Terror attack in the French city of Nice

On July 15 2016 07:18 Reaps wrote:
Twitter filled with videos and pictures of the dead ffs.. Can't unsee.

On July 15 2016 07:19 HammerKick wrote:


What's the point of showing this, seriously? Just avoid those.

On July 15 2016 07:21 HammerKick wrote:
Pictures of the dead. Those are supposed to be private in my opinion.

On July 15 2016 07:22 Tresher wrote:
Topic title should be changed. "Nice attack" followed by "people killed" doesn´t sound very good.

On July 15 2016 07:24 HammerKick wrote:


oh my fucking god I just realized this

the name does not fit the english language...

On July 15 2016 07:24 GoTuNk! wrote:
I'll throw the first stone: I tought it was the guns that killed people.

On July 15 2016 07:25 KwarK wrote:

I had a go at renaming it but if you want something specific then I'll change it to whatever you want.

On July 15 2016 07:39 Godwrath wrote:
Is it confirmed to be a terrorist attack or people just jumping into conclussions already ?

On July 15 2016 07:39 Godwrath wrote:
Is it confirmed to be a terrorist attack or people just jumping into conclussions already ?

On July 15 2016 07:42 Dan HH wrote:

It's a terrorist attack regardless of whether it was Islamic or not. It's not like it was accidental.

On July 15 2016 07:24 GoTuNk! wrote:
I'll throw the first stone: I tought it was the guns that killed people.

On July 15 2016 08:08 ArtyK wrote:


I'd use harsher words...

On July 15 2016 08:21 AbouSV wrote:
As of yet, they are still unsure whether he was a 'lonely lunatic' or a 'motivated perpetrator'.

On July 15 2016 07:16 Livelovedie wrote:
Can't do anything in a crowd anymore it seems.

On July 15 2016 08:21 AbouSV wrote:
As of yet, they are still unsure whether he was a 'lonely lunatic' or a 'motivated perpetrator'.

On July 15 2016 08:23 TheEmulator wrote:

Well we do know ISIS claimed it was them, although I guess they can technically claim anything. There still needs to be an identity/background check on this guy.

On July 15 2016 08:25 Shield wrote:


How do you get guns and grenades if you're "lonely lunatic" though? It seems organised, so it can't be one person only.

On July 15 2016 08:25 Shield wrote:


How do you get guns and grenades if you're "lonely lunatic" though? It seems organised, so it can't be one person only.

On July 15 2016 08:23 TheEmulator wrote:

Well we do know ISIS claimed it was them, although I guess they can technically claim anything. There still needs to be an identity/background check on this guy.

On July 15 2016 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I think pictures are fine to get people to understand the situation. More transparency is always good imo.

Curious to see what the reaction to this in France is going to be.

On July 15 2016 08:35 stilt wrote:


No there are not fines, this is immoral, just to increase the spectacular in the back of dead people. I don't have to understand the situation by seeing corpses and every normal human being should not fall in this voyeurism.

French President Francois Hollande, who was in the south of France at the time, had hours earlier said a state of emergency put in place after the Paris attacks in November would not be extended when it was due to expire on July 26.

"We can't extend the state of emergency indefinitely, it would make no sense. That would mean we're no longer a republic with the rule of law applied in all circumstances," Hollande told journalists in a traditional Bastille Day interview.

On July 15 2016 08:41 FFW_Rude wrote:


So your mother, your wife and child are butchered in the streets in front of your house. What's your reaction of people tweeting their dismembered corpses ?

On July 15 2016 08:46 Reaps wrote:
The thing that is really messed up for me, people that are taking pictures or recording videos could actually be helping the victims instead.

On July 15 2016 08:46 Reaps wrote:
The thing that is really messed up for me, people that are taking pictures or recording videos could actually be helping the victims instead.

On July 15 2016 08:40 SK.Testie wrote:


I agree with Fiwi. I think people actually need to see what violence does to people first hand, brutal violence. It's a shock, it's disgusting, and it has a very visceral reaction. But I think it's important people understand and see the results of violence. I partially believe this because I think liberals would be a little less rose coloured upon seeing a man smash another mans head in or cut his head off.

