[Update: The New York Times has a story, Truck Attack in Nice, France: What We Know, and What We Don’t and an interactive map.]
LA Times is reporting:
A truck drove on to the sidewalk and plowed through a crowd of Bastille Day revelers who'd gathered to watch fireworks in the French resort city of Nice late Thursday in what officials and eyewitnesses described as a deliberate attack. The president of the Nice region says at least 75 people were killed and 50 injured. Eric Ciotti said on France Info radio that "it's a scene of horror." He said he was speaking from the scene.
Sylvie Toffin, a press officer with the local prefecture, said the truck "hit several people on a long trip" down the sidewalk near Nice's Palais de la Mediterranee, a building that fronts the beach. Wassim Bouhlel, a Nice native who spoke to the AP nearby, said that he saw a truck drive into the crowd.
[...] The death toll appeared to be climbing. Calls to interior ministry and police officials were not returned. Images circulating on social media showed grisly scenes of piles of bodies in the street. The president of the Provence Alpes Côte d'Azur regional council, Christian Estrosi, said in a message posted to Twitter that dozens of people appear to have been killed.
[...] The president of the region that includes Nice says the truck that slammed into revelers celebrating Bastille Day on the city's waterfront was loaded with arms and grenades, and that the driver of the truck has now been killed by police.
Christian Estrosi told BFM TV that "the driver fired on the crowd, according to the police who killed him."
PBS reports:
Police killed the driver "after an exchange of gunfire," Eric Ciotti, the ranking politician of the Alpes-Maritime department that includes Nice, told BFM TV, according to the AP.
Damien Allemand, a journalist for Nice Matin, wrote online that "an enormous white truck came along at a crazy speed, turning the wheel to mow down the maximum number of people."
"I saw bodies flying like bowling pins along its route," he said. "Heard noises, cries that I will never forget."
The truck jumped onto a sidewalk and rammed into a crowd watching fireworks for Bastille Day in the resort city. An eyewitness at the scene told the AP that after striking the crowd, the driver emerged from the truck and began shooting.
"There was carnage on the road," said Wassim Bouhlel, a Nice native who spoke to the AP near the Promenade du Paillon. "Bodies everywhere."
The truck plowed into the crowd over a distance of more than a mile, Ciotti said.
Additional coverage:
Associate Press
ABC News
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @01:43AM
Chaos is the price of freedom. Enjoy your liberty!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @01:54AM
Well, it does bring to light the line from Rick and Morty: "I didn't know freedom meant people doing stuff that sucks."
More, it's a fundamental breakdown of the social contract, and makes cracking down on Muslims (probably) a foregone conclusion just for expediency.
The loons are ensuring Muslims are going to be completely isolated.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @05:47AM
> The loons are ensuring Muslims are going to be completely isolated.
That's their goal. Mainstream muslims are the real enemy of the extremists.
The extremists could never oppress the mainstream on their own, so they hope to co-opt the power of the non-muslim majority to do it for them.
Imagine if the government of Iraq's response to the 200+ killed in the Karada bombing [aljazeera.com] was to say "Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslim so we need to put extra restrictions and scrutiny on muslims for expediency!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @06:11AM
Unfortunately the history of the area suggests you need a ruthless dictator to keep the peace between factions.
Hard the extreme being the enemy of the moderates.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @06:24AM
> Unfortunately the history of the area suggests you need a ruthless dictator to keep the peace between factions.
The history of the area suggests that foreign interference has only permitted ruthless dictators to keep the peace for over a century now.
The area has been held back from the kind of social progress the west has been allowed. Over the last century we've fought two world wars, killing millions, and switching nearly all western countries from monarchies to democracies while they have not been given that opportunity.
To judge the arab world as requiring continued interference is circular logic.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @06:40AM
The area has been held back from the kind of social progress the west has been allowed.
Do tell how the proxy wars in the west promoted social progress and how Iran is so much better now. "Allowed" social progress betrays the bloody history in the west, thankyouverymuch, and the constant push to become a "Christian" country in the US.
To judge the arab world as requiring continued interference is circular logic.
Only if you read it that way.
The other option is to pullout completely and let the moderates fend for themselves, which is essentially calling for the entire region to burn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:08PM
The other option is to pullout completely and let the moderates fend for themselves, which is essentially calling for the entire region to burn.
Which is what is necessary, as that is what happened in the civilized world before it became civilized.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday July 15 2016, @01:56PM
The two are not mutually exclusive e.g. In Europe alone there is Norway, Sweden, Denmark, UK, Netherlands etc... All are considered democratic but maintain a monarchy, and there are others [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday July 15 2016, @02:18PM
You are using an outsider's perspective. If the bomber was a Shia, or Sunni, or some specific tribe then that is what would be used to isolate. There is always an us and a them. There is always some difference people use to create divisions.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 15 2016, @02:03AM
Not so. Chaos is the price of trying to integrate multiple different societies. Chaos ensues when masses of "immigrants" are welcomed into a relatively stable, civilized nation. Chaos is the result of bleeding hearts trying to help everyone in the world, without any real plan. Chaos also is an obvious result of destroying semi-stable nations, because one or two world leaders hate the leader of that nation.
Oh yeah - let's elect Hillary, so that she can attack Syria, making it just as bad as Iraq is already.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:14AM
You win. Like a broken record you never stop spewing your reductivist bigotry.
Nobody sane is going to keep arguing with you because eventually we all realize you can't reason someone out of something they never reasoned themselves into.
So fuck you, asshole. I hope some drunk-ass good ole boy runs you down. The world will be a better place without you.
(Score: 5, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 15 2016, @02:33AM
And, you demonstrate how hateful you are. I work hard to show you reason, and you can only reject reason, and hope that I die a painful death. You are far more like the terrorists than I am. Are you a Muslim?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @04:03PM
yes [youtu.be]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 15 2016, @03:06AM
AC, the thing is, *he's right.* You know how much he and I usually bump heads, but he's dead-bang correct about this one. Islam cannot coexist with not-Islam because the very roots of the religion command it to conquer. And no serious, devout Muslim is going to refuse that because the penalty for insufficient zeal is eternity in Hell.
As I see it, there are three solutions, one of which is no such thing at all:
1) Attempt to improve the originating countries from the inside, and let a rising standard of living do its secularizing work.
2) Utterly barricade said countries off
3) Sink to their level and commit genocide
I'm not sure 1 is feasible now, and 2 is the most sensical approach but will not happen because, among other reasons, the US just fucking LOVES Saudi Arabia for some reason. And 3 is unconsionable; we do that, and the terrorists have well and truly won.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @03:28AM
4) Build a wall and make them pay for it.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Friday July 15 2016, @04:06AM
Now that we have more oil than Saudi Arabia, and at the same time we're using less of it, I'm hoping some folks in power will decide the Saudis are a bunch of garbage no better than Saddam Hussain.
The Saudis are a truly evil society that needs to go.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday July 15 2016, @07:30PM
I think you'll find that the Sauidis themselves are just like normal people the world over. The Saudi royal family however, are the ones funding and spreading Wahabiism (Islamofascism).
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday July 15 2016, @06:34AM
This discussion shows how fast attitudes are changing. Even a year ago, most of the posts that have been marked +5 insightful would have gone under with Troll mods. Comments about how Islam is simply not compatible with Western civilization are now acceptable. It's a shame that it has taken so many deaths to bring this change about.
It is not too late to combine (1) and (2), i.e., wall off uncivilized countries and attempt to help them in situ.
Muslims already in the West must ensure a rapid change in their doctrine. There are plenty of horrible things in the Old Testament of the Christian bible, but Christians see them as historical artifacts. Something similar needs to happen to create a Western interpretation of the Koran.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Friday July 15 2016, @06:52AM
Christians don't see them as historical artifacts, for Christ's sake. Christians lost their power to democracy when state and church became separate. THAT is what is needed here. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, Muslims think that seperation is not needed. I don't know why personally - but ultimately it all boilds down to economy.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Friday July 15 2016, @08:28AM
The thing is, Azuma does not only condemn Islam, but all Abrahamitic religions. Living in a Western society and grown up among Christians, it shows she's not ranting about things just because they are alien to her. That gives her credibility. Also she mentioned the secularizing effect of higher live standard, not condemning the people of those areas but acknowledging that the living conditions are a deciding factor.
I don't fully agree with the harsh judgement of Islam. If it wasn't Islam, I'm sure any repressed society in their situation would invent something similar with a different label. To me, radical Islam is more of a symptom than a problem.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Friday July 15 2016, @07:11AM
France conquered Tunisia in 1881; it remained a French protectorate until 1956.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_conquest_of_Tunisia [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 15 2016, @09:06AM
When crimes like this are committed, part of me feels like nuking Mecca and the rest of the Middle East into glass. The cultures there have always been genocidal, hateful tribal assholes, and they always will be.
But that would be monstrous. Moreover--and the real bigots out there should note this especially--it's not possible to kill all the Muslims in the world. There are 1.3 billion of them. The 3rd Reich tried really hard to wipe out the Jews, and there were only 15 million of them in the world in 1933. Wiping out Muslims would render the Earth uninhabitable for everyone else at the same time.
It would be very difficult to even attempt to expel all Muslims from Western society. That itself would be an atrocity and the damage done to our legal systems (such as they are) in the process of stripping people of their citizenship would render our systems unrecognizable.
In other words, there are no easy answers and damn few, if any, practicable ones. That's unhappy news for anyone who's not an arms dealer.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Friday July 15 2016, @09:34AM
There are always options. First off we could thin their numbers a bit by simply ceasing to feed them. Show me a Middle Eastern country that has a snowball's chance in Hell of feeding itself. If they tried to mass for an invasion to simply seize our food supplies then eliminating them would not only become possible, it would be pretty easy as a military exercise; massed ranks of infantry vs air superiority wouldn't be pretty.
The threat of the food stopping would be a powerful tool to force some social changes.
You don't have to simply expel all Muslims from the West. Just stop coddling them, pretending their Pedophile Prophet's ravings are a legitimate religion. Ridicule and disrespect would end all inbound migration (assuming we didn't simply forbid it outright) and start up a swift outflow.
Hitler had trouble wiping out the Jews because he felt he had to keep it a secret. He knew h ewas committing an abomination that the entire world and a large fraction of his own people would be outraged should knowledge of it leak. An outright war wouldn't have that problem. Of course there would be other problems... Especially after Obama has assured Iran will get the bomb.
But in the end, at some point they will commit an atrocity so vile we will probably solve the problem with Ann Coulter's suggestion in the 9/12/2001 column that ended her employment at National review. Bomb their cities, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. Making secular humanists of them is a bridge too far, moving them from a dysfunctional Abrahamic religion to less dysfunctional one isn't if they are beaten and demoralized. See WWII. Just need a really big hammer and the equally large fury to motivate us to wield it. Killing a billion people isn't required, just kill their religion.
None of the options above are what could be called 'good' but unless somebody thinks up some better ones we appear on a path to being forced to pick one. Or die. The elite would clearly prefer to die before compromising their progressive values, the people they rule still have some instinct to self preservation. See BrExit and Trump.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @12:22PM
progressive values
Not wanting to go on a Christian crusade or making an exception to the First Amendment does not make you an elitist progressive.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 15 2016, @12:33PM
So, the people who invented agriculture and irrigation don't know how to feed themselves? That's so ridiculous, that it invites guffaws. You are going to compel nobody in the Islamic world by withholding food. Do you not know that the Islamic world stretches from West Africa, across South and Central Asia, all the way to Indonesia? The rest of the world could cease to exist entirely and the Islamic world would do just fine.
A more effective way to stick it to the Islamic world would be to stop using oil, because it's their biggest export. Yep, that means that you, jmorris, should buy an electric car, take your home off-grid with wind and solar, and stop using fossil fuels entirely. IOW, becoming a hippie is the best way for you to stick it to the Muslims. Naturally you won't do that because I surmise you drive the biggest, most gas-guzzling monstrosity you can, and as such will continue to fund jihad against freedom-loving Americans. Why do you hate America?
Ach, for the rest of your post, it's fantasy. You are not going to convert 1.3 billion people, as that is an order of magnitude more difficult than simply killing them. It is really difficult to eradicate religions, even when their adherents are vastly outnumbered and the system suppressing them has total control. It took Rome centuries to suppress the Cathars, and the Protestant Reformation itself is still going strong despite a robust reaction from the Vatican.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday July 16 2016, @01:53AM
So, the people who invented agriculture and irrigation don't know how to feed themselves?
Don't believe me, Google it. Egypt has how many people? The Nile River Valley can't possibly feed them, confirm that by looking up how many tons of foodstuffs they purchase and how many more are donated to avert a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions... and more social instability than any government could possibly contain, which is why we ship it in.
Do you not know that the Islamic world stretches from West Africa, across South and Central Asia, all the way to Indonesia?
Lets content ourselves with the Middle East for now, if they calmed down most of the rest of the Islam problem becomes managable. But nobody in Africa is exactly a heavy food exporter these days. Indonesia is a different story, but they haven't yet went totally nuts, if we contain the ME they can probably be kept from going bat poop crazy.
A more effective way to stick it to the Islamic world would be to stop using oil,
No argument there. We should be building nuke plants just to make that threat real to them. They know fracked oil might be plentiful but they can always undersell it since Saudi Arabia has some of the lowest per barrel production costs. Even better would be an all in investment (hopefully an international effort of both governments and corporate interests) to bring a fusion reactor onto the grid. When the first one of those goes live, the game changes.
You are not going to convert 1.3 billion people, as that is an order of magnitude more difficult than simply killing them.
We remade German and Japanese society in a few years. The Japanese are STILL pacifists. Yea, it can be done. But look at the cost. We aren't nearly angry enough yet to do what would have to be done to totally break their morale, break their hope, break their faith, break their entire reality enough we could remake them. Breaking Germany required laying the entire country to waste. It took Fat Man and Little Boy to break Japan.
You want to break Islam? Wantonly flatten all of their sacred sites, wipe out the leadership of any country that doesn't instantly surrender unconditionally to the "Deislamification" inititive, cripple their communications infrastructure, impair their transport and other systems until they are on the ragged edge of famine. Go to Dabiq, stand there and laugh at their stupid end times prophecy, dare them to "come get some" and them wipe out every last one that shows from the air without even letting them threaten to get shot in. We would probably need to put the Kabba into orbit as the finishing move on Islam and then just rub their noses in it in the most vile fashion. "If your puny god couldn't punish us for laughing at your prophecies, calling your Prophet a child molesting, goat humping monster, could not prevent our desecrating your most holy place, how can he be worthy of worship? Admit that you fell for a false Prophet, and come to the side with the winners, whom God has blessed with the mighty weapons to achieve a great victory over the evil one."
