It makes a semblance of sense considering other countries also have large Muslim populations and are involved militarily in the middle east but I don't think it explains everything.
Terror attack in the French city of Nice - Page 11
Forum Index > General Forum |
Once again, as this is a sensitive topic and one that can cause a lot of unnecessary things to be said in the heat of the moment, be VERY careful about what you post. Think twice before actually stating something and please be considerate of anyone who may feel involved or affected. | ||
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2525 Posts
It makes a semblance of sense considering other countries also have large Muslim populations and are involved militarily in the middle east but I don't think it explains everything. | ||
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On July 15 2016 22:56 Reaps wrote: Keep in mind there are multiple terrorist attempts in other European country's every year, they have just been foiled by the intelligence services. Britain for example has stopped at least 3 major terrorist attacks per year since 7/7, more recently "the poppy day killer" If any of these attacks were successful we wouldn't be asking the question "why France" As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, security in France could be one of the issue's. Do you have actual numbers on the amount of attacks which were prevented by the UK and other countries compared to the amount of attacks prevented by French intelligence? Or is this just speculation on your part? | ||
Murlox
France1699 Posts
On July 15 2016 21:47 FFW_Rude wrote: Yes sorry. On topic : ISIS media did not revendicate the attack in their last bulletin. Worry not though, medias will soon enough close that gap. Just read "lefigaro.fr", its already clear for them that this is a terrorist attack lead by daesh. No need for any investigation or revendication, those are cumbersome and costly things that are not needed in a time or war. "war". This whole terrorism story disgusts me more and more. | ||
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
On July 15 2016 23:04 Incognoto wrote: Do you have actual numbers on the amount of attacks which were prevented by the UK and other countries compared to the amount of attacks prevented by French intelligence? Or is this just speculation on your part? M15 chief has said that 34 terrorist attacks has been disrupted since 7/7 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/07/mi5-chief-34-uk-terror-plots-disrupted Was one year when up to 7 attacks were stopped http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11997853/Revealed-Britain-foils-seven-terror-attacks-in-just-six-months.html And as i mentioned more recently, the poppy day beheading attempt http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36609694 As for France, i don't live there and i don't speak french, i wasn't implying they were more attempts in the UK though, just that they do happen a lot. | ||
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On July 15 2016 23:04 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Swedish analysts seem to think the tipping point for France is that is the ingrained secular approach to government and their liberal (by the old defininition) history. Basically France refuse to yield to religious demands which sets individuals off (not large groups). It makes a semblance of sense considering other countries also have large Muslim populations and are involved militarily in the middle east but I don't think it explains everything. It's not untrue, but in this specific exemple, it is not an "islamic terror attack" : the guy was not even a muslim according to the knowledge we have at the moment. | ||
nojok
France15845 Posts
On July 15 2016 22:56 Reaps wrote: Keep in mind there are multiple terrorist attempts in other European country's every year, they have just been foiled by the intelligence services. Britain for example has stopped at least 3 major terrorist attacks per year since 7/7, more recently "the poppy day killer" If any of these attacks were successful we wouldn't be asking the question "why France" As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, security in France could be one of the issue's. I may sound cold hearted but if all of this money was spent towards something else, I'm sure it would do a lot more towards improving the quality of life. Even with several massive attacks during the last 12 months, it's a ridiculously low number of casualties and very far from a war, specially when you can compare the number of death of civilians being bombed by our planes or car accidents.People should stop being impressed by those attacks, sure it sucks but giving it so much attention is just making those attacks worthwhile. I'm fustrated people are giving them so much impotance, that's exatcly what those guys want. Politics and people are just too happy to get something like this distracting them from real matters. | ||
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
On July 15 2016 23:15 nojok wrote: I may sound cold hearted but if all of this money was spent towards something else, I'm sure it would do a lot more towards improving the quality of life. Even with several massive attacks during the last 12 months, it's a ridiculously low number of casualties and very far from a war, specially when you can compare the number of death of civilians being bombed by our planes or car accidents.People should stop being impressed by those attacks, sure it sucks but giving it so much attention is just making those attacks worthwhile. I'm fustrated people are giving them so much impotance, that's exatcly what those guys want. Politics and people are just too happy to get something like this distracting them from real matters. What are the real matters if its not stopping mass murder? | ||
