Terrorist Attack in France 84 dead and counting

[StevieTNZ]

More details are yet to come through, but two events have happened in France today which are not good:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/82135091/live-french-truck-crash-at-bastille-celebrations

A truck has driven straight into a crowd of revellers at Bastille Day celebrations in France, killing more than 70 people.

and

http://www.newshub.co.nz/world/eiffel-tower-on-fire-after-explosion-2016071510?ref=newshubFB

A truck laden with fireworks has exploded beneath the iconic Eiffel Tower in Paris.

 

[Evo]

I have relatives in Nice that could have been in attendance. The driver is said to have been shooting while driving and was shot and killed.

Also, I have family in Paris, but initial reports say no one was injured in the fireworks explosion, but I guess it's too soon to tell.

 

[Evo]

Seems it is worse than originally reported.

Nice, France, truck attack kills 80, official tells French TV
By Ralph Ellis and Steve Almasy, CNN

(CNN)At least 80 people were killed Thursday night when a large truck plowed through a crowd celebrating Bastille Day in Nice, France, the Nice prosecutor's office said, according to French media.

The driver pointed his tractor-trailer into the crowd and accelerated, mowing bodies over. The driver was shot to death, authorities said. At least 100 people were injured, authorities said.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/14/europe/nice-france-truck/index.html

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Absolutely bonkers

 

[StatGuy2000]

An horrific tragedy to occur on a day of celebration in France. My heart and sympathies goes to the French people.

I know it's still early days in the investigation, but I am curious if we know anything about the driver of that truck in Nice, and whether there are any connections to terrorist groups (especially given the past attacks in Paris).

 

[Evo]

An horrific tragedy to occur on a day of celebration in France. My heart and sympathies goes to the French people.

I know it's still early days in the investigation, but I am curious if we know anything about the driver of that truck in Nice, and whether there are any connections to terrorist groups (especially given the past attacks in Paris).

Right now they are assuming it is at least an ISIS sympathizer from listening to the CNN interviews with Trump and Clinton.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Right now they are assuming it is at least an ISIS sympathizer from listening to the CNN interviews with Trump and Clinton.

While this may be the case, I would be careful not to make any assumptions, particularly based on statements coming from Trump.

 

[Evo]

While this may be the case, I would be careful not to make any assumptions, particularly based on statements coming from Trump.

Yeah, he declared war while talking to Wolf Blitzer.

 

[dipole]

I wonder how much longer people would rather not offend anyone than to take an honest look at the world with respect to religion - maybe it's finally starting to settle in what the cost of walking on eggshells is.

 

[JohnDillinger2]

I can't wait to see the left call everyone Islamophobic again.

 

[Evo]

This is so sad.

What We Know About the Attack in Nice

July 14, 2016
At least 84 people were killed Thursday night when a truck careened through crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day in the southern French city of Nice. French President François Hollande has said the attack, which also left dozens of people injured, including 18 in critical condition, was likely an act of terrorism.

What happened
According to eyewitness accounts, bodies were sent flying into the air as the heavy-duty white transport vehicle hit them on the Promenade des Anglais at about 10:30 p.m. local time, where people had gathered to watch fireworks by the Nice seafront. Videos taken by bystanders show the truck zigzagging as the driver apparently sought to hit as many people as possible as he drove along more than a mile of crowded road. Images from the scene show bodies sprawled along stretches of road.

The driver reportedly also opened fire on the crowd, and was killed in a shootout with police. Authorities have also said the truck was loaded with explosives and “heavy weapons.” Photographs show the windshield of the truck riddled with bullet holes after it was brought to a halt.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/know-nice-truck-attack-033703873.html

 

[Borg]

I guess that it's fortunate that he didn't have time to set off the explosives. Still, so many senselessly killed yet again.

 

[Evo]

I guess that it's fortunate that he didn't have time to set off the explosives. Still, so many senselessly killed yet again.

This one was especially bad as there were many children, babies, handicapped, this wasn't a nightclub, sporting event or late night cafe. I saw a picture of a small dead child with her teddy bear.

 

[wrobel]

let me guess: the terrorist was islamic

 

[Borg]

This one was especially bad as there were many children, babies, handicapped, this wasn't a nightclub, sporting event or late night cafe. I saw a picture of a small dead child with her teddy bear.