Yea, pretty harsh, intolerant and hella violent. The sort of thing university students would study in the future as a human rights atrocity, but they would still be learning it in English instead of Arabic or Persian so who cares? Like I said, we ain't nowhere ready to stay angry long enough to see that sort of plan through and you certainly don't want to start and wimp out halfway through. But when Iran drops one on a U.S. city or tries for an E.M.P. kill all bets are going to be off. Remember how mad the country got after 9/11? We were feeling pretty damned hostile for a couple of years, Bush kept a steady hand though and didn't allow the rage to go any hotter than he needed for his limited response. What happens if Manhattan is an uninhabitable waste?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Saturday July 16 2016, @04:39AM
"If your puny god couldn't punish us for laughing at your prophecies, calling your Prophet a child molesting, goat humping monster, could not prevent our desecrating your most holy place, how can he be worthy of worship? Admit that you fell for a false Prophet, and come to the side with the winners, whom God has blessed with the mighty weapons to achieve a great victory over the evil one."
To my understanding, this is literal truth: the Caliphate gains power (which is to say, followers) directly proportional to how much ground it holds. If it it stripped of its holdings and made to look like a loser, it becomes unworthy of followers. "We can nuke your puny god and all his works" is a realistic way to win against that mindset.
And so long as Islam thinks as it does, there can be no stalemate or truce; one side must win and the other will be crushed. I prefer that my side, as that which produced a more livable society, is not be the one that gets crushed.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @06:07PM
This coming from the guy who believes being homosexual is all about wearing assless chaps in public.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 15 2016, @09:01PM
Is mandatory assless-chaps-wearing just for the gay guys, or do we have to do it too? I'm getting the impression J-Mo isn't exactly interested in girls... :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @07:45PM
Step 1: traditional military strikes on water pumps, electric generation, dams, airports, and military targets
Step 2: lots of cheap little full-robotic (fire at will) drones that shoot anything that moves
Step 3: bulldozers, lots of bulldozers
You can add an optional step 0 involving neutron bombs if you like. It helps speed things up, but isn't really needed.
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 15 2016, @09:52AM
<sarcasm>Thank you for finally showing your true colors, you MRA, racist redneck. Now the entire site can see you for the uneducated bigot that you are.</sarcasm>It's amusing as hell that you make essentially exactly the same argument against radical islam that I make against black culture then call me a racist asshole. I wish you could see your face in the mirror when you eventually realize how utterly you refuted everything you've said since the shootings.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @03:28PM
Is fighting fire with fire the best way to make friends and influence people? I thought Azuma had been showing significant signs of being reasonable over the past week or so - and the best way you can encourage that trend is to come up with a sharply-worded touchdown-style dance?
(Score: 1, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 15 2016, @04:42PM
He hasn't even scored the fucking touchdown. I just blasted him for the false analogy he shat out. That isn't even CLOSE to the same thing and he's an unsupportable asshole for even thinking it is, let alone using this fucking tragedy to make a point, and not even an actual point!
God DAMN, some people are just too vile to deal with. I hope he comes back poor, black, and preferably female.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 16 2016, @02:22AM
No, but it sure is fun. Signs of being reasonable? Have you missed pretty much everything she's ever said? The only time she's stopped throwing her own shit is to explain why she enjoys throwing her own shit.
With reasonable people, I can have a reasonable debate. Happily. With shit-flinging trolls there's no possibility of rational discourse. I mean she's outright said exactly that. Why shouldn't I have a bit of fun rubbing her face in her own mess?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 15 2016, @04:40PM
First of all, there is no single monolithic "black culture," shithead. Black is a race (well, "race," set of geno- and karyotypes, really...) and Islam is a religion.
Second, there is no actual handbook that's almost 1,500 years old telling black people to kill whites. No, a few loud morons passing out Black Panther samizdat does not count. Wake me when it's been going on for almost a millennium and a half.
Thirdly, in case you hadn't noticed, a large proportion of what you object to in what you so blithely call "black culture" is backlash, whereas Islam starts, like the worst of what I'm sure you'd call "white culture." Know what the Koran sounds like? MANIFEST DESTINY. It ain't so fun when you're the Indians instead of the cowboys, is it, Uzzard?!
Christ, even *I* didn't expect you to sink this fucking low. You're capitalizing on this to make a point, and not even a sound ro a valid point! Go to Hell!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @08:33PM
Yet there manages to be something like BET.
What was the last sci-fi you've seen there?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 16 2016, @02:15AM
First of all, what deep hole filled with denial do you live in to spout such an obvious lie? I mean, really, you're precisely the same kind of douchebag who would call me out for appropriating black culture if I forgot to wear a belt with baggy pants one day.
Second, no shit? Must be totally random and unrelated to anything any black person has ever said then. My bad.
Third, what, you want me to argue that black culture is poisonous but Islam isn't? Did you miss the entire point of my post? How fucking dense can you be and still troll waters this rough every day? Go back to the kiddie pool before you hurt yourself.
Fourth, so, what, you expect me to not use an extremely relevant happening? Why, precisely? Because it proves you a hypocrite maybe?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday July 16 2016, @05:46AM
You know, the more of those terrified, whimpering pleas for me to go away disguised as insults you fling, the more desperate and weak you look. I don't think you give this site's readership enough credit for intelligence; they can read you much better than you think.
Also, for whatever this is worth, I wouldn't call you out for "cultural appropriation" if you decided to do that, but I'd laugh my fool head off at you and hope you got shot. I can't see you being brave enough to try that though.
Now, onto the meat: you have, *once again,* decided to float a turd in the pool of discussion, in this case a false analogy, for the sole purpose of showcasing your hate of black folks, in the process hijacking a tragedy to make your misbegotten point. So you're not only wrong, you're disgusting too.
I will try and break this down into easier to digest chunks:
1) Your equation of Islamism with what you idiotically refer to as "black culture," as if it were possible for every melanistic human to have the same cultural values and background, is the false analogy in question. You are referring to one specific group here, the "ghetto" or "gangbangers." To tar an entire group of people, worldwide, whose only connection is their skin color and a few related blood haplogroups, with that one brush is so completely gobsmackingly idiotic it's almost unbelievable. You insult the entire readership of this site when you attempt these pathetic, transparent dodges. "Kiddie pool" indeed; you'd drown in a light drizzle.
2) Building on 1), Islam is not a race or culture; it is a religion, and also a polity. There is, I will say it again, no unifying central text that all black people, everywhere, must follow in order to be black, let alone one that says "kill whitey" the way Islam says "slay the infidel where you find him."
3) The Koran's mandate resembles nothing in "black culture." It does, however, *very* strongly resemble the kind of thinking that made white Europeans cross an ocean and commit mass murder, slavery, torture, rape, and pillage. Over. And over. And over. It most resembles the idea of "Manifest Destiny." This is as "culturally white" as an idea can get without actually involving polka, wine-tasting, or badminton.
4) From 3), much of the violent rhetoric in what you refer to as "black culture" is backlash; still wrong, but entirely understandable. The violence of Islam(ism), by contrast, is a first-order phenomenon handed down from on high. If you cannot or will not see the difference, there is no hope for you (but we all knew that already).
In sum: you are not only wrong, you are not only incompetent, you are malicious and poisonous....and you're playing right into the Islamists' hands. You clearly have no shame, else you'd be embarrassed to show your face around here with this crap.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 16 2016, @11:11AM
There's no need to "read me", chuckles. I'm as up front and straight-forward as it gets. Ask anyone else who's ever read anything I've posted. Subtlety, nuance, a Buzzard craves not these things.
Float a turd in the pool of discussion? Good phrase but you need a mirror. You've been the person flinging insults rather than debating. Me, I prefer to give those willing to put in the time reading a long-ass post both. Like say the solid fact of how utterly destructive black culture and Islam are paired with a bit of fun like accurately calling you out for the shit-slinging simian that you are.
Since you were goaded into actually producing something approaching an argument this time though, I'll go ahead and tear it apart.
Yes, it's utterly impossible for someone to self-identify based on their skin color and nationality and to create a culture around that. Oh, wait, no, that's what everyone has been doing for thousands of years. I guess it must only be every other racial demographic of a nation on the planet except American black folks. Seriously, how fucking stupid do you think our community is?
Now Islam? What the cornbread hell do you think a religious code of conduct is if not a culture? Is it deliberate blindness or abysmal stupidity on your part that keeps you from seeing this? Or are you just trying to spread enough outrageous lies around at once that someone fails to catch one or two?
Oh, sure, these two [google.com] multi-million-hit phrases [google.com] should never be compared. It might hurt someone's feelz. Feel free to keep crying about it though; my eggs could use the salt.
Backlash to what? That criminals are more likely to be shot by the police and that black people are more than twice as likely to be criminals as any other demographic? Black people in the US have fuck-all skin-color-related to complain about in this day and age. Well, except for their self-styled leaders feed them nothing but hate-filled lies and the poison spewed to them daily by their cultural celebrities.
You deny the culture exists because you cannot deny the poison when 70-80% of black children are born to single mothers. That right there is the single-largest indicator that you will live in poverty. And it can in no way be blamed on any white person. That is entirely on those dumb bitches for not insisting on a rubber, on the barely-human filth that fucked a baby into them then abandoned them, and on the culture that glamorized their failings instead of scorning them.
tl;dr You can't help but know you're full of shit but you're trying to convince yourself and others otherwise to save your toxic world view that I and others are causing to crumble around you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 16 2016, @02:37PM
Of course, rich white people in power making rules that support other rich white people staying in power and collect even more money and power, has no affect on the poor black people it leaves behind. Can we all have some of what you're smoking?
You yourself lumping all black people together and calling their 'culture' a problem, discriminating against all of them and expecting them to be executed more often just because of their skin colour. Is that not whitey keeping them down? None so blind as those who cannot see.
If an 'educated' 'smart' person such as yourself can be so discriminatory, and so blind to it. How do you think your fellow, lower than average white people treat blacks? But of course all that hate and oppression isnt keeping them down, it the pigmentation of their skin...
You are truly an imbecile.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 16 2016, @05:18PM
Wanna know a secret? Rich, white people don't give a flying fuck about the white part, only the rich part really matters to them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Sunday July 17 2016, @01:28PM
And you think this is much different for black people? Will Smith, Chris Tucker, Barack Obama are part of so-called black culture?
I understand that you prefer to keep conversations short and to the point, but to me it looks that by "black culture" you mean "US metropolitan black slum culture" or something. Phrasing it that way is a bit longer but could cut of a lot of the discussions. I still wouldn't agree, but limiting it to certain socio-economic groups would at least give some base for further discussion about circumstances and statistics.
If you otoh actually believe in a universal world-wide black culture, I'd question your sense of logic.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 17 2016, @02:03PM
It's not exclusively limited to slums but essentially, yes. And I'm not talking stereotyping here but that the culture the vast majority of black people grow up surrounded by and largely identify with. The phrase is accurate enough for discussion purposes, much like the phrases Japanese culture, Chinese culture, or Mexican culture would be.
That said, there's nothing I can do to further this conversation if you can't put aside your ideological preconceptions long enough to see that a culture that says abandoning your children, living on the government dime, ignoring the law, treating women as nothing but sex objects, and going to prison are perfectly acceptable behavior will never bring anything but misery to its people. A culture that tells its people they will never succeed is almost always going to be correct because its people believe it. I mean, come on, a black man is in the whitehouse and millions of black people still believe there is no possibility of bettering themselves. The current black culture needs to die in a fire or they as a US demographic will only slide further into poverty and crime.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Sunday July 17 2016, @09:12PM
I just don't thinks its so binary (or, putting pigmentation aside for the moment, so black and white). Of course, a positive, optimistic attitude helps a bit. But perspectives are much worse for people living in slums, even if they try to be optimistic. It's not that they have no chance at all, but chances are much lower compared to people being born in better off neighbourhoods. If society already has low expectations because of your origination, it's an uphill battle. It's a vicious cycle. Born in a region where the law doesn't hold much power you need to be part of a group for protection. Therefore you have to follow their rules. Part of it is to enforce the rules to new members as well. Which is why the cops don't like to go there anymore.
The term "black culture" is - besides being imprecise - contributing to the viciousness of the cycle because it propagates the perception that there was a connection between skin colour and those slum-rules. Within the slum, there probably even is an indirect connection, because people that don't have anything to be really proud of usually pick a visual personal attribute and start being proud of it. It's the same for the so called "white trash" in some areas. I'm not convinced their social structures are much more peaceful or respectful than those of the predominantly black groups. Considering those whites specifically being proud of being white (White Pride movement, KKK, Nazi-movements etc.) are most definitely not more peaceful, and their violence is not limited to coloured people, either. I'm white, native German in Germany with no recent foreign ancestry, and got kicked by some Nazis in the head nevertheless. (Not too badly, luckily.)
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 17 2016, @09:45PM
And yet this was not the case until roughly somewhere in the 90s. Before then nobody told you your whole life that you had no chance, so you went ahead and tried. And occasionally succeeded, just like any other race. Today, poor Chinese, Mexican, white, etc... people have nothing even approaching the level of violence in the black community. No, it is demonstrably, provably a black problem.
And, assuming it is not their nature causing them to be this horrible, then something is epically fucked up with their environment that is specific to them. Spotting a poisonous culture as a major cause is only a problem if you feel the need to make apologies and excuses for all things black. I don't. Making excuses for their bad behavior is not practicing equality. It is treating them like lesser creatures that need coddling.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Sunday July 17 2016, @11:13PM
assuming it is not their nature causing them to be this horrible, then something is epically fucked up with their environment that is specific to them.
As for example a history of slavery that afaik didn't concern the Asians or Mexicans, the apartheid that didn't concern Asians and Mexicans to that extent etc? That generation is not yet dead, on neither side of the conflict. Even if it were, it will take 1 or 2 generations before the sentiment is not propagated anymore.
Making excuses for their bad behavior is not practicing equality.
There is mounting evidence that black people are being shot basically for being black, which is also not practicing equality. I'm not for coddling specific groups, either. I'd like to see the Government to move to
- Improve school systems in problematic areas, to provide a better perspective
- Temporarily increase number of well-trained, de-escalating police forces in problematic areas (maybe for 10 or 20 years, based on crime-statistics, not on pigment statistics).
- Strict enforcement of anti-discrimination rules in the police. If a cop can get away using violence against certain groups of people based on previous experience, it should be possible to decommission a cop when there is a an increased risk (s)he's racist. If evidence is required to decommission the cop, evidence should be required to prove that violence was justified.
