Truck kills 30 in France

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Here is some pure speculation on my part. I've noticed that in several recent attacks, the perpetrators were fairly important members of the terrorist cells. I believe one of the Brussels bombers was described as an important bomb maker and one of the Istanbul attackers was a high-level recruiter. I could be mistake because I'm going by memory and I haven't memorized all the details of these attacks, but I think this is correct. The truck today is said to contain bomb-making material and weapons. Maybe that was a sort of headquarters/weapons cache and, instead of using an apartment, the cell was working out of a truck? In that scenario, the bomb-making material and weapons were not intended to be used in today's attack. Rather, for whatever reason, the attacker decided it was no longer useful to maintain the weapons cache.

If I am correct about all of this -- and I admit I am likely wrong -- it would mean that ISIS is running out of cannon fodder and is being forced to rely on more valuable assets for attacks. If that is the case, I suspect the organization has almost depleted its resources. You don't have your bomb-maker blow himself up if you are hoping for him to make more bombs. Similarly, you don't destroy your weapons cache unless that cache is no longer needed.

Jeff that is a very interesting and clever thought indeed. I hope so.

[Anonymous]

From CNN: The driver was a Nice resident, according to the Nice Matin newspaper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Driver drove a mack truck at a very high rate of speed straight into the crowd celebrating Bastille Day. Horrific.

And we keep bringing more and more radical Islamists into Europe and into the US (2 Virginia men arrested laser week for conspiring with Isis) and no matter how nice or welcoming we are we will be doomed.

I know it's not convenient to your narrative about the bad refugees, but one of those guys was born in Brooklyn. And the Paris attackers were born in France and Belgium and had EU passports. They all grew up in the West and then turned into something else. They weren't "brought in." Who knows what this latest monster's story is, but this problem is far deeper and more complex than recent immigrants and refugees.

Yeah, it's often the children or 2nd generation that becomes radicalized. That's why you shouldn't bring more of them in until we have a better solution to radical islam.

I'm Muslim- We, Muslims, have to find the answer to radical Islam. The United States or Europe or the west or whatever cannot solve the problem b/c they have absolutely no authority, the Imams who are in the masjid preaching that we (2nd gen) have to assimilate in the way that the Imams and our parents want are at fault. Xenophobic Muslim communities make these frankensteins. I'm a hijab wearing practicing Muslim and it is the fault of the Muslim community, not the west b/c when they teach that Islam means obedience they forget that it is obedience to the God who is accessible only in the hearts of individuals and that Islam is mostly about social justice and personal responsibility. where is this piece of the puzzle? Its not enough to say "this is not Islam, don't hate us/hurt us" we have to say this is not Islam at our dining tables when the young people mouth off about "Dar ul Haram", we need to speak out in the Masjid that the Holocaust is not a lie- it happened and the media is not controlled by anyone. We need to take responsibility when our kids are online listening to hate speech. This isn't the fault if colonization or western meddling- those are other issues but no these people are evil and there is no excuse for their behavior.

When Zayn Malik is more excoriated as more 'immoral" than Saleh Abdus Salaam- the cancer is in the community not the west.

Yes, this. Exactly.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Wth regard to refugees, I actually think the Syrians are the easiest to help: Its called no fly zones and very nice encampments like my mom lived in the first five years of her life in Germany, grateful to America to this day for building them. The economic/lifestyles immigrants and refugees - Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Tunisia, Morocco , Iraq think its deeply unfair that Syrians are 'favored' and are heading west for something, possibly disillusionment.

Your solution to Syrian refugees is further US military involvement -- possibly including conflict with Russia?

I guess when all you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you have the most powerful military in the world, everything looks like a bombing target.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
it has everything to do with a religion that teaches intolerance. That teaches that the infidels are not even human. You have to think of your neighbors as animals to be able to kill them like this.

Until we recognize and deal with the influences that are corrupting our youth we will never win this war.

The entire religion doesn't teach those things. To the extent that you lump all Muslims in with those who believe such things, you are contributing to the terrorists' cause.

Okay, but how many of them agree with that way of thinking? What are the characteristics that the Muslims who agree have in common vs the ones who don't agree? These are important questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What exactly would Hillary do to protect us???

Speak to them for a cool $250,000 and insist on private air travel for her and 2/3 staff and first class accommodations.

Isn't she such a smart cookie.

More like a smart crookie

[Anonymous]

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/peter-king-surveil-muslim-communities/2016/07/14/id/738769/

This does not seem 'anti Muslim'

I did not see anything derogatory,simply a tactic you may agree or disagree with.

I'm looking up Gingrichs statement now.

[Anonymous]

Fast forward to 2016, and the main players have transformed because of time and oil wealth. The royal family has grown from a group of scrappy desert dwellers into a sprawling clan awash in palaces and private jets. The Wahhabi establishment has evolved from a puritan reform movement into a bloated state bureaucracy.

It consists of universities that churn out graduates trained in religious disciplines; a legal system in which judges apply Shariah law; a council of top clerics who advise the king; a network of offices that dispense fatwas, or religious opinions; a force of religious police who monitor public behavior; and tens of thousands of mosque imams who can be tapped to deliver the government’s message from the pulpit.

and

After a pause, he asked, “Why don’t you become a Muslim?”