To not look to me is to almost put your head in the sand and pretend it never happened for some people. It seems cowardly and a way to, "this doesn't involve me I just want things to go back to normal."

On July 15 2016 09:00 stilt wrote:


Yeah, you're right, society should make tv show about torture and stuff like because you must not "act cowardly".
A visceral reaction is not wished, people do not think after this and it has nothing to do with liberals and I will not argue against them by showing this even if I have no respect at all for their ideas.

On July 15 2016 09:02 Chewbacca. wrote:
Pardon my ignorance, but is there some political reason as to why it seems like so many of these attacks occur in France and not other European nations? Has France done more to "wrong" these people than other nations? Are they accepting many more immigrants?

On July 15 2016 08:25 Shield wrote:


How do you get guns and grenades if you're "lonely lunatic" though? It seems organised, so it can't be one person only.

On July 15 2016 09:04 SK.Testie wrote:


What did you think of the movies Saw. Or The Green Room. Or Human Centipede. Or The Serbian Film. Or Hostel?

I'm not saying we should have a "Test your strength by seeing gross shit". But this is actually happening. This is real. People should be able to see what happened in their country, even if it's horrific. It is their choice. A choice to film it, a choice to see it.



If you listen to terrorists it's largely because of their role in the Libyan airstrikes. However seeing as terrorist attacks happen all across the west, (mostly France though) it's not JUST happening to them. They keep getting the majority of it though.

On July 15 2016 09:26 Dr.Strangelove wrote:
The reason atrocities must be documented is to make denial impossible.

On July 15 2016 09:30 CorsairHero wrote:
are there any live news streams covering this

On July 15 2016 09:27 Noocta wrote:
It never stops... and it never gets easier to hear about it. I'm speechless and unable to think about what should be done.

The worst part is knowing how many of those events are being avoided on top of all the ones that actually happen.

On July 15 2016 09:34 SoSexy wrote:
Police should infiltrate agents in salafi mosquees - whoever praises the attack should have a nice 'conversation' out of sight...

On July 15 2016 09:02 Chewbacca. wrote:
Pardon my ignorance, but is there some political reason as to why it seems like so many of these attacks occur in France and not other European nations? Has France done more to "wrong" these people than other nations? Are they accepting many more immigrants?

On July 15 2016 09:26 FiWiFaKi wrote:


People are allowed to those movies, and many people do (I am not one of them).

And you may disagree, but as far as I know, it's definitely legal when not showing the faces, and I don't know the inner workings, though I know it massively varies country to country. By all means, have your opinion, but telling people that they are not allowed to do it simply because you don't like it? There's not too many of those laws out there...

Anyway, Testie makes good points, and I agree especially with the fact that it's a system that the government and society in general does to move on with their lives and not get concerned about it. It does often seem that people are trying to get away from the realities, and in the same way how I think you learn a lot of hard lessons if you grow up poor or in crime, you learn other kinds of lessons through this.

On July 15 2016 09:56 radscorpion9 wrote:
Is anyone else getting a little bit desensitized at this point? This is just another massacre in a long series of massacres. It is depressing but I find it hard to be shocked at this point

On July 15 2016 09:35 SK.Testie wrote:


They do do this and they try to work with and rely on people reporting in the Muslim community. It's not easy. There's at least two or three documentaries of hidden cameras inside UK mosques where they try to get close. I can't recall how much time they were undercover for. I think there's a documentary of a girl called "Aisha" who went undercover for at least a few months to a year. In each time they usually find the usual hate speech. "The Westerners are Kafirs etc." Which has to be a kick in the balls, because a larger % of them are on welfare. So you're paying for people to hate your guts. (Timeframe citation needed though)

On July 15 2016 09:56 radscorpion9 wrote:
Is anyone else getting a little bit desensitized at this point? This is just another massacre in a long series of massacres. It is depressing but I find it hard to be shocked at this point

On July 15 2016 10:01 zlefin wrote:

I'm not sure if I'm desensitized, or just have a lot of perspective. Could be either really.

