Truck kills 30 in France

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
It says % of muslims who want Sharia BUT NOT what percent of each country's population are muslims, which is more important. It makes NO DIFFERENCE if a country has only 1% of population who are middle east muslims, as in the USA. Statistics are only as good as the intelligence of the person who is reading it.

Also, what is meant by "supporting Sharia" is not clearly defined. There is not a single version of "sharia" documented and in most countries which have implemented a version of "sharia", it is only for personal issues. Does it really matter that 90% of a country's Muslims support Sharia but that only means that they want to get married and divorced according to Islamic traditions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want Sharia law globally. They will not assimilate like other immigrant populations. There is zero regard for human life. Sharia law is incompatible with Western Civilization.

You can be sweet and nice and not go into their countries...and they'll still want you dead. The idea of personal freedom is a the antithesis to their religion. Hence, attacking France on its day of Freedom.

The killing of innocents wasn't even collateral damage in a wartime situation. It was murder.

White supremacists want to remove minorities from the USA. They want to implement their own WHITE only constitution. It doesn't mean they will get what they want. Middle eastern Muslims(not including black Muslims) are about 1% of the US population. If White racists who are more than 10% of US population can't get their wish fulfilled, how can a tiny Muslim population get sharia law in the USA. Get a grip. Like JFK said "we don't have anything to fear but fear itself".

You must be dense. Let's look at it another way.

A small country like Italy has 1,613,000 Muslims. That's over 30% of the population. Most live in the North. It is the second largest religion in Italy next to Catholicism. 

The US, by comparison, has about 3 million Muslims.

Here's a visual comparing size. Making new babies always grows a religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want Sharia law globally. They will not assimilate like other immigrant populations. There is zero regard for human life. Sharia law is incompatible with Western Civilization.

You can be sweet and nice and not go into their countries...and they'll still want you dead. The idea of personal freedom is a the antithesis to their religion. Hence, attacking France on its day of Freedom.

The killing of innocents wasn't even collateral damage in a wartime situation. It was murder.

Are the Muslims killing Brazilians or Argetinians or Canadians or Japanese. You get the picture. You can't expect civility when you are uncivil to them. Maybe you are the type that would like Chinese Military in TX and would gladly accept them and welcome them. But most Americans won't like foreign power in their backyard, as are any humans. You reap what you sow, Americans are no more special than anyone else to be exception to this rule.

The Muslims aren't Present in sheer #s of the countries they are attacking in Europe. Proximity and the flow of immigration. Duh.

So why are people like you running like headless chicken? USA is not threatened by Muslims to the point that your fear warrants. According to FBI statistics we have more to fear from deranged white guy with a gun or a white racists out to kill minorities than any other group, when it comes to mass murders and hate terror.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2014/topic-pages/victims_final

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It says % of muslims who want Sharia BUT NOT what percent of each country's population are muslims, which is more important. It makes NO DIFFERENCE if a country has only 1% of population who are middle east muslims, as in the USA. Statistics are only as good as the intelligence of the person who is reading it.

Also, what is meant by "supporting Sharia" is not clearly defined. There is not a single version of "sharia" documented and in most countries which have implemented a version of "sharia", it is only for personal issues. Does it really matter that 90% of a country's Muslims support Sharia but that only means that they want to get married and divorced according to Islamic traditions?

Doesn't Sharia Law mean the government makes people obey Sharia? We're not talking about people making personal decisions here. You know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want Sharia law globally. They will not assimilate like other immigrant populations. There is zero regard for human life. Sharia law is incompatible with Western Civilization.

You can be sweet and nice and not go into their countries...and they'll still want you dead. The idea of personal freedom is a the antithesis to their religion. Hence, attacking France on its day of Freedom.

The killing of innocents wasn't even collateral damage in a wartime situation. It was murder.

White supremacists want to remove minorities from the USA. They want to implement their own WHITE only constitution. It doesn't mean they will get what they want. Middle eastern Muslims(not including black Muslims) are about 1% of the US population. If White racists who are more than 10% of US population can't get their wish fulfilled, how can a tiny Muslim population get sharia law in the USA. Get a grip. Like JFK said "we don't have anything to fear but fear itself".

You must be dense. Let's look at it another way.

A small country like Italy has 1,613,000 Muslims. That's over 30% of the population. Most live in the North. It is the second largest religion in Italy next to Catholicism. 

The US, by comparison, has about 3 million Muslims.

Here's a visual comparing size. Making new babies always grows a religion.

Show me the statistics of muslim birth rate in the USA. Please understand who is dense when you are showing irrelevant data to the USA and making comparison. statistics is only as good as the the intelligence of the person who is reading it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Honest question here and I would appreciate serious answers. Can anyone provide any evidence that this event was an act of terrorism? I mean, obviously it terrorized people, but a formal "act of terrorism" requires a bit more than that. In the US, our laws have several, though similar, definitions of terrorism. Here is how the USA Patriot defines terrorism: "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

The Nice attack clearly meets "(A)" and "(C)" is immaterial to this discussion. But, "(B)" has three parts and I am not aware of any evidence suggesting that those factors exist.