The latest news report that I saw this morning was that the guns and grenades that were on the truck were all fake except for the gun that he was shooting with. So, my previous comment is moot - he did everything that he could with what he had before the police could stop him. This type of random attack is going to be very difficult to detect and defeat.

 

[mheslep]

Yeah, he declared war while talking to Wolf Blitzer.

Trump, Clinton, and even Obama have said the US is at war with terrorism. Repeatedly.

Trump was asked if he would ask Congress for a declaration of war against ISIS. He responded: "I would. I would. This is war."

In a CNN phone interview, Clinton said the U.S. was “at war with these terrorist groups and what they represent.”

 

[jim hardy]

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/islamic-state-sympathisers-celebrate-nice-attack/1/715369.html

 

[Tobias Funke]

Trump, Clinton, and even Obama have said the US is at war with terrorism. Repeatedly.

As has just about everyone in the world, as well as acknowledging that the terrorists are Muslim extremists, which is why I don't know what people are supposedly not saying in order to avoid hurting others' feelings (I'm referring to dipole's post now). I think I have an idea, and it may shock some to know that I don't say it because I disagree with it, and not because I secretly do agree but won't say it because of PC. The PC conspiracy theories are getting a little old around here lately.

 

[micromass]

I wonder how much longer people would rather not offend anyone than to take an honest look at the world with respect to religion - maybe it's finally starting to settle in what the cost of walking on eggshells is.

How is everybody walking on eggshells? Is there a problem with extremic islam? Definitely, a big one. Is there a problem with many (mostly young) muslims radicalizing, yes. What more are you referring to?

I can't wait to see the left call everyone Islamophobic again.

I can't wait to see the right call all muslims terrorists and/or call all leftists naive.

 

[Rick21383]

As has just about everyone in the world, as well as acknowledging that the terrorists are Muslim extremists, which is why I don't know what people are supposedly not saying in order to avoid hurting others' feelings (I'm referring to dipole's post now). I think I have an idea, and it may shock some to know that I don't say it because I disagree with it, and not because I secretly do agree but won't say it because of PC. The PC conspiracy theories are getting a little old around here lately.

MSNBC called it a "truck crash"

Today show ommitted the name of the driver and, instead, called him "a french citizen"

NPR is stating the motivation is still unknown

CNN said they don't know the attacker's motivation and that there's strong evidence he wasn't a muslim

Hillary Clinton – Verified account ‏@HillaryClinton
"Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism."
7:57 AM - 19 Nov 2015

etc. etc.

What planet are you living on?

 

[Tobias Funke]

MSNBC called it a "truck crash"

Today show ommitted the name of the driver and, instead, called him "a french citizen"

NPR is stating the motivation is still unknown

CNN said they don't know the attacker's motivation and that there's strong evidence he wasn't a muslim

Hillary Clinton – Verified account ‏@HillaryClinton
"Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism."
7:57 AM - 19 Nov 2015

etc. etc.

What planet are you living on?

Maybe because it has been less than a day and information is still coming in? Here's a recent CNN article where he's called a terrorist and named, as well s being linked to Tunisia. They only refrain from directly sating that he had ISIS connections because he may very well not have. Nevertheless, it's strongly implied and very likely that he was some kind of ISIS sympathizer.

You're alleging that the media is trying to downplay certain facts that they're pretty clearly stating. I don't want to get the thread derailed or closed but I see no reason to put up with clear-cut conspiracy theories either.

 

[mheslep]

...as well as acknowledging that the terrorists are Muslim extremists,.

Reference please, for the US President acknowledging the connection of Islam and terrorists, and not simply "extremist." What he has said instead is that the phrase is a "political talking point", mocking those that say the connection is important.

 

[mheslep]

Is there a problem with extremic islam? Definitely, a big one.

According the US President, no. Per Obama, there is a problem with "extremists" and "terrorists", but "radical Islam" is just a talking point according to him.

 

[micromass]

According the US President, no. Per Obama, there is a problem with "extremists" and "terrorists", but "radical Islam" is just a talking point according to him.

That's just silly semantics.

 

[mheslep]

That's just silly semantics.

That's just disingenuous. Delete "Islam" from your post if you think it irrelevant.