On July 15 2016 10:11 radscorpion9 wrote:


Well there is certainly a good point to be made (at least I think so), that if we genuinely cared for every person that died, we would be in a permanent state of coma induced by depression. I can't help but be skeptical when someone says they "really care" that some group of people died unrelated to them. If they were that concerned, they would have also cared when 200 people died in Baghdad not too long ago. But of course, no one cared. Its selective outrage. But I guess having selective, contradictory beliefs is not something new or unexpected.

On July 15 2016 10:11 radscorpion9 wrote:


Well there is certainly a good point to be made (at least I think so), that if we genuinely cared for every person that died, we would be in a permanent state of coma induced by depression. I can't help but be skeptical when someone says they "really care" that some group of people died unrelated to them. If they were that concerned, they would have also cared when 200 people died in Baghdad not too long ago. But of course, no one cared. Its selective outrage. But I guess having selective, contradictory beliefs is not something new or unexpected.

On July 15 2016 09:56 radscorpion9 wrote:
Is anyone else getting a little bit desensitized at this point? This is just another massacre in a long series of massacres. It is depressing but I find it hard to be shocked at this point

On July 15 2016 10:17 mahrgell wrote:

But most users here can relate more to a celebrating group of French, watching a firework on their national holiday in Nice than to the populace of Baghdad.
And yes, that is certainly a different concern than when a close family member dies. It is also below the concern I may have have, if some friends relative or someone from my town or in a place I know suffers such fate. But it is still above Baghdad.

Same as I cheer for Costa Rica in a soccer match between them and Nicaragua. Simply because I was there for 3 weeks vacation and liked the country and its people. Which does not mean I would like Nicaragua less or the people there are worse human beings. I just simply know the country/people less and thus care less.

On July 15 2016 10:21 SoSexy wrote:


Intelligent post but just give up, dude - everytime something like this happens, people don't seem to understand that things closer to us affect us more. I gave up on explaining after a guy made a comparison between the death of a parent and someone dying in China.

On July 15 2016 10:26 nath wrote:

Just because things closer to us affect us more, does that mean that death of innocent humans isn't equally bad depending on where the human is? That, by definition, only shows a lack of empathy. (which may or may not be important, or bad, or whatever -- but its definitely a lack of empathy and being able to feel someone else's pain)

On July 15 2016 10:30 SoSexy wrote:


No - it just means that you cry when your mother dies, but not when a chinese worker in Beijing does.

Where did I say that death isn't equally bad?!

On July 15 2016 10:31 nath wrote:

Of course. Those are two completely separate points. They should not be conflated. Many of the people who are 'not understanding that things close to us affect us more' are usually not talking about that, but making a version of the (again, completely separate point) I made above. Conflating them just leads to more misunderstanding.

On July 15 2016 10:56 Djzapz wrote:
As much as rationally I can see that the death of 70 people in Baghdad is every bit as bad and horrible as 70 in France, I can't help to feel differently. I could easily about it and be PC but I do actually feel differently. Perhaps it's because they're more similar to me, they speak the same language as I do in my day to day life, and they live a similar lifestyle. They've probably never heard a gunshot and they feel safe, and then they die. And I know and work French people who have family there. But there's also plain old selfishness. France is right across the pond from me, France is like home. I know some people get scared, for me it's not fear for the lives of my family and myself, but I don't know. There's something uncomfortable about that sort of violence in the areas of the world that many of us think of as safe.

On July 15 2016 12:12 NukeD wrote:
You guys are having the most pathetic conversation I've seen. Just respect what happened and move on with your fake empathy.

On July 15 2016 12:12 NukeD wrote:
You guys are having the most pathetic conversation I've seen. Just respect what happened and move on with your fake empathy.

On July 15 2016 12:39 Djzapz wrote:

Takes a special kind of depraved and villainous personality to actually go through with writing a comment like that. Fake empathy... what?