In Europe in some Cities there are also no-go areas for police forces. This is not acceptable. The police has a monopoly on using force on people, and their task is to ensure a certain amount of safety. Not by surveillance, to increase hope to find perpetrators after the deed is done, but by patrolling, reacting fast on emergency-calls, etc. This requires some more investment to provide them with the right training and enough staff. This would be far more important than all the anti-terror bullshit.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 18 2016, @11:32AM
Apartheid was in South Africa. Most Americans, regardless of skin color, can't even point that out on a map. Everyone who could actually remember slavery, or even the decades directly after it, is dead. No, there is no excuse along the "poor oppressed people" lines.
No, there is not. There is rhetoric that black people are being shot for being black, nothing else. There is evidence that black people are being shot in a larger percentage than white people. There is also concrete evidence that black people commit crimes more often by a factor of four or so. Black people in fact have only around 2/3 the likelihood of being shot per arrest that a white person does. Hispanics, now they statistically do get off easier than either black people or white people. Feel free to check my math.
The rest of your argument I have no significant issue with.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 17 2016, @04:47AM
Jesus fucking Christ, Uzzard, you will do ANYTHING to take a shot at black folks, won't you?! No tragedy too heartrending, no lie too large, no subject too tangential, so long as you get to light that fuckin' cross and parade around the internet in your pointy bedsheet, huh?
The irony is, you're actually badly misreading me in one very crucial respect: I, having grown up in the Bronx and lived part of my early adulthood in Harlem, have seen the things you're whinging about up close and personal in ways I would be willing to bet money you never have. And I agree with you--stop and read that please--that there is a hell of a lot in these poor black neighborhoods that's culturally poisonous. I hate modern rap and hip hop, for example, precisely because they glorify drugs, violence, and prostitution...though one "Immortal Technique" has some interesting material, rather more consciousness-raising. You should check him out sometime, if you think you can stop your head from exploding.
You seem to think I'm one of those bizarre sheltered postmodern wealthy whites that's never seen any of this stuff up close and is trying to establish some kind of safe-space-by-proxy for it. Uh-uh. Just the opposite. When you grow up with this crap literally next door to you, it does two things: 1) it opens your eyes real wide to what the reality on the ground is (which is ALWAYS more complex than people like you think) and 2) it makes it very, very easy to figure out who actually is concerned for these people versus who just wants to vent their spleen.
I've just about filled out my "Jesus fuck, he really IS that much of an actual honest to God racist isn't he?" bingo card here. You tipped your hand with "barely-human filth," and I'd bet dollars to donuts that was an edit of "subhuman" while you were typing it. You also seem to think that "historically, black people have been given a raw deal by whites, and that tends to cause them difficulty on a demographic level" is precisely equivalent to "all of black peoples' problems in the modern day are white peoples' fault," which is the kind of insane troll logic only an actual dyed-in-the-wool racist with a massive case of projection would try. And no, "racist" is not a word I sling around lightly, unlike an unfortunate number of my peers; in this case, it well and truly fits.
I will thank you to stop accusing me of attempting to spread lies, too; by now you ought to know what kind of Avestan insistence on the truth my character is made up out of. Here's a free clue, as I am a generous woman: your inability to understand the nuances of your opponent's argument does not make him or her a liar. It merely makes you incompetent for the task at hand. You've got an unfortunate and permanent case of intellectual whiskey dick...and you are fooling NO ONE with your attempts to hide your own incompetence and inadequacy behind a veil of insults, except possibly yourself.
There is no denial of "the culture" (which is more of a demographic syndrom that crosses several cultural lines) from me: what there is, however, is an insistence that you educate yourself and place credit and blame both where they are due before you open your stinking carrion-snaffling beak on a public forum.
The absolute fucking worst turd you laid on us this time is "Black people in the US have fuck-all skin-color-related to complain about in this day and age." Wow. Just...fucking wow. That kind of willful ignorance and tone-deafness is almost an art. No one is born with it; that must have taken a lifetime commitment. That is almost Trump-ian in scope. I'm actually impressed, rather like when watching one of those "huge sebaceous cyst lanced!" videos on the weird part of youtube. And for much the same reason.
Give. It. Up. You are becoming unhinged even faster than our good buddy J-Mo with every post you make, and your tragicomic inability to see the massive, malignant Dunning-Kruger-oma that's eating your soul is reaching Stygian depths. Every time you post, more and more of your superficial facade of civility and reasonableness is cracking off. If you wanna keep this crap up I'll happily assist you along the road to your own self-destruction, though.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 17 2016, @12:53PM
tl;dr
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 17 2016, @04:49PM
Wow, you ran out of steam faster than I thought. That's one of the laziest admissions of defeat I've ever seen :)
Run along now, Uzzard...the grownups are talking. You can go back to fingerpainting with your own shit or whatever it is you do when you're not imitating the Klan. Oh, and everyone can see this too.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:00PM
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia buys a lot of weapons. I'm not sure, but they may even be the #1 buyer. They sponsor terrorist attacks, but that only affects the little people.
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Saturday July 16 2016, @02:31AM
Then why is it that none of the Muslims I've ever known tried to conquer me? Why is it that Indonesia, 88% Muslim, hasn't made war on Singapore?
Look through history and you find that Muslim governments pick their military policies for the same reasons everyone does and then look for religious justifications for what they already decided.
(Score: 4, Informative) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday July 15 2016, @03:20AM
I also need to throw in with Runaway on this one. One wishes that one could reach out and enlighten all the peoples of the world. It's a grand vision, to unite in the paradox of harmony and diversity.
Some are not ready for it, however. Don't think I'm singling out Islam.
I do not endorse racism or xenophobia. It's just the way the real world works.
This is the beginning of the coming shitstorm.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @06:29AM
> I do not endorse racism or xenophobia. It's just the way the real world works.
"That's just the way it is" has always been the primary justification for racism and xenophobia.
Do you not remember all of the people who claimed that blacks just aren't fit to take care of themselves?
Hell, lots of people still say that shit today. [theatlantic.com]
"It just ain't natural" should be a phrase that makes you sick. To use a variant on other people is the height of hypocrisy.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday July 15 2016, @07:00AM
Ugh.. there is a lot of difference between saying "a community is ready to work with the system" and "a community is not ready to work with the system because it consists of black people". If you don't acknowledge that difference you won't get rid of the systematic problem.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday July 15 2016, @04:40PM
It comes down to two factors. There's right-wing authoritarianism and failure to assimilate. Assimilation shouldn't mean converting to a different religion such as atheism—I troll only slightly. People are spiritual creatures and crave spiritual answers. Religions can provide spiritual answers when taken philosophically, but the problems start when religions also try to prescribe law. That's a sign of right-wing authoritarianism, which can lead to the failure to assimilate.
I'll use my views about food as an example (not that I do a very good job following them!), which I derive from Swami Vishnu-Devenanda's The Complete Illustrated Book of Yoga. I believe that naturally preferring fresh fruits and vegetables to meats is a sign of spiritual advancement. There are two approaches to that. There's the authoritarian approach, where I'd say that ok, eating Sattvic foods will get you into heaven, so bacon is now illegal! Or I can take the libertarian approach and say eat bacon if you want but I wouldn't recommend it for these reasons. I would like to think that the West has developed a culture that's fundamentally libertarian. The Middle East has a culture that's fundamentally authoritarian.
I've said before that there are many Christians in my neck of the woods who would be perfectly happy with Sharia law as long as it were rebranded with crosses instead of crescents. Also take a look at MikeeUSA. There is nothing inherently better about Christianity over Islam. It doesn't matter what the branding is. I've heard about Buddhist authoritarianism even.
Think about the Orlando shooter. He was a victim right-wing authoritarianism. Yeah, that's right, I called the fucker a victim. Everybody who died that night was a victim of right-wing authoritarianism. It's fairly obvious that he was gay. Now, to continue, I'm going to intentionally create a false dichotomy.
Now the problem I'm going to run in here trying to explain what I think of all this is that Christian authoritarianism is becoming more and more popular. That's the ambiguity I create when I refer to the West. I'm really looking at two Wests. There's the libertarian (classic-ish liberal) West, which I've assimilated to, where the supreme philosophy is “live and let live.” There's also the Christian West, which many others have assimilated to. For the most part, we can get along. People give me dirty looks, I avoid certain businesses, and it's all good.
The Orlando shooter, had he been Christian instead of Muslim, might have used that as a bridge to libertarianism. When he found himself with no way out, trapped in a corner and unable to face his homosexuality, he decided the only way to cleanse himself was to become An Hero™. And here he could have had a bright future as a Texan senator, working within the system to implement Sharia law.
A right-wing authoritarian Christian has the Christian West to be an assimilated member of. They're going to give people from the libertarian West a pass on some level. Similarly, a libertarian has the libertarian West to be an assimilated member of, and we give people assimilated to the Christian West a pass on some level. (Nobody's messing with my access to bacon, so all is well.)
Here comes Islam. A right-wing authoritarian Muslim does not find himself welcome in the Christian West or in the libertarian West. If he converts to Christianity, then he may assimilate to the Christian West. Naturally, I'd prefer he assimilate to my version of the West, adopt libertarianism, and then I'd be glad for gay clown Mohammed that AC keeps spamming about to sell me delicious kebaps. However, he finds himself able to do neither, so he does not assimilate.
This is the problem with Islamophobia. We have to simultaneously keep our arms open to the Muslim who wishes to assimilate libertarianism while recognizing that, as I stumbled trying to express last night, that some are just going to reject both libertarianism and Christianity.
Libertarianism is a powerful framework that allows for multicultural and diverse societies.
What my answer is lacking, however, is a practical method for achieving what I believe is right: welcoming those who are compatible with our culture, who believe in human rights and “live and let live,” so that they may escape repressive regimes while turning away those who are merely fleeing and have no intention to live in a culture where we eat bacon, we have gay marriage, and it's fine if nobody can come to any consensus about which bathroom I should use.
Perhaps part of the answer is to help Muslims find a way to assimilate to libertarianism. The answer will never be a quick fix.
That leads me to another danger that is developing right under our noses. Economic downturn leads people instinctually towards right wing authoritarianism. When the middle class goes away, authoritarianism is all to happy to fill the void. If the rains don't come this year and the crops don't grow, clearly we must have offended the sky wizard in some way. Let's go back to the old ways so the rains will come again, the crops will grow again, and we may harvest bountifully again as we did when the sky wizard favored us. While I haven't extensively studied it, I'd wager that the real reason that the Middle East is authoritarian is economic. The worse things are for the middle class and the less class mobility there is, the more people listen to the crazies.
The coming shitstorm is a tsunami that's waiting to break. We'll build a wall and start turning away all Muslims, which radicalizes Muslims already here. We'll see more and more of these attacks. That will further radicalize Christians already here. I can only hope that when we're ready to stop hating each other and tearing ourselves and our world apart, we can come together, learn from our mistakes, improve our designs, and build something better. It's not going to happen without a disaster the likes we've never seen before.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:23AM
"but the problems start when religions also try to prescribe law."
Religions were law systems first, dipshit.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:35AM
If you have a glass of water and you keep adding pee one drop at a time, eventually instead of a glass of water with a little bit of pee in it, you have a glass of pee with a little bit of water in it. KEEP ON INTEGRATING, EUROPE! A little is bad so more must be better! Then you wake up and your country is suddenly: a third world middle eastern/african state and you wonder why the very fabric of your society has broken down and you can't do or afford the things you could before.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @10:19AM
The pure water represents white people, and the urine represents the inferior races, am I right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @03:31PM
It's about culture, not skin colors. What race is Islam? Little boy-raping and oppression of women is cultural, not a genetic flaw.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @03:04AM
Young girl raping oppression of women is not a flaw; it's traditional European culture. Superior to your "western" bullshit.
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Saturday July 16 2016, @02:24AM
Dear FSM, someone comparing foreigners to urine went to +5. This place is turning into something foul.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Friday July 15 2016, @02:18AM
Just wait until self-driving cars reach 90% of the market and one of these attacks happens. The freedom of the open road will become the freedom to be taken around, with pressure groups like Moms Against Cars For Automotive Sense in America advocating ever-harsher punishments for anyone who disables autopilot. You only need to go to your local government's hearings to find elderly people complaining about "them dang cars going up and down muh street!" Or mothers who insist their road is special and shouldn't have any cars on it during peak driving hours. Once autopilot gets better than a typical human, those sorts of screw-everyone-else types will start the push to make anyone who has a self-driven accident into a pariah the way drunk drivers are now.
Just as in the UK they banned guns, and now decades later they're having Parliamentary debates over the length of knives. [parliament.uk] Remember we too once had debates about restricting machine guns, and now in some places having a pea shooter will get you caged.
Aside from revolutions, has there ever been a time when an inherent, innate, divinely-ordained human right was returned swiftly?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:30AM
On a long enough timeline, that is a probable outcome.
My suspicion is societal collapse way before then.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday July 15 2016, @06:47AM
I still can't wrap my head around the concept of banning knives. What's next, banning rocks and sticks?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday July 15 2016, @02:21PM
Next they are banning pitchforks, lol.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday July 15 2016, @07:28PM
No, they've voted to withdraw from the EU, so the farmers won't get their subsidies any more, so they'll go out of business. Then there will be no more pitchforks. No need to ban them per se.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Friday July 15 2016, @02:30AM
There is no liberté or freedom of speech in France anymore, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Friday July 15 2016, @02:33PM
I live in France and have to disagree with you, although I think I can understand the point you are trying to make.
But you seem to have forgotten Charlie Hebdo - the world became Charlie for a short while. That was about Freedom of Speech - the right to say anything that the French wish to say in their own country. There were even large demonstrations of thousands of Muslims, all condemning the extremist interpretation of the Islamic Faith and stressing that they don't want France to change.
There is as much liberty and freedom in France as in any other European country and, probably, no less than there is in the US, Canada, Australia or elsewhere. All nations have laws that limit what people can and cannot do and they exist because they support society and ensure that we all get along. Not all nations have the same laws because different groups of people believe that different laws suit their society better than those found elsewhere. That is the sign of a true democracy. Each country gets to choose how it manages its society.
And no country is perfect. Witness recent events in the US, or the influx of refugees into Europe which some countries think is wonderful and others do not like at all. There are still changes that need to be made. Society has to discover how it is going to manage these different events - different because each country has chosen to be different in its culture and the laws it chooses to live by - and combating terrorism is one that we each have to learn how to manage. There needs to be some restrictions in place otherwise the terrorist is free to do as he or she wishes. That is the dilemma that faces every government today.