I responded that I was from a Christian family.

“The religion you follow has no source,” he said, adding that I should accept the Prophet Muhammad’s revelation.

“Your religion is not a religion,” he said. “In the end, you will have to face God.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-islam-wahhabism-religious-police.html

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wth regard to refugees, I actually think the Syrians are the easiest to help: Its called no fly zones and very nice encampments like my mom lived in the first five years of her life in Germany, grateful to America to this day for building them. The economic/lifestyles immigrants and refugees - Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Tunisia, Morocco , Iraq think its deeply unfair that Syrians are 'favored' and are heading west for something, possibly disillusionment.

Your solution to Syrian refugees is further US military involvement -- possibly including conflict with Russia?

I guess when all you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you have the most powerful military in the world, everything looks like a bombing target.

A no fly zone on the border, where refugees are already ammassed, with schools and medical care. And we are hammering out a 'secret' Syria agreement with Russia. Its in all the news feeds. No conflict there. Even Turkey is now eager to play ball as they have seen the effect of a porous border and instability.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Fast forward to 2016, and the main players have transformed because of time and oil wealth. The royal family has grown from a group of scrappy desert dwellers into a sprawling clan awash in palaces and private jets. The Wahhabi establishment has evolved from a puritan reform movement into a bloated state bureaucracy.

It consists of universities that churn out graduates trained in religious disciplines; a legal system in which judges apply Shariah law; a council of top clerics who advise the king; a network of offices that dispense fatwas, or religious opinions; a force of religious police who monitor public behavior; and tens of thousands of mosque imams who can be tapped to deliver the government’s message from the pulpit.

I've been like a broken record trying to point out this is a problem -- maybe not "the" problem, but a serious problem. It is not Islam that is the problem, but what these folks have done to it. And they are our treasured allies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wth regard to refugees, I actually think the Syrians are the easiest to help: Its called no fly zones and very nice encampments like my mom lived in the first five years of her life in Germany, grateful to America to this day for building them. The economic/lifestyles immigrants and refugees - Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Tunisia, Morocco , Iraq think its deeply unfair that Syrians are 'favored' and are heading west for something, possibly disillusionment.

Your solution to Syrian refugees is further US military involvement -- possibly including conflict with Russia?

I guess when all you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you have the most powerful military in the world, everything looks like a bombing target.

A no fly zone on the border, where refugees are already ammassed, with schools and medical care. And we are hammering out a 'secret' Syria agreement with Russia. Its in all the news feeds. No conflict there. Even Turkey is now eager to play ball as they have seen the effect of a porous border and instability.

Here you go: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0ZU25O

I was watching a documentary on the camps in Jordan. Some actually looked really well maintained..it's a matter of bringing them all up to speed. No doubt far cheaper than resettling the entire country, and if they're anything like my grandma they'd actually like to get back to their farms and hamlets when this conflict is resolved

[Anonymous]

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/14/newt-gingrich-calls-congressional-committee-investigate-islamic-supremacism/

I see nothing derogatory here either.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fast forward to 2016, and the main players have transformed because of time and oil wealth. The royal family has grown from a group of scrappy desert dwellers into a sprawling clan awash in palaces and private jets. The Wahhabi establishment has evolved from a puritan reform movement into a bloated state bureaucracy.

It consists of universities that churn out graduates trained in religious disciplines; a legal system in which judges apply Shariah law; a council of top clerics who advise the king; a network of offices that dispense fatwas, or religious opinions; a force of religious police who monitor public behavior; and tens of thousands of mosque imams who can be tapped to deliver the government’s message from the pulpit.

I've been like a broken record trying to point out this is a problem -- maybe not "the" problem, but a serious problem. It is not Islam that is the problem, but what these folks have done to it. And they are our treasured allies.

This would be the shariah law newt is saying is incompatible with American values and citizenship. Is that not a step to addressing the problem?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/14/newt-gingrich-calls-congressional-committee-investigate-islamic-supremacism/

I see nothing derogatory here either.

Gingrich supports the idea of "thought crimes" but you don't see a problem with it? King supports surveillance on the basis of religion but you don't find it discriminatory? I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fast forward to 2016, and the main players have transformed because of time and oil wealth. The royal family has grown from a group of scrappy desert dwellers into a sprawling clan awash in palaces and private jets. The Wahhabi establishment has evolved from a puritan reform movement into a bloated state bureaucracy.

It consists of universities that churn out graduates trained in religious disciplines; a legal system in which judges apply Shariah law; a council of top clerics who advise the king; a network of offices that dispense fatwas, or religious opinions; a force of religious police who monitor public behavior; and tens of thousands of mosque imams who can be tapped to deliver the government’s message from the pulpit.

I've been like a broken record trying to point out this is a problem -- maybe not "the" problem, but a serious problem. It is not Islam that is the problem, but what these folks have done to it. And they are our treasured allies.

This would be the shariah law newt is saying is incompatible with American values and citizenship. Is that not a step to addressing the problem?

Again, there is no single "sharia law". There are various ideas about what "sharia law" means. The problem is not American citizens who believe that Muslim traditions should govern their marriage, but rather an entire country to which we sell weapons that spreads its ideology around the world. Most American Muslims won't agree that Sharia has anything to do with most of the things you think are included in Sharia.