Being tired of people sending their sentiments to people who can't be reached by them over and over can come off as lacking authenticity.

On July 15 2016 13:20 SK.Testie wrote:
No, edgy would have fallen under the, "good, I'm glad it happened."

On July 15 2016 13:24 Seedfan wrote:

And by authenticity, you mean what exactly?

No-one is dumb enough to actually believe candles and hashtags will solve everything but what's wrong with people expressing sadness, disbelief or whichever when meaningless violence happens?

On July 15 2016 13:32 SK.Testie wrote:


I didn't say it was a bad thing. That's a debate we could have if you want but I feel like I could take either side in it. I simply explained why some people may get tired of it and express it.

On July 15 2016 13:49 Wegandi wrote:
It's getting to that point in time where the West either needs to shit or get off the pot. There are only 2 viable choices here unfortunately. Either you go in hard and deal with Salafism, Wahhabism, and its ilk for good by doing the dirty necessary work which will cost a lot in blood and treasure, but can be done if there is the will for it, or, you stop doing the things that antagonize and rally people to the ideology - namely, stop interfering in Middle Eastern affairs, start becoming more like Switzerland with Foreign Policy (e.g. non-interventionist), stop giving aid to the same countries that are hot-beds of the aforementioned ideologies, and start in general minding our own fucking business.

There's no in-between trying to play geo-politics with people like the House of Saud or picking so-called "moderates" and arming them which turns out to be the worst idea in the history of ideas (thank you McCain /sarc). On top of that you gotta get rid of the Petro-dollar which incentivizes the worst of all worlds when it comes to FP and the Middle East. Just no.

There's a reason the former head of the CIA unit that was responsible for Bin Laden (Scheuer) lays out the same thing. It's obvious the status-quo of the West is not a solution. It is non-viable.

So West, you going to shit or get off the pot?

On July 15 2016 13:49 Wegandi wrote:
On top of that you gotta get rid of the Petro-dollar which incentivizes the worst of all worlds when it comes to FP and the Middle East.

On July 15 2016 15:00 Spaylz wrote:
I suspect we might see a drastic increase in security measures now. This is far from over. They won't ever stop.

On July 15 2016 15:33 Incognoto wrote:


Like firearms, apparently renting trucks is now apparently something which is in need of regulation? What else is one supposed to take away from this?

I'm very, very curious as to how the truck driver managed to bypass security in the way it did.

Devastating news to wake up to. This is the third time I've woken up with my mother telling me that double-digit numbers of people died overnight. Never get used to it.

On July 15 2016 15:21 zeo wrote:

Good job Hollande, everything can be fixed by upping security after the fact and doing nothing about the problem beforehand.

What a truely great leader.

On July 15 2016 15:52 Shiragaku wrote:
Okay, I'm sorry, but I am actually surprised there have not been more terrorist attacks and frankly, this is nothing unusual. The same fucking thing is going to happen, the liberals and anti-racists will spew the same shit we hear and the nationalists and right-wing populists will once again play the game of "I told you so" and pretend to know what the true nature of Islam is.

But the most insufferable people in discussion after the horror are the people who try to show off how much they know about Salafi jihadism and takfiri Islamism and how we need to be harder on those guys. What are they trying to do? Impress someone at a potential cheese and wine gathering? Deconstructing the ideology is certainly fascinating, but understanding the tenets of every tendency within Islamism is not going to give us a clear lenses of the terrorist attack.

On July 15 2016 15:50 Incognoto wrote:
I dunno, I'm not on social media. I just got up this morning and everyone in my family hates Hollande so I can't really talk about that.

People at my workplace haven't spoken a word about it yet, I guess we don't really talk about that here.

Personally though, Hollande really deserves prison. Out, out with him. I've changed channels every time I saw his shitty fat fucking face on television and I'm going to listen to whatever fucking Obama or Merkel have to say really. Those are who I want to hear from.