But for all of the 'restrictions' that you seem to imagine everyone in France is suffering under, not one has changed my way of life over the last 10 years that I have lived here. Perhaps in Paris or other large cities there is a greater awareness of potential threats, but people go about their lives pretty much as they did before. Anything else and the terrorist is winning. That must not be allowed to happen.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 15 2016, @03:59PM
In Solidarity With a Free Press: Some More Blasphemous Cartoons [theintercept.com]
France Arrests a Comedian For His Facebook Comments, Showing the Sham of the West’s “Free Speech” Celebration [theintercept.com]
Where Were the Post-Hebdo Free Speech Crusaders as France Spent the Last Year Crushing Free Speech? [theintercept.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday July 15 2016, @05:06PM
Did you actually read your links?
The first describes the protest in France following the Charlie massacre, and then describes how Muslims are being persecuted elsewhere (mainly in Britain). I cannot see the relevance of the link to 'French Freedoms'.
Your second and third links are nearer the mark, and the second quotes:
The third link quotes:
Oh, the quotes are both about the same incident in France. And it also explains that he was also arrested and charged in Belgium on a similar offence, where he received a prison sentence. Various countries in Europe have similar laws banning hate speech or speech likely to foment unrest and violence. This is also true for the UK and Germany, and I believe most of the Scandinavian countries - although I cannot find a reference in English in the case of the latter. That is what his (Dieudonne's) prosecutions are for. And the claim that the French have lost all freedom is based on the examples of how hate speech is treated in 2 separate countries. It does not affect the vast majority of Frenchmen, or Belgians, Germans or those citizens of other nations. That so many countries have decided that they will have a law against inciting unrest and fomenting violence is a matter for those countries alone. They are each democracies, free to choose their governments and the laws that they want to live under. So, I am unsure why your original comment singled out France?
All of your material comes from a single source - indeed from a single author Glenn Greenwald, writing for the Intercept. That doesn't mean that Greenwald is wrong, but perhaps we ought to look a little wider for similar articles. And I do think that it is possible that Greenwald, - bearing in mind his background, history, and the audience he is writing for - might just have a teeny bias.
I restate - every country must decide how it is going to counter the terrorist threat that we all face. There is no 'one-size-fits-all' law that will be suitable for everyone. Many in Europe have chosen to forbid racist or hate speech in an attempt to reduce the tensions that arise when nothing is done to prevent it. Rather than simply mocking the French, why don't you tell us your solution?
(Score: 1) by r3dakted on Saturday July 16 2016, @02:39AM
Well said.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday July 15 2016, @04:09AM
I will. I will also continue to ridicule those who suggest we should discard our liberty in favor of more security.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @04:59AM
Agreed. All the security drama only adds to the confusion, and hobbles any real attempt to weed out the bad actors. Groping grandmothers and babies, while turning your head to someone wearing flowing robes and a turban is insane. Throwing an honorably discharged veteran on the floor, and forcibly searching him because he objects to being treated like a criminal makes us all safer? WTF???
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @01:47AM
Whup sorreey! What a mess! 75x combo bonus! Extra Style Bonus! Bonus for artistic impression! Splatter bonus!
I'm probably the only one who remembers the game Camageddon.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:35AM
It was predated by Death Race 2000.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:55AM
There's a new Carmageddon you know? And they still sell all the old ones. "Wrecked 'em! All the wrecked 'ems"
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday July 15 2016, @03:10AM
Deathtrack was an awesome game (in my memory at least). Apparently you can still play it: http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/933/Deathtrack.html [abandonia.com]
In my memory, it looked so much more realistic than the ... is it EGA? screenshots? Anyway, I skipped a lot of homework in college playing that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @03:56AM
GOURANGA!
(Score: 1) by oldmac31310 on Friday July 15 2016, @07:23PM
Cunning Stunt!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @09:49PM
they came out with a new version last year. I used to play the original all the time. the new one is pretty good.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Friday July 15 2016, @01:47AM
There's ongoing tension between the indigenous inhabitants of France and those that by culture and religion shall be forever outsiders, yet none of the three links has mentioned a whisper of the demographic origins of this mass murderer. It is a simple matter of history that monoethnic states are more peaceful internally than mixed ones, yet the Western world has sold out their birthrights to depress wages and avoid reforming the kleptocratic bureaucracies that choke them.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Friday July 15 2016, @02:26AM
I'm not surprised I'm getting moderated in every direction for that post.
Shouldn't we expect journalists to report on uncomfortable facts, rather than reveal their own biases by selectively hiding truths that would be inconvenient to their worldview? Or to put it another way, if this was a native European would they hesitate to publish details about him? If the terrorist were a Nazi they'd be tripping over themselves to point it out. An unusual sense of paternalist racist-based morality, indeed.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 15 2016, @02:36AM
insane moderation - part of the reason many of us left /.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday July 15 2016, @02:52AM
It is partially a problem with a large user base. With only 5 points available to any post it becomes a battle between which circlejerk cares more about any particular post. With this smaller community we generally get people moderating when they actually care and have a reason. Since it is human nature I guess there isn't any permanent solution :/
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @06:07AM
It is extremely important to go non-linear, keeping up and down mods separate until the final step.
For example: effective = up*up-down
That is probably the cheapest calculation that will work well. You could do: effective = up - tan(down)
Another choice is: effective = up - max(down,2)
The design criteria using big-O notation is that O(up) is greater than O(down).
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @06:26AM
I was thinking down-mods costing double the points.
Mod what ever inanity to near gospel status, but quit censoring.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @06:52AM
That doesn't solve the problem. Non-linearity is a hard requirement.
There are many functions that would work. Pick one and go with it.
Example: raise the up votes to the 3/2 power, and raise the down votes to the 2/3 power
Example: effective = up - log(1+down)
(Score: 2) by weeds on Friday July 15 2016, @12:36PM
Please explain why a down vote should have less weight than an up vote. I don't follow why there should be some sort of asymmetry.
Charging me double for a down vote smacks of "millennialism" - Only those who agree should mod and the dissenters should just keep quiet. That doesn't seem like the goal here.
If it was harder to get an up vote, would we get more insightful comments?
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @07:00PM
I'm not saying something simple like "a down vote should have less weight". That won't change anything. The value of a down vote relative to an up vote should not be constant. At first, down votes should be roughly equal in power to up votes. (could be more powerful or less powerful, but not by much) The power of a down vote should fade as the number of votes increases.
This is effectively a bonus to things that a significant group of people want to vote up. If there are 100 up votes and 110 down votes for something, then obviously it's a matter that people feel strongly about. Letting it die due to the 10-point loss is giving in to bland groupthink.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @09:03PM
More- down-voting was meant to prune glaringly obvious things like spam and whatnot. It wasn't intended to silence points of view you dislike.
Having down-votes cost more helps keep a balance between the majority view overwhelming dissenters. If a post really adds nothing, fine, down-vote it, but the notion that you are censoring should cost you more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @01:53PM
While we're throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks, let me throw this out. We should keep discreet integer scores. I'm also with the school of thought that up and down mods should be of equal value.
I put the floor function around the up and down terms separately so that the up and down mod scores each sort of “level up” like in an RPG.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:13PM
Just ran the math, and the base that gives score 5 at 16 mods is 2 ^ 4/5 (will have to remember that as a handy base). I'd also keep u and d unbounded. Of course maybe we'd want to shoot for score 5 being only 4 or 8 up mods with no down mods.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:54PM
I think not modding on breaking news is a better way. Have all posts locked at 2 or whatever. Breaking News allows people to react to big events and come together in face of adversity, muzzling their reaction is not a good way to foster community.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @05:31PM
Breaking News stories do not bring people together and foster a better community.
People make assumptions based on the limited information available and are overly emotional with their comments. This is a site that normally prides itself on reasonable, informed discussion and these types of stories produce discussions that are completely counter to that. It would almost be better if the comment section was closed for a cool-off period while information about the event is still coming in.
Informative posts (referenced links that actually provide updates or context for the event) should still be modded as such. The standard for Insightful mods are probably at its lowest during these Breaking News stories.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:47AM
Maybe they are not reporting on what they don't have information on. News organizations should not make assumptions and report them as facts. It isn't likely the identity of the man will remain a secret.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @03:31AM
Initial reports suggest that the perp is of Tunisian origin.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @06:46AM
> Shouldn't we expect journalists to report on uncomfortable facts, rather than reveal their own biases by selectively hiding truths that would be inconvenient to their worldview?
Facts without context are meaningless because they enable people to fill in the missing parts with their own biases which makes the end result effectively a lie.
By the time the full context is reported everybody remembers the lies they told themselves and nobody notices the whole story.
> If the terrorist were a Nazi they'd be tripping over themselves to point it out.
Would they? You want to know within mere hours (in the middle of the night no less) who this guy was and his backstory and you think 'they' would report all that so quickly for anyone else?
Did they report who and what the charleston shooter was within 6 hours? What about the colorado planned parenthood shooter?
You are just making shit up to validate your biases.
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Friday July 15 2016, @02:46PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:28AM
There were terrorists in northern Ireland for decades. If you had been in charge over there at the time, what would your recommendation have been?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday July 15 2016, @03:07AM
That one was easy. Win the Cold War. Notice how as soon as the Soviets stopped agitating and funding the IRA the supposedly unsolvable problem quickly died out?
The problem here is similar. Stop pretending all viewpoints are equal, stop pretending the more radical Islamic clerics can be permitted to exist on a planet with civilized people. Make Islamic State and similar an obvious dead end and recruitment ends. As a very first step it means every member of ISIS we can identify dies exactly as fast as we can drop bombs, pick em off with snipers, etc. Anyone doing business with an ISIS member that we figure should know who they are dealing with dies too. They hide among civilian populations? So? Read the Geneva Conventions. Hiding out of uniform among civilians make YOU responsible when those civilians die. When people figure out that the rules of the game have changed, you would be shocked how many of those same sympathetic Muslims willing shelter terrorists start dropping dimes.
Establish a semi-official policy that we will be monitoring mosques around the world on an irregular basis. When we see an iman shouting about killing infidels and generally carrying on all jihadi we will watch for a month to see if the congregation 'fixes' the problem before deciding THEY are the problem and dropping a few Hellfire missles atop it during Friday services. Even if it is the Grand Mosque in Mecca.
In short, understand they have declared war on us and accept the challenge. Their entire strategy depends on the West remaining feckless, indecisive and weak. So don't do that. Easy peasy.
Until we are ready to end the problem we have to end all immigration from infected areas. Yes 99% of Muslims are, if not 'peaceful', at least not ready to go sploddy. Perhaps even 99.9%. Not good enough, not nearly good enough.
(Score: 1) by Skwearl on Friday July 15 2016, @03:32AM
I agree. The first step, is to change OUR thinking, that this will go away, that if we consume enough other media, that our attention will be sated.
It won't.
After that part is changed, destroying an enemy is academic. The west controls 95% of the world's fire power.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 15 2016, @03:46AM
Modded up because, for once, your bloodthirstiness is directed to reality. If nothing else, this is what it's gonna come to eventually barring a massive, unprecedented internal reform of Islam.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @04:18AM
But surveillance is bad!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JNCF on Friday July 15 2016, @06:51AM
Stop pretending all viewpoints are equal, stop pretending the more radical Islamic clerics can be permitted to exist on a planet with civilized people.
Establish a semi-official policy that we will be monitoring mosques around the world on an irregular basis. When we see an iman shouting about killing infidels and generally carrying on all jihadi we will watch for a month to see if the congregation 'fixes' the problem before deciding THEY are the problem and dropping a few Hellfire missles atop it during Friday services.
It seems there is much hate for the first amendment tonight. Score 5, Insightful? Why so fascist, Soylentils? Does everybody modding this up actually support bombing an entire mosque anywhere in the world because of its most radical members, or are you just up-modding jmorris ironicly?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @07:42AM
Not necessarily, but the alternative of continuing to turn the other cheek is not working is it?
Unless you have a good plan yourself don't judge others for considering what ideas are actually brought forth.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by art guerrilla on Friday July 15 2016, @11:10AM
waddya mean its 'not working' ?
don't we still control our puppet leaders in the 'friendly' countries there ?
don't we still get cheap oil ?
don't we instill fear in all the other countries to do what we say ?
ain't the 'score' sumpin like brown people several million versus a couple hundred whities ?
ain't we 'pacifying' them at a rate of like ten thousand to one ?
waddya mean its 'not working' ?
for a psychotic state with no other means of support other than running a planet-scale mafia protection scheme, we are doing great ! !!
...for the 1%
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday July 15 2016, @04:16PM
Unless you have a good plan yourself don't judge others for considering what ideas are actually brought forth.
The mere fact that someone doesn't have an alternative plan doesn't mean the plan that someone else presents is good or even just better than nothing. Not a fan of logic, are you?
I'd rather we do nothing than use plans which are even worse than doing nothing, like taking away liberties.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @08:35PM
Reading comprehension failing you today?
AC said consider other plans. IE to discuss them. Quit trying to shut down the conversation by saying no thats a bad idea, and there are no good ideas so lets not talk about it.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday July 16 2016, @04:26AM
AC said consider other plans. IE to discuss them. Quit trying to shut down the conversation by saying no thats a bad idea
They've been discussed countless times. How many 'discussions' are enough? We shouldn't surrender our liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.
Also, the AC said not to judge others unless you have a good plan yourself, but there is no reason you can't judge others without having an alternative plan.
Quit trying to shut down the conversation by saying no thats a bad idea, and there are no good ideas so lets not talk about it.
Well, there are no good ideas being presented, that I see. This can't end well.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday July 15 2016, @08:32AM
I'm proposing bombing a mosque because the imam (that would be the guy up front preaching, you seem kinda clueless on details like that) is preaching sermons to kill and bomb infidels and other utterly unacceptable things. If the congregation allows that sort of thing to continue and they continue to attend that sort of service it is reasonable to conclude they approve of the message. There is a word for a group of people discussing engaging in acts of terror. Eliminate the terror cell. If the local government is on the ball they should know what is going on, so if they didn't clean it out they can't complain when we do. They would bluster but since their alternatives are to say they are incompetent or to say they knew and approved, which assuming we really had stopped playing around, would be suicide.
Last I checked, the 1st Amendment didn't extend beyond the U.S. border, we are the only country with such a thing. But yes, inside the U.S. we shouldn't use Hellfire missles. Just surround the place with cops, arrest em all for conspiracy to commit acts of terror, war, use weapons of mass destruction, whatever. And use RICO to seize the mosque itself and all other assets of the iman and congregation.
And just to really get the usual suspects here all agitated.... RICO would also do wonders on idiots like BLM. Videotape em chanting "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!" and then arrest em all and RICO the hell out the whole criminal conspiracy. Inciting to riot. Incitement to commit murder. And just to watch the heads explode throw a few sedition charges. Then use RICO to work your way up the money trail. Probably can't get all the way to Soros but you could probably scare the hell out of the whole rent a mob industry.