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On July 15 2016 23:15 nojok wrote: I may sound cold hearted but if all of this money was spent towards something else, I'm sure it would do a lot more towards improving the quality of life. Even with several massive attacks during the last 12 months, it's a ridiculously low number of casualties and very far from a war, specially when you can compare the number of death of civilians being bombed by our planes or car accidents.People should stop being impressed by those attacks, sure it sucks but giving it so much attention is just making those attacks worthwhile. I'm fustrated people are giving them so much impotance, that's exatcly what those guys want. Politics and people are just too happy to get something like this distracting them from real matters. lol France spends 57% of its GDP annually and only 3% of that goes to the military, which only a part of actually protects us from terrorism. You're way too cynical on this one and also unrealistic. | ||
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
![]() Furthermore, I think that a person saying this is a complete failure and betrayal of ones people. + Show Spoiler + ![]() | ||
Biff The Understudy
France7811 Posts
On July 15 2016 18:41 stilt wrote: And the liberals strike again by asking for impossible stuffs and exonerating their friends the salafists by focusing only on Lioger analyze. Don't know why but when I saw guys like you, the lesson givers, I have always the feeling that what happened is always a victory for you. Look, if you absolutely want to do ISIS job and say it's an islam vs west struggle, go ahead. As with Merah, it has already emerged the dude was not religious or very little before becoming radicalized. As for salafists, the French secret service say themselves that there are very little or none connections between terrorists and salasfists in recent attacks. It's not my opinions, but facts. | ||
nojok
France15845 Posts
On July 15 2016 23:17 Reaps wrote: What are real matters if its not stopping mass murder? Global warming, education, human rights, social equity, whatever you want which causes more than 300 deaths a year... | ||
Makro
France16890 Posts
On July 15 2016 23:04 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Swedish analysts seem to think the tipping point for France is that is the ingrained secular approach to government and their liberal (by the old defininition) history. Basically France refuse to yield to religious demands which sets individuals off (not large groups). It makes a semblance of sense considering other countries also have large Muslim populations and are involved militarily in the middle east but I don't think it explains everything. this is old news, the secular republic is dead and just an old dream .. in many cities social peace has been bought by giving away that principle an image that i remember still to this day is the day after the 2015 january attack (charlie hebdo), the first thing hollande did was to call the representative of the biggest religion for a "meeting" out there and on the stairs of the elysee palace you had him and these 4-5 guys, as like france was just muslim + catholic + whatever and not a nation where the republic is above all the country is extremely divided right, the idea of nation itself, what could bring the citizen together whatever their origin and private religion is in a weak state right now you're either muslim, catholic, x thing and simply just not french .... | ||
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On July 15 2016 23:22 nojok wrote: Global warming, education, human rights, social equity, whatever you want which causes more than 300 deaths a year... Why don't you take your misplaced cynicism somewhere else? | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42009 Posts
On July 15 2016 23:20 SK.Testie wrote: Furthermore, I think that a person saying this is a complete failure and betrayal of ones people. + Show Spoiler + ![]() I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that the easy solutions are the ones which undermine the values on which the state is built. Goering thought the blitz would break the British population and make them sue for peace, instead the British people learned to live with the constant threat of death from the air. It's not about thinking that something is okay, it's about understanding that sometimes the things that really matter to a people come at a price and sometimes that price is blood. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 15 2016 23:24 Incognoto wrote: Why don't you take your misplaced cynicism somewhere else? It’s not even cynicism. It’s nihilism. That nothing it worth getting upset about or attempting to find solutions. And like its close brother, cynicism, it is often the refuge of people who are afraid to offer ideas, fail or risk getting their hopes up. | ||
nojok
France15845 Posts
On July 15 2016 23:24 Incognoto wrote: Why don't you take your misplaced cynicism somewhere else? Why my opinion disturbs you so much? I genuinely believe it's a waste of efforts and money and that we have more important matters to take care of. On July 15 2016 23:28 Plansix wrote: It’s not even cynicism. It’s nihilism. That nothing it worth getting upset about or attempting to find solutions. And like its close brother, cynicism, it is often the refuge of people who are afraid to offer ideas, fail or risk getting their hopes up. Saying there are more important matters is nihilism? Global warming is causing (and will cause) much more trouble than all of those things will do, same for distribution of wealth, yet we barely touch our wealth distribution or invest agaisnt global warming. | ||