Hollande can stick an AK-47 up his ass

On July 15 2016 16:25 Incognoto wrote:


Well again, stats shows that extreme right-wing (since there's nothing wrong with right-wing.. lol) is indeed on the rise. But I don't personally see it.

Right now I'm living in Brittany, which is hardly where you really see these sort of movements take place since, well to be quite frank, there aren't really a lot of immigrants or muslims around here.

On July 15 2016 17:28 Nyan wrote:
Every rational thinking person will know that nothing can be done to prevent a killing like this.
I wonder with what retarded measures they are going to come up with.

On July 15 2016 17:43 tomatriedes wrote:


There are things that can be done to prevent the proliferation of the ideology that causes such attacks- completely cut off all funding from gulf countries towards mosques in Europe that encourage extremism, but for economic reasons it won't be done.

On July 15 2016 16:39 zatic wrote:

Serious question: Is this really how it is in France? Over here it's the other way around: The less heterogeneous the location, the more xenophobic. The areas of Germany with the least amount of immigrants are the loudest in opposing immigration and are the strongholds of the extreme right (and, to an extend, the extreme left as well).

On July 15 2016 18:19 sharkie wrote:


One of the biggest problem was that while they are in rupture with their muslim community, the muslim community dont report them to the authorities and rather look away.

On July 15 2016 18:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Inversely, you could promote and fund tolerant, peaceful and open minded islam.

On July 15 2016 18:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Inversely, you could promote and fund tolerant, peaceful and open minded islam. That won't be done for political reason and because of our concept of laicité in which state and religion never mingle.

The Paris mosque is a remarkable example of what a successful muslim religious institution can be like. But it's a bit unique, and no one shows any interest in financing similar places.

That being said it is proven and documented that the french jihadi are not radicalized in mosques but rather on the internet and that there are very little bridges between salafists and ISIS style terrorists. Not saying that salafism is not a problem, it certainly is, but it is a different one.

It is important to understand that terrorists of the last years in France are religiously completely illiterate : Salah Abdelsam admitted to his lawyer that he had never hold a Qoran in his hands and never read a line of it, only had read about it on the net. They are generally in rupture with their muslim community, and were often not or very little religious before being recruited by ISIS.

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.

On July 15 2016 18:58 Nebuchad wrote:


That's one terrible post. Instead of accusing him of enjoying terrorism, why don't you explain to us why his perspective is wrong? Cause right now he seems to be the one applying logic to the situation, and where I stand, that matters.

On July 15 2016 18:58 Nebuchad wrote:


That's one terrible post. Instead of accusing him of enjoying terrorism, why don't you explain to us why his perspective is wrong? Cause right now he seems to be the one applying logic to the situation, and where I stand, that matters.

On July 15 2016 19:03 DickMcFanny wrote:


Because he's proposing Chamberlaining the "good" extremists instead of the "bad" extremists. Why indulge that psychotic death cult at all? They don't look at those concessions and see compassion and kindness, they see weakness.

If you're taught from a very young age to kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, you won't change your mind just because the unbelievers extend an olive branch.

On July 15 2016 19:28 Nebuchad wrote:


He said no such thing though. He said salafism was a problem but that fixing it wouldn't improve this specific situation much, given the specific circumstances of these terrorists. He then provided an explanation as to why he was saying that that I found was hard to argue against. I take it into account cause my position was that fixing the obvious problem of wahabism would do a lot to counter the situation of today, and I see that it's not as simple as I thought. Don't you find that to be important information?

stilt: ok.

On July 15 2016 19:37 DickMcFanny wrote:


He wrote

"Inversely, you could promote and fund tolerant, peaceful and open minded islam."

Which I characterised as:

"Because he's proposing Chamberlaining the "good" extremists instead of the "bad" extremists. Why indulge that psychotic death cult at all? They don't look at those concessions and see compassion and kindness, they see weakness.

If you're taught from a very young age to kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, you won't change your mind just because the unbelievers extend an olive branch."