(Score: 2) by prospectacle on Friday July 15 2016, @10:24AM
On the one hand you're suggesting monitoring that mosque for a while to see if the problem is dealt with. In that case it's conceivable other organisations, maybe other countries, maybe even the government of the country the mosque is in, might also be monitoring the situation. Some of these might even be using the technique of attending the mosque undercover in order to monitor. Indeed as time goes on a decent portion of those attending might actually be spying for one group or another, who are all concerned about the message they're hearing.
You then suggest to bomb the mosque after a month because it's reasonable to assume the people attending it support the position being advocated.
The only way those two statements can fit together coherently is if everyone happens to know that exactly one month is the amount of time one should monitor a situation before taking action, and that action should be descruction of the place and people. In thise case anyone attending before that time is up might be undercover, but anyone there a single day later must be in agreement with the preacher.
It's a good thing you're not in charge of anything.
If a plan isn't flexible it isn't realistic
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @01:13PM
Usually i find jmorris unhinged, but he is making a striking amount of sense right about now.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Friday July 15 2016, @11:47PM
Usually i find jmorris unhinged, but he is making a striking amount of sense right about now.
Stockholm syndrome. jmorris is still unhinged, and is suggesting genocide and war crimes and plain murder. You should take a deep breath, and come to your senses. Once you get over the initial reaction of fear, you will see that jmorris is still unhinged, and just more fearful that usual, and you do not need to follow him into madness.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday July 15 2016, @06:09PM
If the local country is competently dealing with the problem in its mosques there is no need for us to drop bombs on such a competent and useful ally. But the current reality is that few countries shut down radical mosques, and that simply has to change. When they can openly call for jihad and terror, even on televised sermons, the local population sees this and understands that speaking out is a good way to die, so even if they don't like it they do not speak. When they see these guys going boom, being carted off in chains, etc. that situation on the ground changes.
It would help you understand if you stopped sperging. I didn't call for a precise one month interval. I said randomly monitor and if you see a terror imam you watch it a month to see if the congregation or the local government deals with the problem, and if they don't we make the area perfectly safe. Depending on the relationship with the local government we might even clue them in as an alternative, so long as the end result is a definitive end of the problem. The idea is again, to change the reality on the ground. Now the congregation sits in either agreement or fear when the imam starts ranting about killing infidels. I propose changing it to a reality where the locals quietly cut the guy's throat or let the local authorities cart the guy off for 'questioning' because they decide they don't like the idea of exploding.
Yes, someone who happened to attend for the first time on the day of the kaboom would be an innocent victim of chance. This happens in war. However it wouldn't happen often, because again the idea is to change the reality on the ground. It would only require a couple of lessons to drive the radicals firmly underground where spy-vs-spy action could happen quietly, outside the public eye.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday July 15 2016, @06:34PM
I'm projecting that either very late 2019 or else 2020 is when the Constitution is suspended, and something similar to your proposal goes into effect once pesky things like the 1st and 6th Amendments are no longer a problem. Clinton is the last president of the United States of America.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday July 16 2016, @03:51AM
As to mosques in other countries, there are basically three possible scenarios:
-- They take care of the problem
-- They let us take care of the problem
-- We invoke whatever negating clauses are in our treaties, such as how they might be prohibited from harboring our enemies. At which point they are no longer our friends and we're free to act.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:52PM
As long as you support doing the same thing to Christian groups, monitoring Priests/Pastors/whatever they're called in various churches around the world, and bombing churches led by preachers who incite violence in their "flock", such as bombing abortion clinics and such.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @03:45PM
Something in your post is rattling around in my brain and won't settle.
I think it has something to do with trying make equivalencies between today's Christianity and Islam. We've got headlines full of terror attacks from fundamentalist Muslims, yet the last terror attack that came to mind from a self-proclaimed Christian, let alone one that claims to be based upon Christian fundamentals, is Timothy McVey's corner-turning truck bomb that blew up the Murrah building and lots of people inside it. I vaguely recall a few attacks on abortion clinics, but memory serves those began and ended in the 80s or 90s.
Care to expound?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @04:19PM
But surely you have no problem with monitoring churches that do promote violent extremism, regardless of how few in number they may be?
(Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Friday July 15 2016, @05:00PM
You might try an alien artifact in your worldview. Open an actual history book sometime, reality differs from your fantasy world. Specifically look at the FBI's infiltration of the Klan, including churches. The last time the Democratic Party had a terror wing it took the government a long time to finally get tired enough of tha atrocities to put it down, but when they finally did they sent undercover agents into churches. Nobody seemed to find it unusual. Now infiltrating a Masonic Temple would probably rustle some jimmies.
Bottom line, when you suspect criminality, law enforcement investigates. Churches included. As a general rule, churches are open to anyone who comes through the door so it is hard to even find a basis for objection.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @05:01PM
Yes - and also the agreed-upon result is that 130,000 angels can dance upon the head of a pin. Any more theoretical questions you want answered? Congrats on your misdirection.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @04:45PM
Well, I'm not the original AC you were responding to but I'll take a shot at this one. Bottom line, your memory is rather faulty. First, suggesting that Timothy McVeigh was a "Christian terrorist" is problematic (check the section on his religious beliefs) [wikipedia.org]. We have already been over this several times on the forum. Pay attention to what you are reading and stop spewing misinformation. Second, attacks on abortion clinics did not stop in the 80s or 90s. In one of the more recent attacks 3 people were killed and several injured on November 29, 2015; that was a few mere months ago. There have been several others over the last few years in which arson and other property crimes have been committed. You can find all this info yourself by pointing your favorite search engine at something like "abortion clinic attack" and following the links. Again, pay attention and stop spewing misinformation. Remember, this is not the green site; we expect people who post comments here to be at least a cut above that.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday July 16 2016, @04:00AM
While there are still the odd attacks or killings by Christian extremists.... they are rare enough that we have no trouble identifying each and every one.
Meanwhile, Islamic attacks and killings are so common that they're evidently not newsworthy. A small sample from just the past year or so:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/25/world/map-isis-attacks-around-the-world.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday July 15 2016, @08:38PM
Nice Attacker Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel ‘Wasn’t A Muslim, He Was A S**t’, Wife’s Cousin Says [huffingtonpost.co.uk]
His wife’s cousin Walid Hamou told MailOnline: “Bouhlel was not religious. He did not go to the mosque, he did not pray, he did not observe Ramadan. He drank alcohol, ate pork and took drugs. This is all forbidden under Islam.
‘He was not a Muslim, he was a shit. He beat his wife, my cousin, he was a nasty piece of work.”
Fox News had a similar story that popped up on Google News but now I'm not readily finding it.
So, any proposal to put Muslims on double secret probation wouldn't have caught this guy. The clue is Tunisia and everybody crapping their pants about Daesh, not Islam. Note that everybody's focusing on Islam now. The moon matrix crew can now beam down and enjoy a weekend of Monster Hunter. Mission Accomplished™.
If you were a disaffected young man with no future from a Muslim country, it would probably look like a fine way to kick the bucket: in a blaze of glorious infamy. Just yell Allahu Ackbar! and racism will do the rest for you. You've become an instant An Hero™ overnight! No, Islam isn't a race. However, racism turned this incident into “Islamic terror.” Now we begin the march into a becoming a real police state all because it's unpossible that he was just being a copycat.
I may have to walk back the comment I made last night. Had a few b33rs at that point and probably shouldn't have been posting.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday July 15 2016, @03:54PM
Last I checked, the 1st Amendment didn't extend beyond the U.S. border, we are the only country with such a thing. But yes, inside the U.S. we shouldn't use Hellfire missles.
I agree that this part of your qualified position is now in line with the 1st amendment.
Just surround the place with cops, arrest em all for conspiracy to commit acts of terror, war, use weapons of mass destruction, whatever. And use RICO to seize the mosque itself and all other assets of the iman and congregation.
Oops, now back smack-dab in the middle of 1st amendment territory. Remember "the right of the people peaceably to assemble?" Yes, peacably; we're allowed to attend rallies where somebody else tries to start a riot. Merely attending rallies, or churches, or mosques that have a leader spouting violent rhetoric is not enough to arrest everybody for conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction. This is a Godwin-worthy position.
This last quote is out of order:
If the local government is on the ball they should know what is going on, so if they didn't clean it out they can't complain when we do.
What if they agree with the violent rhetoric? You never even specified that they had to be encouraging violence against America, this could be an entirely local affair you're wanting to get involved in. Localized muder of "infidels" is a horrible tragedy, but I don't want the Military Industrial Complex playing world-police to stop it. Your statements, taken in their current form without future qualifications, seem to advocate the invasion of outwardly peaceful countries that have internal policies you disagree with. You are the aggressor. You are the one bringing war.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday July 15 2016, @06:29PM
You seem to have some very strange notions, probably by watching TV....
Just because you aren't shooting AK-47s into the air doesn't mean you are peaceful. If you are openly calling for the slaughter of infidels, killing of civilians, violent overthrow of the government, etc. you are NOT peaceably assembled. You can and should be carted off.
What if they agree with the violent rhetoric? You never even specified that they had to be encouraging violence against America, this could be an entirely local affair you're wanting to get involved in.
Then they die. What I'm proposing is making the strict (i.e. violent and supremacist) interpretation of the Koran an outlawed political view, worldwide. Any other solution simply allows the problem to fester somewhere and recur. Any government stupid enough to openly side with the ISIS worldview gets smashed into tiny bits and we don't rebuild, we just reapply the treatment as needed until a less suicidal group of despots, thugs and assorted riffraff gets into power.
They can get into all of the localized wars they like, if they want to thin their own numbers why should be get in their way? But do it for reasons other than a jihad against infidels, no suicide bombing of civilians, etc. We make those ideas like Nazism, entirely outside the realm of viable ideas.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday July 15 2016, @06:50PM
If you are openly calling for the slaughter of infidels, killing of civilians, violent overthrow of the government, etc. you are NOT peaceably assembled.
We're discussing an entire group of people at a given event, not just those actively voicing their support of violent actions. I think that your understanding of what it means for citizens to peacably assemble is very different than US law. You can support rounding people up for associating with others, but pretending it's constitutional is just silly. I personally support plenty of unconstitutional things, I just don't act like they're constitutional.
Then they die. What I'm proposing is making the strict (i.e. violent and supremacist) interpretation of the Koran an outlawed political view, worldwide.
Then you support a one world government? This sounds like a one world government. Without a one world government, nobody can make worldwide laws. Once you're making worldwide laws, you're a one world government. Once you have a one world government, you'd better hope it doesn't decide that your ideology should be wiped out with Hellfire missiles -- you'll have nowhere left to hide. Me, I'm hoping the federal government fragments. I even think US states are too big, the city-state might be a nice model to return to. I don't want anybody making laws for everybody.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday July 15 2016, @09:27PM
Sorry pal, you attend a Klan rally and folks just might think you are suspect. Attend the weekly meetings and good luck with "I'm not a bad person!" Attend a Nazi rally, goosestep around in jackboots and then try going back to the real world and see how welcome you are. We currently allow either of those groups to carry on here in the U.S. because they are annoying, not dangerous. Try goosestepping around Berlin in a Nazi uniform and see how that works out for ya. They don't think it is harmlessly quirky over there.
You Progs almost universally want to classify the Allah Ackbar! Kaboom! crowd into the harmlessly quirky category because your minds apparently can't process the concept of people who hate American and Christianity like you yet are dangerous.
Then you support a one world government?
Not at all. I'm saying radical Islam has declared unrestricted war on us and we should do the same and utterly and completely stamp it out. Same as we did Nazis, Imperial Japan, etc. Only unconditional surrender was an acceptable resolution to the war. Once they aren't at war with us, once the war criminals have all been hunted down and dealt with, we should leave them ruthlessly alone to do whatever makes them happy... so long as it doesn't involve a resumption of chanting "Death to America!"
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday July 15 2016, @10:01PM
Then you support a one world government?
Not at all.
A single post prior, you said you wanted a worldwide law. Are you changing your position, or just losing track of it? Or do you actually think an entity can make a worldwide law without being a one world govenment?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday July 15 2016, @10:36PM
I'm saying we are at war and we should kill the enemy wherever we find him and anybody doesn't like it can just not like it. I'm not proposing some idiotic one world government boondoggle, no empowering of the feckless despots and morons at the UN, none of that. Just that we treat the Islamic Fascists exactly like we treated the Axis powers in WWII. I think you heard the word outlaw and assumed a whole superstate behind that one word, with courts, police, legislatures, etc. I mean outlaw in the sense of Nazism, we outlaw it by dropping enough ordnance on it to make the problem go away and then get back to normal international relations.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday July 15 2016, @11:23PM
If you're suggesting that we force or the threat thereof to enforce a global ban against certain kinds of speech without respecting local laws, that sounds like a one world government to me. There is no extra court system necessary. If you claim legitimate use of force over the entire face of the planet (as you seem to), you're trying to make a one world government. You can act like that entity will give up power when the time is right, but historically governments don't seem to do that too often. I don't know what you think a one world government is, if not an entity that uses force to govern the world. I think you're playing a word game because you don't want to identify as supporting a one world government even though you still want to use your governments military to enforce your will worldwide. It's difficult being an authoritarian, it causes all sorts of cognitive dissonance if you also value human freedom and self-governance.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday July 15 2016, @11:32PM
I'm saying we are at war and we should kill the enemy wherever we find him and anybody doesn't like it can just not like it.
jmorris is just scared. We are not at war, regardless of who the "we" is.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday July 16 2016, @12:37AM
Tell me, does the ancient chatbot philosopher aristarchus support a one world government? If not, how big would he prefer governments to be?
For some reason I find myself modeling you as an authoritarian communist (I used to be one myself), but that assumption could be wildly incorrect.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday July 16 2016, @01:10AM
Tell me, does the ancient chatbot philosopher aristarchus support a one world government? If not, how big would he prefer governments to be?
Not particularly relevant, when we are trying to talk jmorris out of his bunker where he is quaking in fear and advocating genocide. But it you must know, world government is a fact. There are international laws, there are mechanisms to enforce them. Many agreements are rather trivial, such a standards of navigation, TCP/IP, kilos. Others are not very solid, and violations take place on a fairly regular basis, with things like human rights, freedom of thought, ban on torture and political violence. But the fact that the rule of law is imperfect does not change things. Murder is illegal in Texas, for example.
Now if you are looking for authoritarians, you have the Libertarian (and Realpolitik!) view of government as the result of war, defined by Karl Clausewitz as the attempt to impose your will upon the enemy. This is also shared by these racist Tea-party types and the "shaking in their boots" Trump supporters. So if government is reducible to power and the ability to coerce compliance, it makes perfect sense to attempt to be the one whose will is imposed. Of course, it is also admitting that if it comes right down to it, you too can be dominated, and you know it.