 

[micromass]

That's just disingenuous. Delete "Islam" from your post if you think it irrelevant.

Arguing whether you should say radicals or radical muslims is pretty irrelevant in how to actually solve the problem. So it is just arguing semantics that have no purpose in actually solving the problem. This is silly according to me. Describe them how you wish, the description won't solve the problem.

 

[Tobias Funke]

Reference please, for the US President acknowledging the connection of Islam and terrorists, and not simply "extremist." What he has said instead is that the phrase is a "political talking point", mocking those that say the connection is important.

Do you mean a connection between Islamic extremists and ISIS? He's pretty clear that they follow a perverted brand of Islam:

While Obama has not used those words, he has acknowledged Islam plays a role in the Islamic State’s strategy. Obama has said that even though the Islamic State uses religion to justify its extremism, its ideology does not mesh with mainstream, modern Islamic thought.

"They try to portray themselves as religious leaders — holy warriors in defense of Islam. That’s why ISIL presumes to declare itself the ‘Islamic State.’ And they propagate the notion that America — and the West, generally — is at war with Islam," Obama said at the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism last week. "We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam."

Some have noted that this isn’t that different than some of former President George W. Bush’s language following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and at the onset of the war in Afghanistan.

"This great nation of many religions understands, our war is not against Islam, or against faith practiced by the Muslim people. Our war is a war against evil," Bush said in 2002.

If saying that they follow a perverted brand of Islam is significantly different to you than saying that they're Islamic extremists, then you're looking for reasons to be outraged.

If you mean a connection to "real" Islam, however impossible that is to define, then once again you may be shocked to learn that not everyone agrees with you, including all of those Muslims fleeing in terror from ISIS. If you're going to dig up quotes from the Quran, as if all Muslims study it, interpret it the same way, and live their lives by it, then go ahead. I think that most Muslims are regular people trying to live regular lives, who happen to be Muslim because of where they or their parents were born, just as most people in the southern US just happen to choose to be Christian.

ISIS wants there to be a sharp divide between Muslims and non-Muslims so that Muslims will feel so persecuted they'll have no choice but to run to ISIS-controlled areas. Identifying ISIS with Islam in general will help them achieve that goal.

 

[russ_watters]

I wonder how much longer people would rather not offend anyone than to take an honest look at the world with respect to religion - maybe it's finally starting to settle in what the cost of walking on eggshells is.

While I do still see that as somewhat of an issue, the PC situation there is improving on that front (including Obama's characterizations, after 7 years of beating it into him). The unfortunate reality is that the more and more Islamic terrorists strike locally in the West, the harder and harder it is to downplay the problem. What's the problem? The problem is that "the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful" is only kind of true if you spin the data right, but either way leaves an enormous number of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers and a huge danger. But people are at least feeling freer to point it out than I think they were before ISIS became so successful:

Islam gets a bad rap, some say, following terrorist attacks these days. After all, “the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people.” I, for one, am glad that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people, especially since there are 1.6 billion followers of Islam in the world...

So where does that leave us?

Seven percent of Muslims in America told Pew researchers that violence against civilians is “sometimes” justified in the name of Islam, and one percent said “often.” Whoa! This means there are more than 100,000 Muslim adults living in this country who could justify a suicide bombing in the name of their religion.

That is not to say that 8% would actually strap on an explosives-packed vest, but the fact that so many find it justifiable is scary enough...

Who would knowingly and willingly accept these odds of a peaceful existence in their own family, neighborhood, workplace or church? For example, would you feel safe accepting a job at a “mostly peaceful” company of 100 employees if that meant only eight of them believed a suicide bombing was sometimes or often justified in the name of their religion (or in the name of anything, for that matter)?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...lam-muslim-radical-lone-wolf-column/86670606/

 

[micromass]

While I do still see that as somewhat of an issue, the PC situation there is improving on that front (including Obama's characterizations, after 7 years of beating it into him). The unfortunate reality is that the more and more Islamic terrorists strike locally in the West, the harder and harder it is to downplay the problem. What's the problem? The problem is that "the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful" is only kind of true if you spin the data right, but either way leaves an enormous number of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers and a huge danger. But people are at least feeling freer to point it out than I think they were before ISIS became so successful:

So where does that leave us?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...lam-muslim-radical-lone-wolf-column/86670606/

Couple of things I'd like to know an answer to:
1) How many US citizens would say it is sometimes necessary to kill civilians in order to protect US interests? What about killing in name of christianity?
2) With those muslims who say that it is sometimes necessary to kill civilians, what exactly are the reasons under which it would be acceptable to them?
3) What was the exact question of the people who were polled? How were the people sampled exactly?