On July 15 2016 19:40 Nebuchad wrote:


In that case the problem is a lot simpler. The problem is that you see "tolerant, peaceful and open minded islam" and your brain reads "psychotic death cult".

On July 15 2016 09:02 Chewbacca. wrote:
Pardon my ignorance, but is there some political reason as to why it seems like so many of these attacks occur in France and not other European nations? Has France done more to "wrong" these people than other nations? Are they accepting many more immigrants?

On July 15 2016 20:10 Incognoto wrote:


This stupid detail is relentlessly repeated over and over

On July 15 2016 19:44 DickMcFanny wrote:
I wonder what happens once those sub-humans realise all the US drone strikes are launched from Ramstein, Germany.

On July 15 2016 20:38 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Where did he get the hand grenades from? ISIS cell?
France needs LePen more than ever, the country is going downhill fast.

On July 15 2016 09:02 Chewbacca. wrote:
Pardon my ignorance, but is there some political reason as to why it seems like so many of these attacks occur in France and not other European nations? Has France done more to "wrong" these people than other nations? Are they accepting many more immigrants?

On July 15 2016 20:51 aXa wrote:


Not a lof of people are talking about this in this way, but here is my analysis.

France, despite its ideal for equality and social progress, is very much a segregated country, and this is my opinion the very reason why we are seeing so much attacks happening on France's soil. Of course, France's involvement in Africa and in the middle east is also a factor, but that's not what I want to talk about today.

For a bit of context, I want to talk about the two major immigration waves in France modern history:

-The first, from 1945 to 1970, mostly came from other european countries (Polish, Portuguese, Italians ...). This was during a period of huge prosperity and social progress, and the wealth created was more even shared across all of society.
Integration was not easy, despite the fact that most immigrants were caucasian and catholics. It was however very much possible and overall, the outcome was positive.

-The second wave, from 1970 onwards, came mostly from North Africa and happened during an economic downturn (1973 oil shock) and after a very chaotic end to France's colonial past (End of the Algerian war in 1962). With the latent racism and the poor economic conditions, a segregation settled in France. And the worst part about it is that no one is willing to acknowledge or even talk about it. If you look at France today, the poorest neighbourhood can be entirely comprised of immigrants, with huge unemployment rate, poor access to education, harsh and various discriminations and so on. These are real ghettos, and those ghettos are fertile ground for violence, trafficking, and terrorism.

Now I will use a Game of Thrones analogy to explain my point (spoiler alert)

This economic and social disparity in France is like the underground of the Sept of Baelor filled with wildfire barrels. Radical islam ideology is the spark setting the whole thing ablaze. Don't kid yourself, most of the terrorism in France is homegrown.

Now, if you were to try to prevent the Sept of Baelor to blow up, what would you do ? Would you just keep on eye on the wildfire and make sure no spark would ever come close to it? Or would you try to remove the wildfire in the first place ?

My opinion is that we need to focus on fixing our social inequalities and discriminations plaguing or society. This is the only way to make the wildfire disappears. People will less likely blow themselves up if they have wealth, feel accepted, have a job, a family and a place in society. That is the real long term solution to terrorism, and pretty much everything else, including climate change and the debt crisis. Right now, inequalities are so high that it ressembles the pre-WW1 period. Things can only go worse if it continues like this.

On July 15 2016 20:51 aXa wrote:


Not a lof of people are talking about this in this way, but here is my analysis.

France, despite its ideal for equality and social progress, is very much a segregated country, and this is my opinion the very reason why we are seeing so much attacks happening on France's soil. Of course, France's involvement in Africa and in the middle east is also a factor, but that's not what I want to talk about today.

For a bit of context, I want to talk about the two major immigration waves in France modern history:

-The first, from 1945 to 1970, mostly came from other european countries (Polish, Portuguese, Italians ...). This was during a period of huge prosperity and social progress, and the wealth created was more even shared across all of society.
Integration was not easy, despite the fact that most immigrants were caucasian and catholics. It was however very much possible and overall, the outcome was positive.