So here it might be interesting to take a look at the Master-Slave dialectic in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. For Hegel, two self-consciousnesses are driven to mortal combat precisely because they recognize their selves in the other, which undercuts their own certainty of being. This is why Christian fundies are so afraid of Muslim radicals: they are nearly identical, and so intolerable to each other. Hegel's tableau, when it does not result in the death of one party, causes the losing party to submit to the will of the victor. But the interesting thing is that the slave, being forced to deal with the actual real world at the behest of his master, actually comes to have to power to control the environment, and soon the master is totally dependent on his slave. Anybody in IT knows how this goes.
Once the slave realizes he controls the master, tables are turned, but the slave no longer needs to oppress the master, the fight for recognition is meaningless. So, the take away? World government, like any decent government worthy of the name, is the free association of free persons, based on the authority of the consent of the governed. In other words, we cannot protect jmorris from the nasty Imams calling for his random demise. He would have to become a free person, a citizen of the world, before that would be possible. And when it would be possible, it would no longer be necessary.
Sorry for the overly long reply, JNCF! Hope it answers your question.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday July 16 2016, @02:24AM
Not particularly relevant, when we are trying to talk jmorris out of his bunker where he is quaking in fear and advocating genocide.
Oh, I agree that it is a more-or-less-off-topic distraction. I don't think jmorris is going to be opening the hatch even a crack anytime soon (some fresh ideas might seep through the airlock), so I'm not too worried about it.
But it you must know, world government is a fact. There are international laws, there are mechanisms to enforce them.
I'm not sure what mechanisms you mean. The breaking of treaties is punished by fines, and if the fines go unpaid they turn into sanctions. While sanctions can have a devastating effect on a country, I see them as very different from the forceful entry proposed by jmorris. The UN can invade a country with a coalition, but their rules don't allow action if any member of the security council (read: nuclear states) vetoes it. So I feel comfortable arguing that nations with seats on the security council are still sovereign entities (unless there is a crazy-undetectable-illuminati-one-world-shadow-government, which I don't model there as being). If the UN wanted to stop Texas from murdering inmates, they couldn't.
So if government is reducible to power and the ability to coerce compliance, it makes perfect sense to attempt to be the one whose will is imposed.
Like I said, I used to be an authoritarian communist! :) Now I only support communism at a very small scale, which is to say that I don't want my will to be imposed outside of my immediate surroundings. I still view this as a more-or-less accurate description of government, though.
Of course, it is also admitting that if it comes right down to it, you too can be dominated, and you know it.
Not admitting this would be silly. Just ask Winston what 2 + 2 equals.
For Hegel, two self-consciousnesses are driven to mortal combat precisely because they recognize their selves in the other, which undercuts their own certainty of being.
Oh dear, pre-Darwinian pontifications on the human condition have a tendency to bore me. What if our biology is just incentivizing us to consume energy gradients so that we can make more copies of our genes? (Dorian Sagan would argue for the reverse of this causality, oddly.) The competition arising from this could explain our inclinations towards mortal combat just fine on its own, no extra speculations about recognizing the self in the other needed.
But the interesting thing is that the slave, being forced to deal with the actual real world at the behest of his master, actually comes to have to power to control the environment, and soon the master is totally dependent on his slave. Anybody in IT knows how this goes.
I do think this is one of Hegel's more interesting (perhaps even valid, it makes a bit of intuitive sense) conclusions that I've been exposed to. The muscle-leading-mind bit is fun as well. I've read very little Hegel directly, mostly it dribbled in second-hand from Marxist literature. I didn't major in Philosophy very long -- when a line of philosophy starts to get really interesting, the sciences steal it away. Damn dirty sciences.
World government, like any decent government worthy of the name, is the free association of free persons, based on the authority of the consent of the governed. In other words, we cannot protect jmorris from the nasty Imams calling for his random demise. He would have to become a free person, a citizen of the world, before that would be possible. And when it would be possible, it would no longer be necessary.
I'm genuinely unsure what you're talking about now. You could mean this in the sense that you you used world government before, with the modern UN counting. Alternatively, you could mean it in the idealized Marxist end-goal sense, where communism blurs into anarchy and people don't need social hierarchies because we all view ourselves as part of a whole. I'm strongly leaning towards the latter interpretation.
Sorry for the overly long reply, JNCF! Hope it answers your question.
Well, I did ask you to answer an arbitrary question that you didn't have any obligation to reply to. I do appreciate you taking the time!
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Friday July 15 2016, @11:54PM
Well, then, here it is!
If you are openly calling for the slaughter of infidels, killing of civilians, violent overthrow of the government, etc. you are NOT peaceably assembled. You can and should be carted off.
Bye, jmorris! Was nice knowing you! We tried to tell you that you were not being peaceable when you were calling for bombing mosques, killing civilians, and overthrowing a bunch of governments, but you just wouldn't listen. I guess you were right, there is no negotiating with extremists, like yourself. Enjoy your extraordinary rendition!
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday July 15 2016, @07:06PM
Thanks JNCF, it seems objective reason is not encouraged in this debate. Murder and violence quite often keep the cycle running, inspiring the recipients of violence to lash out afterwards. Some people here are so stuck in the good vs. evil mindset, which is part of how the cycle goes.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday July 15 2016, @07:38PM
What a very clueless remark. That is not how people work, and you know that fine and well.
You just described guilt by association. Enlightened legal and ethical systems recognise this as a fallacy and will not convict people on that basis. And there's you advocating mass murder.
Some countries have laws against hate crimes, for example incitement to commit acts of violence, and if a preacher were doing such a thing, he could be prosecuted under that law.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday July 15 2016, @09:35PM
You just described guilt by association.
We do that all the time, especially in wartime. You live in Germany in 194x? Kaboom. Japan? Kaboom... with two really big KABOOMs as finishing moves. Hell, FDR rounded up American citizens just because of their racial background but I think we all agree now that was probably a bit too much. Ever heard of RICO? That is where an entire organization is declared criminal and anyone and any asset connected to it is boned. So explain why you support giving a special exemption for some organizations that have the goal of killing as many civilians as possible in an effort to violently overthrow the lawful governments of every Western nation-state?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday July 17 2016, @01:27PM
How lovely, you're advocating a return to fascism?
I'm not. More cluelessness on your behalf.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:42PM
He started good with the sniping suggestion. But then he wanted to drop hellfire missiles in rural public areas and on mosques. And that during Friday services. How about snipe the Iman? Or even better. Simply arrest him and put him in front of a judge?
You know. The non-violent solution with rule of law and all that. In most European countries hate speech already is forbidden. So you don't even need to change any laws. Just enforce the existing ones more efficiently.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:55PM
Those kinds of things are currently used as recruitment tools by ISIS. Giving them exactly what they want and increasing radicalization is the last thing we should be doing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:48PM
Duh, because they're different, therefore they aren't human. Muslims are sub-human scum that don't deserve the same rights and treatment as normal people (Good, Christian individuals (white and heterosexual, of course)).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @07:00AM
US and allies kill (check, murder) hundreds of people in 'infected' areas every month - where terrorist in reports = every able bodied man over 18. Just because your favourite source of news media does not care to cover it, it makes everything US does alright, right? Nobody holds them accountable when they commit genocity by mistake and are caught (read - Iraq).
PS:- Don't bother with stupid arguments about me being a sympathiser etc. Far from it, my home country is on the receiving end of 'terrorism' but the 'solution' you talk about, is certainly not the answer
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @03:21PM
I agree - the cold war comment he had made has no context in his solution. We didn't pave the USSR with bombs and the blood of their comrades.
Talked a big game and made weapons to do it, yes. The US exercised restraint, and I hope not only because of mutually assured destruction.
It sounds like MAD would be the only thing holding him back from the righteous cleansing of xenos. There is no such thing, so nothing would hold him back... fighting fire with fire just gets you and everyone else burned.
i wish we could leave that area of the world well alone, and stop agitating people directly by influence and indirectly by doing business there.
Maybe we could if we develop a different fuel dependency... but whats a power to do if not displaying power?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @07:18PM
They are not us. I expect them to attack us, just like I expect a mosquito to bite me. I kill the mosquito without mercy. I'm not sure I'm even exactly angry at the mosquito; it's just doing what a mosquito does. I'll still kill it.
Muslims negatively affect my life, just like mosquitoes do. I am happy to have them die. Paying an average of $1000 per death is reasonable, letting us wipe them out for a $trillion. Given the size of the non-Muslim economy, it's quite affordable. The long-term benefits would be tremendous. We should get on with it.
After all, they fully intend to wipe out the 6 billion non-Muslims. That's worse, mainly because it includes me. Oh, it's also a bigger number and includes actual civilization.
I take it you don't like conflict. You might not be looking for war, but war is looking for you.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 15 2016, @09:36AM
American Irish funded the IRA.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @01:16PM
Maybe you are right, but the fact is vast majority of Muslims do fund this terrorism. They might not realize that, because they donate to Charity A that gives money to Charity B that funnels money to Al Qaeda or ISIS, but nonetheless a lot of money does come directly from the people. How do we stop this without the nuclear option? We could make them so poor they cannot afford "charity" I suppose, and that will soon be the case if we move away from Oil.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @01:52PM
How do we stop this without the nuclear option?
You might want to stop exporting weapons to places like Saudi-Arabia and Qatar, which somehow, completely auto-magically, end up in the hands of IS. You also may want to establish a register of your humvees and ground-to-air missiles as boy, do they end up in funny places. And then, finally, you might wanna stop blocking the Russians and the Europeans of going full-in, cooperating with the current, coincidently a-religious, government.
After, or before if you like, you could consider demanding the Iraqi government that your precious development aid is actually spent on public infrastructure, instead of requiring they spend it all on military infrastructure.
Bloody hell. Maybe my sarcasm meter should be recalibrated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:57PM
Wow, you must be omniscient and omnipresent to know what 1.6 billion people do as part of their regular lives. God? Is that you?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 15 2016, @02:15PM
American Irish funded the IRA.
That funding dried up too, didn't it?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheRaven on Friday July 15 2016, @11:54AM
That one was easy. Win the Cold War. Notice how as soon as the Soviets stopped agitating and funding the IRA the supposedly unsolvable problem quickly died out?
Nope, I don't remember that, unless the USSR was still going strong in the late '90s. I did notice that some time in the second half of 2001 it suddenly became unfashionable in New York to fund terrorists (not sure why exactly, some local thing) and the various IRA splinter groups that weren't part of the peace process found that their funding had dried up.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by J053 on Friday July 15 2016, @09:56PM
I did notice that some time in the second half of 2001 it suddenly became unfashionable in New York to fund terrorists (not sure why exactly, some local thing) and the various IRA splinter groups that weren't part of the peace process found that their funding had dried up.
That's probably about when Peter King from Long Island decided he wanted to be a national politician and stopped openly supporting a group (Provisional IRA) that the US Government had declared a terrorist organization.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @06:33PM
As a very first step it means every member of ISIS we can identify dies exactly as fast as we can drop bombs, pick em off with snipers, etc. Anyone doing business with an ISIS member that we figure should know who they are dealing with dies too.
I don't know your posting history and political leanings. Are you against things like warrantless wiretaps, torture, and habeas corpus? What you are describing sounds very much like bypassing the idea of due process.
How do you address the problem of false positives?
Establish a semi-official policy that we will be monitoring mosques around the world on an irregular basis. When we see an iman shouting about killing infidels and generally carrying on all jihadi we will watch for a month to see if the congregation 'fixes' the problem before deciding THEY are the problem and dropping a few Hellfire missles atop it during Friday services.
Yes, genocide is one solution which can solve problems, and has successfully been used in the past to remove undesirables from society (in multiple country histories, not just Germany). There is some controversy about whether it should be used, and it's moral standing has been somewhat questioned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @04:47AM
Shut down the intelligence services that run said terrorist groups. They weren't Irish for starters.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 15 2016, @02:34AM
Has the 24-hour news cycle made you feel entitled to know all the facts NOW NOW NOW? The demographic information will come out in due course.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday July 15 2016, @02:55AM
Entitled? You show your own predilections! Perhaps there are reasons why such information is taking a while to come out, but in most cases such basic info is reported almost immediately. Don't blame OP for expecting the same response time and drawing conclusions from the deviation.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 15 2016, @03:09AM
You use the word "perhaps", OP assumes conspiracy.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday July 15 2016, @03:49AM
Conspiracy would be too grand a phrase in this case. It's not like the facts won't come out, but a bias in the news would not be too surprising. Either better clickbait to leave out the fact that it was a native French citizen, or just not finding those facts relevant during the reporting. If it was a muslim I would be pretty shocked if there wasn't at least speculation occurring. It is no secret that a significant percentage of western civilization has an inherent bias against muslims and other such outsiders, the crusades kinda solidified that division for a long time. We shall see if the OP has a legitimate point, I would not be surprised if some of the outcast western citizens have begun to hate the system that helped put them where they are today (military veterans discarded when no longer useful, those who became outcasts because they knew 'just enough', and the people let down by a system they believed in). In the US the latest tragedy was the result of a military veteran, not a religious extremist.
We need to resolve the systemic problems in our societies, or else these events will continue to happen because extremists will be continually created by shitty situations. The issue of muslim vs. western society is truly a small piece, there are just a VERY vocal minority pushing the issues into the spotlight hoping for some favorable results.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday July 15 2016, @03:18AM
Well here's a fact (presuming it is true) that makes no sense to me. Why was the truck filled with grenades and guns? It seems like a stupid way to use those weapons -- was the driver trying to keep them out of the hands of other people he didn't like? Did he not understand how to use them and gave up? Anyway, that seems like a WTF?? factoid.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-nice-france-truck-attack-20160714-story.html [chicagotribune.com]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 15 2016, @03:33AM
Clearly it was a false flag!
It would have made sense to have a buddy in the passenger seat and have one of them open the back and start tossing grenades while the other one fires.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @06:27AM
The news reports claim that the truck was "filled with" guns and grenades. Of course, news reports also claim that a criminal and/or terrorist has a "cache" of arms, when he may only have one pistol, one rifle, and one shotgun. If he happens to be a reloader, then he has "explosives" as well.
I suspect that this particular terrorist probably had an AK-47, that he planned on using when he exited the truck. And, possibly, he managed to get his hands on a grenade. Beyond that - everything is speculation. One claim is that the grenade was "inactive". WTF does that mean? Someone pulled the pin and threw it into the water, and it failed to detonate? That may only mean that it was a dud.
There is far to much speculation immediately after a violent encounter. Less speculation, and more reporting, would be a very good thing.