Broetchenholer
Germany1850 Posts
On July 15 2016 22:44 tomatriedes wrote: Except you have the recent case of the islamists in Bangladesh who slaughtered Italians and Japanese amongst others after checking to see who were muslim or not. They were from the very upper echelons of their society- university educated and wealthy. What inequality, poverty and discrimination explains their actions? Is it so hard to concede that the ideology itself may be a large part of the problem and look at ways of stopping the promulgators of the ideology from spreading their message of hate and intolerance around the globe? Do you consider it racist to simply acknowledge that there is a strain of violent Islamism promoted by wealthy gulf state monarchs that is a large cause of this violence? And then you have the cases where christian groups in Africa are killing Muslims. For instance in the Central African republic just last year. Is christian ideology now the problem? Or the Bosnian war where christians cleansed what they thought was there land from muslims. Killing in the name of your god is nothing new to Islam. There are people that use religious themes to further their agenda of whatever and people that buy into it, and one of the reasons they do is that something in their life is missing. Other equally stupid people use non-religious themes to further their agendas, like Neo-Nazis in Germany. Their crimes are not as high profile but maybe they will burn a immigration building next week killing dozens of people. Still no one cries that German culture is a problem, instead we see them as a fringe unwanted part of society that we can't get rid off completely. Extremist Islam should be treated the same way. On July 15 2016 22:34 Incognoto wrote: I think that the "he was poor and discriminated against" is way too easy an excuse on this one. Read this: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ Draw your own conclusions. France spends a staggering 57% of its GDP a YEAR and a large portion of that goes to on social measures, equality, and whatnot. Only 3% goes to the military. That same 3% which is supposed to act as security against terrorists in the first place. That "the French are all racist and we segregate Muslims" is dumb as shit. It's just not true. It's also probably insulting, please go tell the victims of Nice that they were xenophobic and that they had it coming to them outright, because that's pretty much what you're saying (indirectly, true). You people are trying to rationalize the actions of someone who just used a truck to commit mass murder. Stop, it's fucking stupid. Go read that link I left to the top and you see that there is NOTHING rational to be said about this. Black people in the USA are marginalized way more than anyone in France is, they do not drive trucks through people during the 4th of July. There is a HUGE difference between crime committed due to segregation and inequality and terrorist acts. This was the latter. Whitedog is one of the few posters on TLnet which I genuinely dislike but he's right on this one, sorry. One African American got so disenfranchised with his country that he shot 6 policemen. That is terror as well. Just because the truck driver saw more potential deaths and did not care who he would hit doesn't mean his terror and the Dallas terror are different. | ||
Nebuchad
Switzerland11933 Posts
On July 15 2016 23:10 WhiteDog wrote: It's not untrue, but in this specific exemple, it is not an "islamic terror attack" : the guy was not even a muslim according to the knowledge we have at the moment. Did you read specifically that he isn't muslim somewhere? I tried searching for your source in french but I ended up on dreuz and other deplorable sites, which of course didn't put that forth. | ||
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On July 15 2016 23:31 nojok wrote: Why my opinion disturbs you so much? I genuinely believe it's a waste of efforts and money and that we have more important matters to take care of. Because you act like fighting terrorism is exclusive to solving other problems or something. You completely fail to realize that military spending is already a smaller part of France's budget compared to education, health care and social protection. Our energy is nuclear which has no carbon footprint compared to other energy production methods. You're also being stupidly disrespectful to the victims of this attack and others. Please share your "opinion" with the families of the deceased. I'm done talking with you. I don't think you're a bad person but you need to grow up and be more mature about this. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 15 2016 23:28 Plansix wrote: It’s not even cynicism. It’s nihilism. That nothing it worth getting upset about or attempting to find solutions. And like its close brother, cynicism, it is often the refuge of people who are afraid to offer ideas, fail or risk getting their hopes up. It doesn't look like nihilism to me. It looks like a cold-hearted, but justifiable, cost-benefit analysis. The question being where to spend money such that it would save the most lives; and an assessment which believes that if some of the money on security were shifted elsewhere, there would be more lives saved overall. | ||
| ||