Truck kills 30 in France

[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.

. You know how this problem will be solved? Disassociate yourself from your religion. Throw away the hijab and skullcap. they are killing people all over the world in the name of Religion. Why honor this religion? Pray to your God as a human not a Muslim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what's your short game? I have zero issue with energy independence ans getting out of bed with the Saudis . I have less of an issue with Egypt - the Muslim brotherhood is another headache. But what's your plan for the next twenty years while all of that is underway?

I already suggested on short term effort: try to drive a wedge between the terrorists and other Muslims. Clearly recognize that most Muslims are valued neighbors and that the terrorists, regardless of how they describe themselves, are not representative of Islam. Try to demonstrate that the US is a land of opportunity for Muslims who are welcome to pursue the American dream. Also, since refugees are a concern, rethink our policies that are helping to create refugees.

A) you have repeatedly stated this has nothing to do with Islam so why would the terrorist care if they are told their actions are not representative? Just curious. Or would you have the Muslim community actually tackle this from a young age in some proactive way to teach the kids values that would supercede these nihilistic power mad ones?

b) the US is historically and currently welcoming. Many Muslims have made great lives and communities here. Heard of Deerborne? Seen the mosque on Mass Ave? The only Muslims I worry about are the Somalis etc refugees being relocated to work in chicken factories and do jobs no one wants to. If thats our refugee support program, we aren't doing anyone a favor. Bound to be resentment.

C) there is the largest movement of refugees on the planet. Many are economic. Rethink our policies on most of Africa? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Quite a scope. How about invite them to stay near where they are from and offer support as they work towards the change they want?

Never heard of Deerborne but if you mean Dearborn, Michigan, many of the original middle easterners were engineers who worked for Ford and had no interest in radical Islam. If the mosque on Mass Ave you reference is the one in the former Iranian Embassy, that is a very upper end mosque and not like the one in Falls Church filled with radicals.

You are worried about Somalis working on chicken farms beung radicalized? Seriously

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what's your short game? I have zero issue with energy independence ans getting out of bed with the Saudis . I have less of an issue with Egypt - the Muslim brotherhood is another headache. But what's your plan for the next twenty years while all of that is underway?

I already suggested on short term effort: try to drive a wedge between the terrorists and other Muslims. Clearly recognize that most Muslims are valued neighbors and that the terrorists, regardless of how they describe themselves, are not representative of Islam. Try to demonstrate that the US is a land of opportunity for Muslims who are welcome to pursue the American dream. Also, since refugees are a concern, rethink our policies that are helping to create refugees.

A) you have repeatedly stated this has nothing to do with Islam so why would the terrorist care if they are told their actions are not representative? Just curious. Or would you have the Muslim community actually tackle this from a young age in some proactive way to teach the kids values that would supercede these nihilistic power mad ones?

b) the US is historically and currently welcoming. Many Muslims have made great lives and communities here. Heard of Deerborne? Seen the mosque on Mass Ave? The only Muslims I worry about are the Somalis etc refugees being relocated to work in chicken factories and do jobs no one wants to. If thats our refugee support program, we aren't doing anyone a favor. Bound to be resentment.

C) there is the largest movement of refugees on the planet. Many are economic. Rethink our policies on most of Africa? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Quite a scope. How about invite them to stay near where they are from and offer support as they work towards the change they want?

Never heard of Deerborne but if you mean Dearborn, Michigan, many of the original middle easterners were engineers who worked for Ford and had no interest in radical Islam. If the mosque on Mass Ave you reference is the one in the former Iranian Embassy, that is a very upper end mosque and not like the one in Falls Church filled with radicals.

You are worried about Somalis working on chicken farms beung radicalized? Seriously

Yes, thank you. You confirm my point. We have a long and established history of welcoming Muslims in America.
And to your second question, yes I do..a lot of the discussion of terrorism has to do with alienation in the second generation.
Why don't you read this article and tell me how the integration of these young men is going?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2016/05/24/for-many-somali-refugees-this-industry-offers-hope-then-takes-it-away/

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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.

Thank you. I've studied Islamic history extensively. What Newt is calling out sounds a lot like the Shariah interpretation exported by SA and also Iran (Bahai persecution).. I dont see anything derogatory about saying there's no place for this in the United States .

