes it is our job to dismantle the IS, nor that we can preempt the attacks. The current Interior Minister keeps making the rounds saying that we can't preempt attacks. Their propositions to solving the underlying problems have been laid out. They might have some more I skimmed over.

Unless attacks can be preempted, how will these attacks be prevented?

[Nariterrr]

Why don't we ban trucks?

You are joking, right?

Yeah

[Gauthier]

You can combat the ideology. I just fail to see how that phrase is actually combating the ideology. Or, to be more specific, how it would effectively combat the ideology. Just calling the ideology of groups like ISIL or Boko Haram "radical" and "terrorism" and "Islamic" is preaching to the fucking choir. The Muslims you are ultimately trying to reach in such a propaganda (please look up the word "propaganda" before you get your undies in a twist) campaign are the ones who know that the most. That's part of either the draw or repulsion of said groups. For those prone to support such an ideology, they know that ISIL is a radical group. That's what they like about them. Non-radical groups don't commit acts of terrorism, after all.

If you want to combat the jihadist ideology then you have to actually explain why its bad. Just saying "radical Islamic terrorism" isn't doing that. All it is is bullshit machismo.

We cannot combat the ideology. We can incite Muslims, the only ones who can, to do so. And no, I don't mean not in my name campaigns or condemning this or whatever. I mean undergoing the necessary Enlightenment revolution that Christianity and Judaism have been subjected to.

Ah, so the only reason there's Daesh and other terror groups is that mainstream Muslims aren't enlightened and the moment they do all those jihadis will vanish in a puff of logic.

Excuse me I need to go prove black is white...

[Nariterrr]

Why don't we ban trucks?

Because they are absolutely vital for the economy, as in anything that goes anywhere is inevitably in a truck at least some of the way, if not all of the way. I do indeed hope you are joking.

I was joking... satire.

[IndependentGreenland]

You are joking, right?

Yeah

Only a SJW would be stupid enough to be serious about banning trucks.

[Lupolska]

it seems the driver had nothing toulouse

[Patridam]

Yeah

Only a SJW would be stupid enough to be serious about banning trucks.

Because NS doesn't have any of those.....

[IndependentGreenland]

Only a SJW would be stupid enough to be serious about banning trucks.

Because NS doesn't have any of those.....

Lol IKR