"Filled with rifles" indeed. That seems to paint a picture of the entire cargo area of the truck loaded down with rifles. He was planning on arming a couple companies of recruits? Ridiculous, if he had such grandiose plans, he wouldn't have bothered running over less than a hundred people.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday July 16 2016, @01:21AM
A prosecutor has been quoted as saying:
-- http://www.kspr.com/content/news/France-begins-recovery-from-deadly-Bastille-Day-attack-386992041.html [kspr.com]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:39AM
Modded troll by liberal cunts because you dare speak the truth.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @08:27AM
Fuck you Nazi
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @06:01AM
France is having a problem with truck violence. They need stronger truck control laws. They should have licensing, limited to a certain age, with some sort of exam and a fee. They should require truck registration.
If the truck violence persists, they should pass more truck control laws. They shouldn't be satisfied until trucks are eliminated. It's the only way to prevent truck violence.
It would also be a good idea to work on bulldozer violence, steamroller violence, airplane violence, speedboat violence, and drawbridge violence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @07:44AM
Who let Newt in.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @08:25AM
It is a simple matter of history that monoethnic states are more peaceful internally than mixed ones
That's why Canada is so violent and Pakistan so peaceful? Generalization and racism are at the heart of this problem. Maybe what Europe needs is more of a "fraternity" society and not "fraternity only if you are white".
I remember when I immigrated to Canada, there were lots of ads on TV about fighting intolerance and discrimination and racism. That was back in the 1990s. Today there is less of that, but there are major differences how kids are brought up in Canada vs. places like Poland or France - these result in these tensions down the line. You don't have to look far to learn that France has problems tolerating "non-french looking" people. Just look at the unemployment and social economic differences between the 2nd and 3rd generation non-white French citizens vs. white French citizens. WTF is wrong with that picture??
Hell, look at your own racist comment. The sad thing is, you don't even see it as racist! You view it as some "truth". Don't worry, KKK and Nazis see it that way too.
BTW, this is a statement on what you said, not a comment on any current events.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @04:33PM
Canada has its own internal agitation from the Quexit crowd who want Quebec to leave the Canadian union on account of race, or as they say out loud, language and culture.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday July 16 2016, @08:51PM
The second most relevant fact is that when you need to avoid official media outlets because they do not tell you the truth, you are in a dictatorship.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 15 2016, @01:48AM
"no immediate information on the identity of the driver or what motivated his action"
Bookies are taking bets now - 100:1 he's a Muslim "immigrant".
(Score: 5, Informative) by GungnirSniper on Friday July 15 2016, @01:51AM
It's rarely the first generation that does this, but the second or third. And shortly, once this is found to be true here as well, so too will the do-gooders come out and talk of marginalization and oppression.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 15 2016, @02:05AM
@moderators: reality is flamebait, apparently?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:16AM
People from a particular persuasion seem to think down-modding constitutes counter-argument.
I blame it on people younger than 30.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Dunbal on Friday July 15 2016, @02:42AM
People younger than 30 are too busy looking for pokemons at the moment.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @03:06PM
So was the truck driver.
(Score: 2) by rondon on Friday July 15 2016, @02:44PM
Man yells at cloud, thinking it is a child on his lawn.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:19AM
We are all just so tired of you wanking it in public every time there is a tragedy.
You don't give a fuck about any of the people, just glorifying your ego by screaming "I told you so!"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 15 2016, @02:30AM
A train derailing is a "tragedy". A building collapsing, or a major fire is a "tragedy". A ship sinking is a "tragedy". An earthquake is a "tragedy". A tsunami is a "tragedy".
You have NEVER seen or heard Runaway1956 "wanking" to a genuine tragedy.
A terrorist attack is an act of war. What is so hard to understand about that? Islam is at war with the rest of the world.
Let us examine just two definitions.
Dar al Islam - those peoples and lands that have been conquered by Islam
Dar al Harb - the state of war outside of Dar al Islam
From it's earliest days, Islam has proclaimed war against any and all peoples outside of Dar al Islam.
https://counterjihadreport.com/2016/01/12/how-does-sharia-define-jihad/ [counterjihadreport.com]
In fact, Islam divides the entire world into two parts: the Dar al Islam (the “house” of Islam where sharia is the law of the land) and the Dar al Harb (the “house of war” – the entire rest of the planet). According to Islamic sources, the purpose of Islam is to eliminate the dar al harb until the entire world is the dar al Islam under sharia law. Then you have “peace.”
Now, you speak of "wanking". Every time you open your mouth to tell us about the "religion of peace", you are wanking in public. Every time you run at the mouth about "islamophobia", you are wanking. Every time you call an "islamophobe" a "racist", you are again wanking.
Read the Quran.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 15 2016, @02:40AM
Modded up because there is not a single thing incorrect in this post.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @04:44AM
Sad that you've gone full islamofoe too.
Runaway, like all bigots, is a master of picking and choosing facts that fit his narrative.
But a half-truth is still a lie.
You've seen him tell half truths about LGBTQ, and you were able to recognize them for the lies they were.
But when he decides to focus his bigotry on another group you are all in.
Some people just can't see beyond their own circumstances.
Fortunately not all victims of bigotry are so easily fooled as you.
The ADL has denounced the kind of rhetoric runaway embraces because they do recognize the similarities.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @04:51AM
So, in effect, you have common cause with any and all who declare enmity against hetero white Christian males who subscribe to capitalism and the "American Way". Got it. Just don't cry when the Muslims toss your babies in the air, and catch them on bayonets, you unbeliever.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 15 2016, @05:12AM
There is a difference between having a problem with an ideology and having a problem with the person practicing it. Rest assured, as soon as he starts saying Muslims should be rounded up I'll be all over him like corruption on the Nixon administration.
At the same time, it is not evil or bigoted to recognize and point out bad ideas for what they are. Face the facts: Islam says what it says, and anyone can read the Koran and see it, and no, it doesn't lose a whole hell of a lot going from classical Arabic to English. "Kill them" is pretty much universal. This is not compatible with civilization, any more than the Dominionist whackaloons trying to start their own little Christian jihad are, and indeed I put people like Rushdoony in the same category as Wahabbist imams.
Don't conflate a disease with a carrier of a disease. Islam, like Christianity, is a toxic meme complex, but this does not mean the person carrying it is himself or herself intrinsically evil.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @05:57AM
> Rest assured, as soon as he starts saying Muslims should be rounded up I'll be all over him like corruption on the Nixon administration.
His rhetoric is intended to garner support for those round-ups such that it will be too late to stop at that stage.
Like I said the ADL recognizes it for what it is because they've seen it before.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @06:30AM
ROUND 'EM UP! LOAD 'EM UP! SHIP 'EM OUT! WATCH OUT BEHIND YOU, THERE'S A LITTLE ONE MAKING A RUN FOR IT!! GOOD SHOOTING, MANUEL, THE ONLY GOOD MUSLIM IS A DEAD MUSLIM. TO BAD WE'VE GOT TO SHIP MOST OF THEM TO ARABIA ALIVE!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @07:00AM
For example, a Shakespearean tragedy would involve a character flaw bringing down the good. Our character flaw is that we allow in troublemakers, and this is bringing us down. This is therefore tragedy.
See "Hamlet" for a good example, making clear how this will end for us.
(Score: 4, Informative) by AudioGuy on Friday July 15 2016, @02:46AM
31 year old of Tunisian origin from Nice, according to
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/14/truck-crashes-into-crowd-at-bastille-day-celebrations-in-nice2/ [telegraph.co.uk]
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 15 2016, @02:50AM
The bookies ALWAYS win!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @03:42AM
When I was growing up, I went to church every Sunday where we would sing 4-5 hymns from the hymnbook during the service. One of the old standbys was "Onward Christian Soldiers | Marching as to War | With the Cross of Jesus | Going as before."
It conjured up visions of thousands of Christians marching across Europe into the Levant for the Crusades. Or maybe war was a metaphor for discipline, purpose, and fellowship. The melody was one of those classic hymns that stood the test of time. The point is that religions are complex institutions, subject to myriad interpretations and hundreds or thousands of years of evolution. You can't thumb through the Bible, Talmud or Quran as an outsider and then declare yourself an expert at someone else's religion. Maybe you are, but only for a small aggressive minority.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @03:49AM
That clown knows jackshit about Islam and Muslims.
On the other hand, Islam is what the Muslims do, just as Christianity is what Christians do. Pointing to some passage in the scripture to debate whether it is a "religion of peace" or not, is pointless and tiresome.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @04:22AM
Some people never tire of being pointless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @04:56AM
> On the other hand, Islam is what the Muslims do
Since 99.999% of muslims have nothing to do with terrorism then that should settle it. Of course those wedded to another narrative will try to weasel out of that because for them, the only facts that matter are the ones that prove the other is less than themselves.
The great irony being that the people most invested in proving the low values of the other are themselves the worst examples of us.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday July 15 2016, @05:19AM
Citation needed. Every reliable poll I have seen shows massive support in the Islamic world for JIhad against the West. Double digit percentages of Muslims in the U.S. holding U.S. Citizenship are willing to tell pollsters they support suicide bombing against U.S. targets and larger numbers support the overthrow of the Constitution and implementing Sharia in its place. The numbers elsewhere go dramatically up from there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @06:18AM
Right on cue, someone shows up to water down the fact that 99.999% of muslims have no involvement with terrorism.
It is even more ironic that you demand a citation and then go on to make total bullshit claims without a citation.
Well, here you go waterboy. Ci-fucking-tations:
Double digit percentages of Muslims in the U.S. holding U.S. Citizenship are willing to tell pollsters they support suicide bombing against U.S. targets and larger numbers support the overthrow of the Constitution and implementing Sharia in its place.
And guess what? Even greater percentages of christians believe in that shit.
26% of US christians support attacks on civilians by terrorist groups. [theatlantic.com] In fact, of all groups, including athiests, muslims had the lowest support for terrorist attacks,
32% of all americans - not just christians - support the overthrow of the constitution and making the US a christian theocracy. [publicpolicypolling.com]
Will any of that change your mind?
Of course not. That's the literal definition of bigot [merriam-webster.com] -- a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday July 15 2016, @09:00AM
Right on cue, someone shows up to water down the fact that 99.999% of muslims have no involvement with terrorism.
You sir are an innumerate idiot. 99.999% is another way to say 1 in 100,000. Ok, Google says there are 1.8 million adult Muslims in the U.S. More than 18 U.S. residents/citizens have either been convicted on terror related charges or died in an active terror attack since their war went big time on 9/11. So you lose right there. It would be unreasonable to assume the convicted and dead represent all of those 'involved.' Just count up all of the unindicted coconspirators in the Holy Land Foundation case to start.
Now to your bogus proggie polls. Even the one YOU cite would read as 8% support for AQ, but it is so utterly bullcrap that isn't supportable either. A straight reading would say that while 92% of Muslims do not (8% do?) sympathize with AQ, only 70% of Jews don't (and thus 30% do? WTF???) which is insane so the best thing to do there is just stop reading.
As for a Christian Theocracy, considering that Christians founded the U.S. and wrote the 1st Amendment I won't worry too much unless some organized political movement starts trying to actually change the State Religion from Cultural Marxism to a flavor of Christianity. Meanwhile, show me a country where Muslims make up half the population that isn't already a theocracy or rapidly heading (Turkey comes to mind) that way.
Meanwhile, since your Google skills apparently suck as hard as your math... Try a left leaning pollster, a Pew [pewresearch.org] poll I found on the first page of hits. It is a little lower than most I have seen but I don't plan to waste more time on you. It doesn't hit double digits, so I'm sorry I was wrong. It does say 7% say suicide bombing are 'sometimes justified' and 1% more say they are 'often justified' for a total of 8%. Of Muslims in the United States, and willing to say that to a pollster.
Keep in mind I have seen many polls of the Muslim world in the last decade and that one is the outlier at only 8% supporting terrorism.
So take your five nines safe and shove it up your ignorant ass.
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Friday July 15 2016, @08:00PM
Actually, there are pretty good arguments that Deism influenced the founding [britannica.com] of the U.S. as much or more than Christianity.
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 15 2016, @09:16PM
And this crap is why I will never truly make common cause with him (and seeing some of his follow-ups here I am beginning to regret upmodding him for his brief flashes of lucidity).
He fails to see that he is exactly the same as the Christian and Muslim extremists he claims to hate, and his own historical blind spot is for what he calls Western culture.
What a clusterfuck.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @08:35AM
I don't know what the percentage is - but it's to damned high. http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/530189/black-smoke-Eiffel-Tower-Nice-terror-attack-France [dailystar.co.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @08:44AM
Bullshit on your percentages - if - and I say IF - only 1% of Muslims are "radical", then that gives Islam an army of 200,000 - equal to the entire adult population of the USA.
But, I say bullshit on percentages. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3320732/ISIS-supporters-shared-images-Eiffel-Tower-weapons-social-media-72-hours-Paris-attack-urged-God-bless-mission.html [dailymail.co.uk]
"Nice terror attack: Sick 'ISIS poster' celebrating Bastille Day massacre shows Eiffel Tower next to flaming hand"
There are to many of them WHO WANT TO KILL YOU AND ME!
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday July 16 2016, @04:15AM
Ahem... Jihad vs Crusades:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo [youtube.com]
And this is only the western jihad; it doesn't touch what happened when jihad went east.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @05:36AM
> Read the Quran.
I have. A lot more than you. Because I am muslim.
You are just an ignorant dilettante with no clue what it means to be muslim.
This fight is not about you. This is a fight within islam between a tiny group of reactionary assholes and the mainstream. ISIS has killed tens of thousands of muslims [thedailybeast.com] within their territory and you have nothing to say about any of that. Nor any comment on the 1000+ attacks ISIS has made on civilians in Baghdad alone. [theguardian.com] The attacks in France are the crossfire of the real fight that's going on. But because you are the personification of narcissistic ignorance you think its some bullshit clash of civilizations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @06:32AM
I got something to say. Islam needs to be destroyed. When ragheads feel free to kill good Europeans, they need to die. End of story.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday July 15 2016, @06:46AM
I modded you up. Don't know replying will take it away or not, but lets make this very very clear. The internal fight among Muslims is because of what Qur'an says. The reality is that the extremists were (and a lot of them still are) being funded by non-extremists because kaafirs need to be "fixed". Extremists have just decided that to do that, they need to be powerful, and to be powerful, they need power away from non-extremists. This ISIS-non-ISIS fight has started when? 2 years ago? 5 years ago? 15 years ago? Islamic terrorism existed before that. West ignored it because it was busy fighting "The Good War on Communism/Capitalism" and that is why islamic terror is still not part of western discourse. But the ISIS has been in making for a lot longer than anyone here would acknowledge.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @06:57AM
> The internal fight among Muslims is because of what Qur'an says.