"But, if you believe in sharia, and genuinely believe in it, if you think that gays and lesbians ought to be killed, if you think that Christians and Jews and Baha’i and others ought to either submit or be killed, we have a lot of disagreement,” Gingrich said. “If you want to support terrorist movements with money, with recruitment, with propaganda, then you’re our enemy. .”

[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.

It would be nice if you were right about this.
But what if they didn't destroy their weapons cache or their bomb maker just made it appear as though they did?

My own opinion is that no one is truly valuable to this group and groups like this. The thought of them losing someone valuable appeals to us on this side ofthings because it makes us feel as if something is being done and progress is being made.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Thank you. I've studied Islamic history extensively. What Newt is calling out sounds a lot like the Shariah interpretation exported by SA and also Iran (Bahai persecution).. I dont see anything derogatory about saying there's no place for this in the United States .

"But, if you believe in sharia, and genuinely believe in it, if you think that gays and lesbians ought to be killed, if you think that Christians and Jews and Baha’i and others ought to either submit or be killed, we have a lot of disagreement,” Gingrich said. “If you want to support terrorist movements with money, with recruitment, with propaganda, then you’re our enemy. .”

Here is what Gingich said:

"We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported."

With your extensive studies of Islam, I'm sure you can explain why this is not derogatory or anti-American. Do you believe that support for "thought crimes" has a place in America?

[Anonymous]

All I know is innocent people were killed in a horrific way all because some religious asshole wanted to please his master and get virgin nookie.

I SAW the pictures. My God. They are some sick fucks.

[Anonymous]

It's now 84 dead.

[Anonymous]

https://youtu.be/pSPvnFDDQHk

This by the numbers documentary should be standard view G. It's only 15 mi Utes but explains the issue of radical Islam. It's a cancer.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Thank you. I've studied Islamic history extensively. What Newt is calling out sounds a lot like the Shariah interpretation exported by SA and also Iran (Bahai persecution).. I dont see anything derogatory about saying there's no place for this in the United States .

"But, if you believe in sharia, and genuinely believe in it, if you think that gays and lesbians ought to be killed, if you think that Christians and Jews and Baha’i and others ought to either submit or be killed, we have a lot of disagreement,” Gingrich said. “If you want to support terrorist movements with money, with recruitment, with propaganda, then you’re our enemy. .”

Here is what Gingich said:

"We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported."

With your extensive studies of Islam, I'm sure you can explain why this is not derogatory or anti-American. Do you believe that support for "thought crimes" has a place in America?

It's neither of those things. Freedom of religion is great. Islam is a political cult, not a religion. Sharia and western values are not compatible

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Thank you. I've studied Islamic history extensively. What Newt is calling out sounds a lot like the Shariah interpretation exported by SA and also Iran (Bahai persecution).. I dont see anything derogatory about saying there's no place for this in the United States .

"But, if you believe in sharia, and genuinely believe in it, if you think that gays and lesbians ought to be killed, if you think that Christians and Jews and Baha’i and others ought to either submit or be killed, we have a lot of disagreement,” Gingrich said. “If you want to support terrorist movements with money, with recruitment, with propaganda, then you’re our enemy. .”

Here is the full quote. I agree if I were a Muslim in America I would feel worried by this comment. I would also be worried by the violence coming from Muslims worldwide turning to those who preach a message to overturn western civil institutions. What is the statistic again of those who believe jihad (and I'm not talking about 'struggle', but violent jihad is OK?) If I were a Muslim who agreed with Newt that Islamic extremists have declared war on the west - and there are many who do- I might want to turn the dial to more cooperation with the FBI and self monitoring of the community for signs of this alienation or discontent. I would also think about where voices that promote an ideology antithetical to western life are finding a perch, and how to disempower them. That is, if I were a Muslim American who felt like my western way of life was under attack from folks whose declared ubtent is to overturn it:

"Western civilization is in a war,” Gingrich told Fox News’ Sean Hannity, hours after a truck mowed down French Bastille Day celebrants in Nice, killing at least 80. “We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported. Sharia is incompatible with Western