Similarly, is there any evidence that this attack was motivated by religion? Many of us -- me included -- immediately jumped to the conclusion that this attack was an act of Islamic terrorism. Now, it appears that it may not have been terrorism at all, let alone Islamic terrorism.

They are reporting he was recently radicalized, extremely quickly. He could have not been connected, but he answered the call and committed the Terrorist act. To me, it's even scarier if it's not a 'formal' act. ISIS is making this idealogogyviral so it will reproduce on its own. It is harder to track and stop. It can happen anywhere with little prep time.

http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/islamic-state-group-claims-nice-attacker-as-a-soldier

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It says % of muslims who want Sharia BUT NOT what percent of each country's population are muslims, which is more important. It makes NO DIFFERENCE if a country has only 1% of population who are middle east muslims, as in the USA. Statistics are only as good as the intelligence of the person who is reading it.

Also, what is meant by "supporting Sharia" is not clearly defined. There is not a single version of "sharia" documented and in most countries which have implemented a version of "sharia", it is only for personal issues. Does it really matter that 90% of a country's Muslims support Sharia but that only means that they want to get married and divorced according to Islamic traditions?

Doesn't Sharia Law mean the government makes people obey Sharia? We're not talking about people making personal decisions here. You know that.

What is "Sharia"? Where is it documented? If a government "makes people obey Sharia", what does that mean? Does that mean that the government ordains beheadings and amputations or does it mean that weddings are conducted according to Muslims traditions? Everyone talks about "sharia" as if it is documented like the US Constitution. That is not the case. In fact, discussing it that way is one of the surest signs that the person discussing it is unformed about what it even is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It says % of muslims who want Sharia BUT NOT what percent of each country's population are muslims, which is more important. It makes NO DIFFERENCE if a country has only 1% of population who are middle east muslims, as in the USA. Statistics are only as good as the intelligence of the person who is reading it.

Also, what is meant by "supporting Sharia" is not clearly defined. There is not a single version of "sharia" documented and in most countries which have implemented a version of "sharia", it is only for personal issues. Does it really matter that 90% of a country's Muslims support Sharia but that only means that they want to get married and divorced according to Islamic traditions?

Doesn't Sharia Law mean the government makes people obey Sharia? We're not talking about people making personal decisions here. You know that.

No in America EVERYONE can make laws they want, including muslims who can make Sharia. White racists can make their own law. Christian radicals can make biblical law. The US government has no power over any of these things.

It is laughable if it is not sad what these fearful idiots post.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Honest question here and I would appreciate serious answers. Can anyone provide any evidence that this event was an act of terrorism? I mean, obviously it terrorized people, but a formal "act of terrorism" requires a bit more than that. In the US, our laws have several, though similar, definitions of terrorism. Here is how the USA Patriot defines terrorism: "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

The Nice attack clearly meets "(A)" and "(C)" is immaterial to this discussion. But, "(B)" has three parts and I am not aware of any evidence suggesting that those factors exist.

Similarly, is there any evidence that this attack was motivated by religion? Many of us -- me included -- immediately jumped to the conclusion that this attack was an act of Islamic terrorism. Now, it appears that it may not have been terrorism at all, let alone Islamic terrorism.

They are reporting he was recently radicalized, extremely quickly. He could have not been connected, but he answered the call and committed the Terrorist act. To me, it's even scarier if it's not a 'formal' act. ISIS is making this idealogogyviral so it will reproduce on its own. It is harder to track and stop. It can happen anywhere with little prep time.

http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/islamic-state-group-claims-nice-attacker-as-a-soldier

What ISIS says is immaterial. They could claim that you and I are supporters but it wouldn't make it so. Reports are not evidence. My question is if there is any evidence of a political or religious motive or evidence that the act meets the formal definition of terrorism. If we start calling acts "terrorism" that don't meet the definition of "terrorism", the word really don't have any meaning or usefulness.

[Anonymous]

Just FYI, I think many of us (like Newt) are confused about what shariah law is. Certainly, it means a non secular gov't, but it doesn't automatically mean the worst interpretation of Islam.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/17/opinion/sunday/a-lesson-for-newt-gingrich-what-shariah-is-and-isnt.html?_r=0

[Anonymous]

Just because there isn't evidence doesn't mean it isn't. Lots of Monday morning quarterbacks saying France or Intel Agencies failed and should have known... Not everyone is on the radar or has been caught doing something that leaves a trail

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want Sharia law globally. They will not assimilate like other immigrant populations. There is zero regard for human life. Sharia law is incompatible with Western Civilization.

You can be sweet and nice and not go into their countries...and they'll still want you dead. The idea of personal freedom is a the antithesis to their religion. Hence, attacking France on its day of Freedom.

