At least 84 killed in terrorist attack in Nice, France

[nik-]

uh, most of this thread has just been discussion.

And an attack on civilians in France, of all places, causing people to assume terrorism? The absolute audacity of it!

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

It's looking increasingly likely that the guy had nothing at all to do with Islamic extremism and was just a mentally unhinged guy who was angry at the world - https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...hlel-relatives

Sure, ISIS are claiming responsibility but they'll obviously latch on to anything that would further their case.

So, essentially the last 13 pages have been kneejerk reactionism.

You'll have to excuse me if I take what the family says with a grain of salt.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by Dan02

You'll have to excuse me if I take what the family says with a grain of salt.

The follow up article with the family saying "we had not idea he was capable of this, but it definitely has nothing to Islam." are pretty much routine at this point.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Matata

The follow up article with the family saying "we had not idea he was capable of this, but it definitely has nothing to Islam." are pretty much routine at this point.

That's true, but is there any indication from him that he was religiously motivated? I haven't read everything on this so maybe I'm just not paying close enough attention. I mean, Omar Mateen called the cops and explicitly declared his allegiance to ISIS and his motivation to kill people for Allah. Is there any indication that this guy was thinking the same? Muslims can be garden-variety crazy just like anyone else.

[RougeUnderoos]

His family and his neighbours have said he wasn't a religious person. He liked to drink and dance. He had a history of mental problems, and was distraught over his marriage and personal life.

It's not as satisfying to accept that he might not have been a wildeyed fanatic and instead just another messed up angry guy who took it out on innocent people, but we might have to accept it.

We accept it every time someone shoots up a kindergarten or movie theater.

[Buster]

Also relevant if Islam is what caused the mental state which made him capable of this.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

His family and his neighbours have said he wasn't a religious person. He liked to drink and dance. He had a history of mental problems, and was distraught over his marriage and personal life.

But on the flip side, this also doesn't indicate he wasn't religiously motivated. In fact, suggesting that Muslims don't come in all stripes, including the drinking, dancing, pseudo-religiot, is essentially to subscribe to a neo-orientalist, borderline racist view of what a "real Muslim" is and how a "real Muslim" behaves. Hell, many bible-thumping evangelical Christians haven't read the damned book.

[transplant99]

Yeah I wouldn't consider assuming that an attack in France by a muslim that killed a whole bunch of people was islamic terrorsm ....as a "knee jerk reaction".

In fact it would kind of silly not to. If in fact it turns out that this guy wasnt doing all this in the name of ISIS or Allah or whatever the flavor of the day is, so be it. He is still a terrorist in his actions and his results therein regardless of motivation.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

In fact, suggesting that Muslims don't come in all stripes, including the drinking, dancing, pseudo-religiot, is essentially to subscribe to a neo-orientalist, borderline racist view of what a "real Muslim" is and how a "real Muslim" behaves.

Uh, so, is that what you think I suggested?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

If your post wasn't intended to suggest that "this guy doesn't behave like a cartoon version of Bin Laden, so that shows he probably didn't do this for Islam", then I'm understandably confused, because people have been making basically that exact case both about this dude and Mateen.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

If your post wasn't intended to suggest that "this guy doesn't behave like a cartoon version of Bin Laden, so that shows he probably didn't do this for Islam", then I'm understandably confused, because people have been making basically that exact case both about this dude and Mateen.

Well, it wasn't intended to (and didn't) suggest that because he didn't behave like bin Laden, he didn't do this for Islam. You may be confused, but not understandably.

It pretty obviously says that the guy didn't live his life like, and was not known by the people that know him, a religious person.

I don't think it's a reach to suggest that since he wasn't a religious person, he probably didn't commit this crime in the name of religion.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well, it wasn't intended to (and didn't) suggest that because he didn't behave like bin Laden, he didn't do this for Islam. You may be confused, but not understandably.

It pretty obviously says that the guy didn't live his life like, and was not known by the people that know him, a religious person.

I don't think it's a reach to suggest that since he wasn't a religious person, he probably didn't commit this crime in the name of religion.

Committing a crime in the name of religion can be quite a different thing than religion being the cause of your crime.