No. Its because extremists are dickheads. The devil is an expert at quoting scripture.
The protestant reformation had a lot of killing too. [wikipedia.org]
> The reality is that the extremists were (and a lot of them still are) being funded by non-extremists because kaafirs need to be "fixed".
The primary source of extremist funding is the saudi royal family. But not because anyone needs 'fixing.' The saudis need to keep the focus away from their corruption (and the poverty of the non-royals), so they bribe the extremists to bolster their legitimacy as rulers of mecca. They are not zealots themselves, but they need the zealots to keep their power. That's not a unique situation. Happens pretty much everywhere there is a state religion.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday July 15 2016, @09:15AM
And what about Pakistan? What about Afganistan? There have been multiple atrocities by multiple countries, but I don't see Koreans doing suicide bombing in USA. If you keep digging ultimately you will find a common ground such as bad governance. How Saudis funding terrorism in Bangladesh solve their problem back at home?
There is a lot of assumption in what you say. Saudis may be igniting the spark, but the role of gasoline cannot be minimized.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 16 2016, @02:34PM
You might not have noticed, but there are a lot of muslims living in other places you didn't mention i.e. all the other countries in the world -- including South-Korea. What is your explanation, then, for them not becoming suicide terrorists [in the USA]?
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Saturday July 16 2016, @07:19PM
There aren't a lot of muslims living in South Korea. Secondly, they are very small minorities there.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @07:51AM
This fight is not about you. This is a fight within islam between a tiny group of reactionary assholes and the mainstream.
Then take care of your own problems then. Tired of your shit spilling into the rest of the civilized worlds lap. Oh and take care of your own refugees, isn't one of the pillars of Islam charity. Charity starts at home.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @11:26AM
No true Scotsman would kill the infidel.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @07:19AM
can just as easily say the same historically aboit Christianity.
fuck religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @08:30AM
Islam is at war with the rest of the world.
Really? They seem to be more at war with each other. Maybe your generalization is a little "whacked"?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday July 15 2016, @09:15AM
A train derailing is often to do with companies cutting maintainence costs to improve profits. That's terrorism in my view.
See Jarvis at Potters Bar, or Railtrack at Hatfield.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday July 16 2016, @04:10AM
You may also be interested in
https://www.politicalislam.com/ [politicalislam.com]
and Dr.Warner's various talks on Youtube.
Islam is the only political force which has out-killed socialism.
https://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/ [politicalislam.com]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday July 15 2016, @03:21AM
100 to 1? Are you sure that is what you meant -- I bet one dollar and get 100 if he turned out to have the characteristics you described? I think I'd take that bet even if I believed I'd lose.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 15 2016, @01:43PM
Obviously, I got the payoff odds upside down. I think I've just made it pretty obvious that I don't gamble much. ;^)
(Score: 2) by Jiro on Friday July 15 2016, @04:04AM
The news still doesn't say whether the driver was a Muslim immigrant. But if you look at the BBC story [bbc.com] you find that the French president says that France "is under the threat of Islamic terrorism". If the attacker wasn't Muslim, that would be a very strange thing to bring up.
Fox News [foxnews.com] says "Sky News and the Nice-Matin newspaper reported that the driver was a 31-year-old Nice resident of Tunisian origin. No other details of his identity were immediately avaiable. "
(Score: 3, Informative) by isostatic on Friday July 15 2016, @09:11AM
Previous Frevh attacks have been people born in France and Belgium. But don't let facts stand in the way of frothing.
(Score: 3, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 15 2016, @01:40PM
Muslim immigrants, Muslim children of Muslim immigrants, Muslim grandchildren of Muslim immigrants - THEY ARE NOT FRENCHMEN. They don't think of themselves as French, they don't act French, they ain't French. Hell, I'm more French than they are - one of my grandmothers was part Swiss and part French. So, I'm more French than those Muslim immigrants, and I don't think of myself as French. WTF gives them any claim to use the term "French" in any way, shape, or form? They are outsiders, who have no desire to integrate.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Friday July 15 2016, @02:17AM
If you're in the USA, do you remember how much it meant when people all over the world were leaving flowers at the gates of the American embassies?
Maybe a message of support can tell the French people they are not alone.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:35AM
Flowers and well wishers aren't going to fix the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:44AM
I'm sure the Turks will light up the Blue Mosque with Blue, White and Red tomorrow night, just like France lit up the Eiffel tower in Turkish colors after the Istanbul attack. LOL who am I kidding.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday July 15 2016, @09:52PM
Perhaps you will forgive the Turks for not doing so, as their government has just been overthrown.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/15/asia/turkey-military-action/ [cnn.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/16/world/europe/military-attempts-coup-in-turkey-prime-minister-says.html [nytimes.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:58AM
Ironically, if we were to send something like the Statue of Liberty, it would be seen as trolling.
No, the French are well aware we are in this together. It is just a question of balancing justice with mercy, and that may take even more courage than anyone has at the moment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @03:23AM
Justice and mercy - they only thing these cunts understand is revenge.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @03:34AM
Most of this is resultant of failed nation building and arms deals.
I'm not so certain more bombs is going to improve anything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @04:01AM
"I'll tell you what war is about, you've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting. " -- Gen. Curtis LeMay
"War is a contest of violence. It follows that wars are won by the most violent" -- Clausewitz.
Maybe you want to stay home and pray every day and hope that suddenly everyone will see sense and sit by the campfire and sing Kumbayah. Until eventually it is your family that is killed. Looking at the past and pointing fingers here or there does nothing to end the killing. Only massive, diabolical murder will knock sense into these barbarians - for they ARE barbarians. Feel free to look up the origin of that word. When they realize that raising a hand to their betters will cost them the very blood of their nations, they will behave. If they can't be civilized they can be tamed, and if they can't be tamed they can be broken. AND IF THEY CAN'T BE BROKEN THEY CAN BE KILLED.
Oh but why are you using such hateful words! Because, fool, apparently you don't realize it but they have declared war on you. How many more have to die before you and your dumbass liberal politicians realize that the fight has already started, your countries have already been invaded - AND YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE. Saying "nice kitty" to a hungry tiger is not going to work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @04:21AM
Yeah yeah yeah, heard it before with 9/11, and fuckall was accomplished except to make the region more unstable.
And the refrain is the as it was then- you can't kill an ideology. At best you can temper it so the more moderate voices come to fore.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @04:44AM
You think fuck all was achieved, but it's because you don't know in whose interests these wars are fought. NOT YOURS, that's the point!
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @04:51AM
So more war serves my interests how?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @10:39AM
One nutter with a gun and a lorry does not amount to a war.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @11:33AM
Yes it does. It's called asymmetric warfare. Welcome to the 21st century.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @01:59PM
It looks like asymmetric murder to me.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday July 15 2016, @02:29AM
I had made a story submission [soylentnews.org] about this attack and a previous warning from France's internal intelligence service that further terrorist attacks could be expected.
(Score: 3, Informative) by martyb on Friday July 15 2016, @03:18AM
Sigh. That's frustrating!
I heard this story on the radio as I was returning from visiting with friends. Immediately checked the submissions queue and did not see any coverage. I also checked on IRC [soylentnews.org] and saw no discussion there, either.
"Guess I'll have to write up one, myself."
Spent about 10 minutes finding sources and writing up a story. Then found another source, and added that in. Another editor reviewed my submission and we pushed it out as quickly as we could. In all, probably took about 20-25 minutes. Knowing it was a breaking story, everything was being done on a how-quick-can-we-get-this-out basis.
It appears your submission arrived a short while after I had scanned IRC the submissions queue looking for an already submitted story.
It would have been so much easier to just post you submission, had I seen it in time. Yes, it is frustrating -- so much work could have been saved.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Friday July 15 2016, @03:26AM
Thank you for explaining.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 15 2016, @08:47AM
It's a terrible attack, and makes me angry.
Christians remain way ahead in the killing game of Christians vs. Muslims. Civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are about 170K and 26K, respectively. People in the West never talk or think about the huge numbers of innocent lives they've taken in Muslim countries, but the rest of the world does. We ought to. We ought to be treated to the full consequences of our actions. Should we take those actions anyway? Maybe, it depends. That's a long conversation fraught with invective and prone to bigotry. But we ought to at least be clear-eyed about such vital matters of life and death.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @10:30AM
By that same token, poking a bear is never a wise move. Especially when you are taking in their refugees.
Blood follows blood, and if that route is pursued, the west will win handily.
We are way past assigning blame, and at best reducing the flow of blood.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Friday July 15 2016, @11:38AM
The difference of religion is purely coincidental. We are fighting terrorists, not Muslims. Also, what you've omitted is that terrorists kill more Muslims than Christians.
I agree but what you don't realize is that by framing this as "Christians vs. Muslims" that you are inviting that bigotry.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 15 2016, @12:14PM
Don't be coy. You know it's framed as Christians vs. Muslims, and you know I am not the one creating that frame. Else, the rhetoric in the public discourse would not be about "Muslims," but instead would be about "terrorists" without specifying where the terrorists are from or what their religion is.
Refusing to mention the bigotry does not make the bigotry magically vanish. Rather, it's tantamount to wishful thinking.
Also, let's not pretend that the difference of religion is coincidental. There's very long history there between those two religions, and pretending that it doesn't exist or is beside the fact is, again, wishful thinking.
I don't personally share those prejudices, but it's not realistic to wave your hand and pretend others don't. That practice abounds in academia, but it doesn't work outside the ivory tower.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Friday July 15 2016, @01:06PM
Are you sure? The articles linked don't mention religion and only one quotes trump bullshit about muslims.
Terrorists that have warped Islam, hate everyone that doesn't believe as they do. If you conflate terrorism with Islam then you are a fool.
Warping a religion into a reason to do harm to others is nothing new for any religion. The problem isn't Muslims but that is how you seem to see it because that is how you present it.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday July 16 2016, @02:39AM
Actually, Christians aren't #1 on their hit list. Jews aren't either. Both are "People of the Book" and so long as they submit, pay the jizya, obey the rules on no steeples, crosses or other marking on their houses of worship, they get to live. Atheists, as in the authentic Progressive, Politically Correct Leftist though, they are the ones they will kill on sight without mercy should they win. The Pinkos ASSume thatt they can safely use the Muslims as a weapon and when they aren't useful tools anymore eliminate em as 'barbarian scum.' Would almost be worth letting them find out the horrible truth, but I'm Agnostic and they kill my kind just as fast so no thanks.
Else, the rhetoric in the public discourse would not be about "Muslims," but instead would be about "terrorists" without specifying where the terrorists are from or what their religion is.
No, that is the insipid bullshit Obama believes. When you have an enemy you have to be willing to at least admit they are an enemy. Unless you admit who you are fighting you can't form sound strategy to fight them. Terrorism is a tactic, not a faction. While it is true that currently almost all terrorists are Muslim, it has not always been so and probably will not be in the future. More important, what defense do you propose against 'terrorism' other than hunker down in a police state and fearfully watch everyone? Against Islamic Fundamentalism there can be both defenses and more important, lines of profitable attack. You can identify the principle leaders, track the funding, plan PsyOps against it, and generally get your hands around their throats.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @11:42AM
The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were hardly driven by Christianity, which is now a minority force (but admittedly still large) in the United States. It was an imperialist cause backed by progressives and pushed by two big-spending globalist Presidents (look up the Euston Manifesto or the views of Christopher Hitchens; basically, the extremely progressive left saw no place for Islam in the modern world).
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday July 16 2016, @04:21AM
Really?
https://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/ [politicalislam.com]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @11:08AM
It Works, right?
(Score: 4, Touché) by SanityCheck on Friday July 15 2016, @12:11PM
No you have it all wrong. It's obviously that the real problem is Truck Control. If only we made sure to keep the Trucks out of hands of terrorists, this tragedy would have been avoided. After all, only a Truck can cause this level of carnage! Nothing else can cause this many people to be killed in a single incident! If the terrorists only had access to a sedan, the numbers would definitely not be this high, and the crowd could have easily overpowered them! I cannot believe I live in a nation where Trucks can be bought just by walking into a dealership with a driver's license!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by pvanhoof on Friday July 15 2016, @03:08PM
One mentally ill idiot kills people and a bunch of Soylentils start proposing to bomb mosques, walling the Western world, enacting genocide. With Hellfire missiles for god's sake.
I came to soylentnews because usually, here, most people are civilized, reasonable and because some of the comments here are usually written sensible and without too much emotions.
Not today ...
ps. Luckily some people have responded calmly and reasonably too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @04:07PM
If I am openly allied with an ideology that is based on a written text that, upon examination, called for right-here right-now world war until all other similar ideologies are extinguished... and then I go about committing acts of war... would you not think it reasonable to view the next person openly sharing my ideology with some deep suspicion? In fact, after decades (in fact, centuries) of weathing such warlike attacks, wouldn't it be reasonable to come to the conclusion that, like it or not, you are actually involved in war?
(Score: 2) by pvanhoof on Friday July 15 2016, @08:18PM
And being in war means that you must all go crazy and bomb mosques with Hellfire missiles? I guess that explains why the US' last Iraq war was such a catastrophe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @09:17PM
You're bringing a Western mind to a problem that doesn't care how you submit or die, just that you do. A mosque is emphaticaly NOT a "church" as the Western mind understands it. A mosque is a symbol of Islamic influence/domination, an armory, a barracks: a military asset.
The best single-source resource I've found for translating Islam for the Western mindset is Prophet of Doom [prophetofdoom.net], a site for the titular book which is sadly diminished from its former state of full text in HTML, audiobook, PDF, and optional paid-for dead-tree formats.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 16 2016, @02:50PM
Please explain your statement In fact, after decades (in fact, centuries) of weathing such warlike attacks -- I'll be gracious and accept that one can forget to do no checking his/her spelling while foaming at the mouth. Go on, let us -- the Europeans on here, who have a glimmer of historical knowledge about the ordinary nature of war -- have a laugh: give us a timeline, even superficial, of muslim-on-christian attacks, and the number of deaths involved.
(Score: 2) by Murdoc on Sunday July 17 2016, @12:34AM
Actually I've been noticing an increasing number of posts like this over the past couple of weeks, and personally I find it troubling. It's not that I'm looking for an echo chamber here but I'm not only seeing more of these posts, but them being modded higher than before, and going challenged less often. It leaves me wondering, what's going on?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @04:33PM
especially big scary ones with automatic transmissions!
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Saturday July 16 2016, @06:03AM
A cousin of the killer's wife has told the Daily Mail that
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday July 16 2016, @11:07PM
Later I heard that Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the attack.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Friday July 22 2016, @08:33PM
Their own countries were filled up with terrorists, so they needed to expand the terrorism to elsewhere.