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Atlantic article gives a very in-depth explanation. All religions recruit b/c there's power in numbers. However, taking a literal view of any religion (in this case, any messages found in the Koran) means that YOUR view is the RIGHT view, and therefore, you stick CLOSELY to an original text written with the purpose of conversion. And the Koran will mention slavery, beheading, and crucifixion as a way of handling infidels. To be fair, all three of these atrocities are also mentioned in the Bible.



from the article:

Following takfiri doctrine, the Islamic State is committed to purifying the world by killing vast numbers of people. The lack of objective reporting from its territory makes the true extent of the slaughter unknowable, but social-media posts from the region suggest that individual executions happen more or less continually, and mass executions every few weeks. Muslim “apostates” are the most common victims. Exempted from automatic execution, it appears, are Christians who do not resist their new government. Baghdadi permits them to live, as long as they pay a special tax, known as the jizya, and acknowledge their subjugation. The Koranic authority for this practice is not in dispute.

. . .

According to Haykel, the ranks of the Islamic State are deeply infused with religious vigor. Koranic quotations are ubiquitous. “Even the foot soldiers spout this stuff constantly,” Haykel said. “They mug for their cameras and repeat their basic doctrines in formulaic fashion, and they do it all the time.” He regards the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam as preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance. “People want to absolve Islam,” he said. “It’s this ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ mantra. As if there is such a thing as ‘Islam’! It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts.” Those texts are shared by all Sunni Muslims, not just the Islamic State. “And these guys have just as much legitimacy as anyone else.”[/quote]

[Anonymous]

Yes, and unfortunately this literalism and religious chauvinism is obviously fairly widespread. Here are more of Gingrichs comment. I always think context is important.

"Gingrich said on Fox News that he would welcome “modern Muslims” who had given up Sharia, the legal system based on Islam, and would be “perfectly happy to have them next door.”


“But we need to be fairly relentless about defining who our enemies are,” he said. “Anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS, or al Qaeda, or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony, and they should go to jail.


“If we can’t destroy them through the internet, we should destroy them with kinetic power, using various weapons starting with Predators, and frankly just killing them.”


Hannity asked how the government could be certain if someone coming to America from a country that practices Sharia could “really want” a new life. “Monitor the mosques,” Gingrich said.


“I mean, if you’re not prepared to monitor the mosque, this whole thing is a joke,” Gingrich said. “We’re like sheep wondering why the wolves keep killing us. These people are opposed to our way of life. They are opposed to our value system. They are opposed to our various religions. They’re opposed to the whole concept of freedom, and they’re very honest about it.”"

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Thank you. I've studied Islamic history extensively. What Newt is calling out sounds a lot like the Shariah interpretation exported by SA and also Iran (Bahai persecution).. I dont see anything derogatory about saying there's no place for this in the United States .

"But, if you believe in sharia, and genuinely believe in it, if you think that gays and lesbians ought to be killed, if you think that Christians and Jews and Baha’i and others ought to either submit or be killed, we have a lot of disagreement,” Gingrich said. “If you want to support terrorist movements with money, with recruitment, with propaganda, then you’re our enemy. .”

Here is what Gingich said:

"We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported."

With your extensive studies of Islam, I'm sure you can explain why this is not derogatory or anti-American. Do you believe that support for "thought crimes" has a place in America?

I'm not the pp...and I recognize that what G is saying is at best impractical...but if you tweaked his quote to limit it to denying entry or tossing noncitizens and placing such citizens on a watch list, I suspect most Americans would agree.

[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.

doubtful

There are far too many cells scattered about to make this hopeful statement.

Killing pedestrians on a national holiday is symbolic - not any different from destroying the towers on 9-11. Destroying symbols hits the psyche. Furthermore, whether the truck was a Trojan Horse or not, it was a twisted (yet brilliant) move to drive through a crowd of happy people b/c it's an extremely RAW way to physically damage a body. Imagine the damage to the the psyche at this point.

There are trucks all over the place. Remember the Beltway Sniper? We were on high alert after that, fearing every white van that drove by.

What should France do now? have police check points for every truck now?

How much militarization is necessary? curfews, restricted freedoms, living in fear

And if France heads toward a police state, don't you think the "terrorists" (however they are defined) will have won?