In the US, we have a presidential candidate who says he would target civilians in order to deter terrorism. Sounds a lot worse to me to be honest.

 

[jim hardy]

 

[newjerseyrunner]

I don't know why, I never watched him when I was younger, but this man always makes me feel better.


I always look for the helpers in the pictures. There are a lot more people wanting to help people than there are those wanting to hurt people.

 

[russ_watters]

Couple of things I'd like to know an answer to:
1) How many US citizens would say it is sometimes necessary to kill civilians in order to protect US interests?
2) With those muslims who say that it is sometimes necessary to kill civilians, what exactly are the reasons under which it would be acceptable to them?
3) What was the exact question of the people who were polled? How were the people sampled exactly?

If that was an attempt at a mirror image poll question, it was pretty poor. The poll can be found here (linked through from the article):
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-selected-questions.pdf
The exact question is:
"Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?"

I'll let you read about the sampling, but this was from Pew, a respected polling organization.

What about killing in name of christianity?

That's a valid question and concern about the polling that there isn't much basis for comparison: Unfortunately, the polling data on that is fairly poor. I spent a few minutes looking for public opinion polls on the most specific form of Christian supported terrorism I could think of (attacking abortion doctors/clinics) and came up empty except for an online poll.

In the US, we have a presidential candidate who says he would target civilians in order to deter terrorism. Sounds a lot worse to me to be honest.

1. Unless I'm thinking of a different quote, you're misquoting (paraphrasing) him. Are you referring to the quote about going after terrorists' families?
2. Trump bashers view him with self-contradictory glasses, both believing (as nearly everyone does) that he speaks the first thing in his head without thinking while simultaneously believing everything he says is serious.
3. He retracted that (again, if we're thinking of the same quote).
4. So no, I don't agree that it's anywhere close to as bad.

 

[micromass]

I'll let you read about the sampling, but this was from Pew, a respected polling organization.

I don't care about the respect of an organization. I don't believe any poll or result until I had a careful look at the methodology used.

1. Unless I'm thinking of a different quote, you're misquoting (paraphrasing) him. Are you referring to the quote about going after terrorists' families?
2. Trump bashers view him with self-contradictory glasses, both believing (as nearly everyone does) that he speaks the first thing in his head without thinking while simultaneously believing everything he says is serious.
3. He retracted that (again, if we're thinking of the same quote).
4. So no, I don't agree that it's anywhere close to as bad.

Yes, I'm talking about that quote. And sure, he retracted that and whatever. But I'd say that a lot of american voters would agree with him on that. And he still gets the republican nomination while saying horrible stuff like that. So I think it's a pretty bad situation. If I were looking at this from muslim glasses instead of western glasses, I'd say it's worse than the poll you linked.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

2. Trump bashers view him with self-contradictory glasses, both believing (as nearly everyone does) that he speaks the first thing in his head without thinking while simultaneously believing everything he says is serious.

I think the biggest problem with that is that to be a presidential candidate, that type of thought simply shouldn't pop into your head in the first place. It shows that he simply hasn't thought about it. I'm not political, but even I know that trying to fight terror with more terror doesn't work. Anyone who knows history knows that. The best way to fight terror is with stability and education.

Most ISIS supporters were children or not even born during the US invasion of Iraq, we institutionalize violence in those children so now that's all they know. Dick Cheney said the problem with this way back in 1994: we had nothing to replace Saddam with. It still holds true today, he predicted what would happen almost exactly.

 

[russ_watters]

I think the biggest problem with that is that to be a presidential candidate, that type of thought simply shouldn't pop into your head in the first place. It shows that he simply hasn't thought about it.

Don't misunderstand me: I agree with you. I have said repeatedly that I don't believe he's serious about much of anything and in particular his candidacy.