[jammies]

Back in my day, which wasn't all that long ago - since I'm still alive - it was the "Communists" that were the main driver of terrorism. Before that, major political leaders were getting killed by "anarchists". Before that, the West were the ones using terror to cow civilians, and it was called "empire-building". Now, the big threat to world peace is "Islam".

This putative causes are all examples of framing errors: the real threat is people that believe their values demand killing those that don't share those values, and controlling those that do. The threat is not Islam, anarchy, the patriarchy, the Jews, communism, colonialism, or any other strawmen set up to provide a primary cause of all the world's troubles. It is the toxic body of fanaticism, no matter the outer clothing, that sets the bombs and fires the rifles.

This is a cultural war where we only win over decades or centuries, and where, unfortunately, innocent people will die. We already have the solution, though, and have implemented it: societies built on the rule of laws designed to maximize freedom. Over time, that solution will triumph, if it isn't sabotaged from within by well-meaning but misguided attempts to prioritize freedom from the strawmen over maximizing freedom in general.

Not that there's nothing that can be done to treat the symptoms of fanaticism - so long as we understand that's this is exactly what we're doing. Just realize that we're already winning the war of ideas, and the war of bombs, and this is why our opponents are very angry and very willing to die in a hopeless battle to reverse that.

[T@T]

From CNN:

Attacker in Nice was 'radicalized rapidly,' French interior minister says.

"It seems that the attacker got radicalized very rapidly," Cazeneuve said of Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, 31.

The minister said Bouhlel had not been known to the intelligence services previously, and he noted that authorities now face a new scenario with individuals who are becoming very sensitive to the messages of ISIS.

While Cazeneuve said no evidence had yet been found to tie Bouhlel to jihadism, a source close to the investigation told CNN that a phone number belonging to Bouhlel cropped up in a counterterrorism investigation into an associate of Omar Diaby, a 41-year-old Senagalese jihadi who lived in Nice before traveling to Syria.
Diaby, who calls himself Omar Omsen, commands a French jihadi batallion in Syria affiliated with Jabhat al Nusra, al Qaeda's branch in Syria. The source said investigators made the link after cross referencing case files after the attack in Nice. Investigators are looking into the nature of the links between Bouhlel and Diaby's associate, but they cannot rule out that the two were possibly just part of the same social circle.

[ComixZone]

I'm tired of Islamic apologists as a whole.

Islam needs major reformation, in the same way almost all other religions have already gone through.

The religion of peace is a farce, as it stands today.

I've no issue with peaceful religions, but in today's world, Islam does not fall into this category. Admitting there's a problem is the first step to reformation, and it starts with the "moderate" Muslims in countries like Canada and the USA standing up and calling for major reformation.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I'm tired of Islamic apologists as a whole.

Islam needs major reformation, in the same way almost all other religions have already gone through.

The religion of peace is a farce, as it stands today.

I've no issue with peaceful religions, but in today's world, Islam does not fall into this category. Admitting there's a problem is the first step to reformation, and it starts with the "moderate" Muslims in countries like Canada and the USA standing up and calling for major reformation.

They could start with banning perversions such Sharia law, Wahhabism and anything else that suppresses women and basic human rights. But lets face it, the "moderate" Muslims have shown over and over they either don't have the gonads to even try to get this done or they just don't care.

[Thor]

Its always the no true Scotsman fallacy, tired of it.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

His family and his neighbours have said he wasn't a religious person. He liked to drink and dance. He had a history of mental problems, and was distraught over his marriage and personal life.

It's not as satisfying to accept that he might not have been a wildeyed fanatic and instead just another messed up angry guy who took it out on innocent people, but we might have to accept it.

We accept it every time someone shoots up a kindergarten or movie theater.

Mohamed Atta and friends snorted coke, ate pork chops, got hammered on Sept 10 and lived with pink haired strippers. Those guys were totally terrorists.

[nik-]

Well they did that on their last night on earth ... they were pretty hardcore for the most part. It wasn't just an out of nowhere thing.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by T@T

They could start with banning perversions such Sharia law, Wahhabism and anything else that suppresses women and basic human rights. But lets face it, the "moderate" Muslims have shown over and over they either don't have the gonads to even try to get this done or they just don't care.

How does a moderate Muslim do that?

The Crazy Baptists in Florida still call themselves Christians despite I would argue most moderate Christians thinking there beliefs were terrible. How would a moderate Christian stop the Westboro Baptists.