-The second wave, from 1970 onwards, came mostly from North Africa and happened during an economic downturn (1973 oil shock) and after a very chaotic end to France's colonial past (End of the Algerian war in 1962). With the latent racism and the poor economic conditions, a segregation settled in France. And the worst part about it is that no one is willing to acknowledge or even talk about it. If you look at France today, the poorest neighbourhood can be entirely comprised of immigrants, with huge unemployment rate, poor access to education, harsh and various discriminations and so on. These are real ghettos, and those ghettos are fertile ground for violence, trafficking, and terrorism.

Now I will use a Game of Thrones analogy to explain my point (spoiler alert)

This economic and social disparity in France is like the underground of the Sept of Baelor filled with wildfire barrels. Radical islam ideology is the spark setting the whole thing ablaze. Don't kid yourself, most of the terrorism in France is homegrown.

Now, if you were to try to prevent the Sept of Baelor to blow up, what would you do ? Would you just keep on eye on the wildfire and make sure no spark would ever come close to it? Or would you try to remove the wildfire in the first place ?

My opinion is that we need to focus on fixing our social inequalities and discriminations plaguing or society. This is the only way to make the wildfire disappears. People will less likely blow themselves up if they have wealth, feel accepted, have a job, a family and a place in society. That is the real long term solution to terrorism, and pretty much everything else, including climate change and the debt crisis. Right now, inequalities are so high that it ressembles the pre-WW1 period. Things can only go worse if it continues like this.

On July 15 2016 20:51 aXa wrote:


Not a lof of people are talking about this in this way, but here is my analysis.

France, despite its ideal for equality and social progress, is very much a segregated country, and this is my opinion the very reason why we are seeing so much attacks happening on France's soil. Of course, France's involvement in Africa and in the middle east is also a factor, but that's not what I want to talk about today.

For a bit of context, I want to talk about the two major immigration waves in France modern history:

-The first, from 1945 to 1970, mostly came from other european countries (Polish, Portuguese, Italians ...). This was during a period of huge prosperity and social progress, and the wealth created was more even shared across all of society.
Integration was not easy, despite the fact that most immigrants were caucasian and catholics. It was however very much possible and overall, the outcome was positive.

-The second wave, from 1970 onwards, came mostly from North Africa and happened during an economic downturn (1973 oil shock) and after a very chaotic end to France's colonial past (End of the Algerian war in 1962). With the latent racism and the poor economic conditions, a segregation settled in France. And the worst part about it is that no one is willing to acknowledge or even talk about it. If you look at France today, the poorest neighbourhood can be entirely comprised of immigrants, with huge unemployment rate, poor access to education, harsh and various discriminations and so on. These are real ghettos, and those ghettos are fertile ground for violence, trafficking, and terrorism.

Now I will use a Game of Thrones analogy to explain my point (spoiler alert)

This economic and social disparity in France is like the underground of the Sept of Baelor filled with wildfire barrels. Radical islam ideology is the spark setting the whole thing ablaze. Don't kid yourself, most of the terrorism in France is homegrown.

Now, if you were to try to prevent the Sept of Baelor to blow up, what would you do ? Would you just keep on eye on the wildfire and make sure no spark would ever come close to it? Or would you try to remove the wildfire in the first place ?

My opinion is that we need to focus on fixing our social inequalities and discriminations plaguing or society. This is the only way to make the wildfire disappears. People will less likely blow themselves up if they have wealth, feel accepted, have a job, a family and a place in society. That is the real long term solution to terrorism, and pretty much everything else, including climate change and the debt crisis. Right now, inequalities are so high that it ressembles the pre-WW1 period. Things can only go worse if it continues like this.

On July 15 2016 21:58 WhiteDog wrote:

The problem is that your vision does not stand to actual fact. You talk about segregation and poverty, inequalities, but by all measures those are less important in France than in most countries. What you call segregated areas are not segregated in the american way for exemple, because public infrastructures and public investment are nothing alike.
There are cultural problems that one must tackle to understand the terror attack - and by cultural I do not mean the culture of islam or whatever, but France's own culture and history.