The killing of innocents wasn't even collateral damage in a wartime situation. It was murder.

White supremacists want to remove minorities from the USA. They want to implement their own WHITE only constitution. It doesn't mean they will get what they want. Middle eastern Muslims(not including black Muslims) are about 1% of the US population. If White racists who are more than 10% of US population can't get their wish fulfilled, how can a tiny Muslim population get sharia law in the USA. Get a grip. Like JFK said "we don't have anything to fear but fear itself".

You must be dense. Let's look at it another way.

A small country like Italy has 1,613,000 Muslims. That's over 30% of the population. Most live in the North. It is the second largest religion in Italy next to Catholicism. 

The US, by comparison, has about 3 million Muslims.

Here's a visual comparing size. Making new babies always grows a religion.

Show me the statistics of muslim birth rate in the USA. Please understand who is dense when you are showing irrelevant data to the USA and making comparison. statistics is only as good as the the intelligence of the person who is reading it.

Are you too stupid to do your own research?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/06/a-new-estimate-of-the-u-s-muslim-population/

Maybe Pew's not your thing, but it's credible. The US is larger than Italy and can absorb more. But I guess you don't think size is important.

Pew Research Center estimates that there were about 3.3 million Muslims of all ages living in the United States in 2015. This means that Muslims made up about 1% of the total U.S. population (about 322 million people in 2015), and we estimate that that share will double by 2050.

Since our first estimate of the size of the Muslim American population in 2007, we have seen a steady growth in both the number of Muslims in the U.S. and the percentage of the U.S. population that is Muslim.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It says % of muslims who want Sharia BUT NOT what percent of each country's population are muslims, which is more important. It makes NO DIFFERENCE if a country has only 1% of population who are middle east muslims, as in the USA. Statistics are only as good as the intelligence of the person who is reading it.

Also, what is meant by "supporting Sharia" is not clearly defined. There is not a single version of "sharia" documented and in most countries which have implemented a version of "sharia", it is only for personal issues. Does it really matter that 90% of a country's Muslims support Sharia but that only means that they want to get married and divorced according to Islamic traditions?

Doesn't Sharia Law mean the government makes people obey Sharia? We're not talking about people making personal decisions here. You know that.

What is "Sharia"? Where is it documented? If a government "makes people obey Sharia", what does that mean? Does that mean that the government ordains beheadings and amputations or does it mean that weddings are conducted according to Muslims traditions? Everyone talks about "sharia" as if it is documented like the US Constitution. That is not the case. In fact, discussing it that way is one of the surest signs that the person discussing it is unformed about what it even is.

Jeff, I have come to the conclusion, we are failing this country by not teaching basic civics, history and geography that even the so called educated have no clue about anything including how laws are passed in this country, forget about how laws evolve or about foreign history or foreign geography. And Math education is terrible, people dont understand basic percents and how to read statistics. Its a shame to call ourselves an advanced country. Thankfully the smarter people have prevailed so far but that may not last long if people like those who post here somehow prevail.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Just because there isn't evidence doesn't mean it isn't. Lots of Monday morning quarterbacks saying France or Intel Agencies failed and should have known... Not everyone is on the radar or has been caught doing something that leaves a trail

I would suggest that the lack of evidence means that caution should be observed before making determinations. It is sort of like the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. If there is no evidence that this is terrorism, it should not be called "terrorism'. If such evidence is discovered, then we can change how we describe it. But, at the moment, I don't see such evidence. This might have simply been the act of a mentally ill truck driver or it might have been an act of terrorism. But, without evidence of the latter, I don't think we should call it that.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It says % of muslims who want Sharia BUT NOT what percent of each country's population are muslims, which is more important. It makes NO DIFFERENCE if a country has only 1% of population who are middle east muslims, as in the USA. Statistics are only as good as the intelligence of the person who is reading it.

Also, what is meant by "supporting Sharia" is not clearly defined. There is not a single version of "sharia" documented and in most countries which have implemented a version of "sharia", it is only for personal issues. Does it really matter that 90% of a country's Muslims support Sharia but that only means that they want to get married and divorced according to Islamic traditions?

Doesn't Sharia Law mean the government makes people obey Sharia? We're not talking about people making personal decisions here. You know that.

What is "Sharia"? Where is it documented? If a government "makes people obey Sharia", what does that mean? Does that mean that the government ordains beheadings and amputations or does it mean that weddings are conducted according to Muslims traditions? Everyone talks about "sharia" as if it is documented like the US Constitution. That is not the case. In fact, discussing it that way is one of the surest signs that the person discussing it is unformed about what it even is.

I'm sorry, I thought it was a given that we were talking about making Sharia the law of the land, the government's law. Isn't that what people mean when they say they want sharia law -- not that they are free to marry and divorce and punish based on their own personal beliefs, but that everyone must do the same because that is the official law of the land? Come on, you know that's what the discussion is about.