May I add one OBVIOUS thing, that people seems to misunderstand constantly : poverty and inequality does not force people into driving a truck and blindly killing innocent people. In no countries, at no point of history, have we seen anything similar : class warfare can be brutal, from time to time, but at which point can we explain killing 83 completly innocent citizens by inequalities I wonder. The cause is much more profound than inequality, it has a lot to do with morals and value.

On July 15 2016 22:11 aXa wrote:


Inequality and poverty does not force people into anything, but it creates weaknesses in their life. These weaknesses can lead to different terrible things. A black young man in the US might start using drugs or join a gang. A muslim living in France's poorest banlieue might one day be influenced by dangerous people and become a terrorist. My point is that if you want to starve off terrorist or criminal organisations from recruiting young disenfranchised people, you should focus on creating opportunity for them. In the case of France, we have the largest muslim community in Europe, and integration is not happening, which makes the probability of someone actually being influenced by radical ideologies much higher.

On July 15 2016 22:20 WhiteDog wrote:

He was not a dual citizen, he was just tunisian.

Police had earlier found identity papers, in the cab of the truck, that belonged to a 30 or 31-year-old man with dual French-Tunisian citizenship, according to Reuters. He was born in 1985.

Bouhlel was reportedly known to police for violence and use of weapons, but had not previously been linked with terrorism. He was not on the watch list of French intelligence services.

On July 15 2016 22:20 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:

Well he was employed which most likely means he was not in the lowest rung.Plus he was a dual citizen of Tunisia so we can assume the his economic situation was better in France than it would have been in Tunisia, otherwise he would have moved back.Really this constant apology mentality from western people towards Islamic maniacs that kill people needs to stop.Stockholm syndrome on steroids.

On July 15 2016 22:15 WhiteDog wrote:

That's untrue, historically, socially. What create weakness is the absence of social link, of social cohesion. Poor people have been defined by their solidarity throughout history - "us" and "them" as written by Hoggart more than fifty years ago.
More than that, those terrorist attacks are made by very diverses people, with very diverses background. Some comes from the small delinquency and can be described as poor people, for some it's just not the case : they are perfectly integrated economically and socially, sometimes with high degree and education.

Your discourse is the kind of discourse I actually believed was right a few years ago. At this point, it's pretty clear the problem is more profound and can't be fixed with an increase in wages and a change in urbanism.

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.

[...]

Whitedog is one of the few posters on TLnet which I genuinely dislike but he's right on this one, sorry.

On July 15 2016 20:32 Half the Sky wrote:


I assume you meant condemning here and not condoning....completely changes the meaning of the sentence there.

You might not agree btw, but I have read a few articles about moderates "not doing enough" to speak out. I've also read that with each attack, religious leaders come out in force denouncing radical Islam and I'd at least think they should be vested when you consider the vast majority of attacks esp in the Middle East are against other Muslims. From the little I've read, (a lot of mainstream pubs have it, literally just Google it) the problem lies in either (regular or lay, not religious leaders) people not listening or being in a position to help or those speaking out getting drowned out esp in the mainstream media, and moderates standing up simply isn't getting reported as much. Like there are many a "Not in My Name" campaigns or similar on social media, so you know there is plenty of pushback, I just think the anti-radical movement in general is just constantly playing catchup and failing. Just my opinion.

On July 15 2016 22:36 zatic wrote:

Which still leaves us with the question: Why France?

On July 15 2016 22:36 zatic wrote:

Which still leaves us with the question: Why France?

On July 15 2016 22:24 aXa wrote:


To be clear, I'm not trying to give anyone excuses for their actions. But if we refuse to explain and acknowledge all factors, then we will never find a solution. Inequalities, poverties, discrimination against a group of people for their skin tone, their origins, their religion, will lead to wars, violence, criminality and yes, terrorism. Blaming only religion or cultural differences,or trying to bomb the problem off the face of the earth, will never solve anything.