Another attack in France...

Chalky

I think you misunderstand modern terrorism. Long gone are the days of 'organising'. Now you just need to send out inciting messages and trust that someone somewhere will actually act on them.

p90fool

Chalky said:

I think you misunderstand modern terrorism. Long gone are the days of 'organising'. Now you just need to send out inciting messages and trust that someone somewhere will actually act on them.

You're absolutely right, the risks and expense of secret underground cells smuggling weapons around the world have been rendered unnecessary. 

It's partly because the way communication now works, but largely because so many terrorists now no longer expect to survive the attack. 

Getting someone in and out anonymously to fight another day is a logistical nightmare compared to sending in a suicidal nutter. 
That's realistically impossible to defend against, especially when the weapon is just a lorry. 

ICBM

p90fool said:

That's realistically impossible to defend against, especially when the weapon is just a lorry. 

It can be done, but it's going to take a vast amount of expense in changing the architecture of the streets anywhere large groups of people are expected to gather, to put in barriers which look innocuous but will stop a lorry.

A lot of modern public spaces are actually being designed like that though, more than you might think - although up until now, the focus has been to stop a truck bomb being driven into buildings.

It was a significant factor in the cost overrun of the new Scottish Parliament building, which had to incorporate a lot of these new features after 9/11.

JezWynd

quarky said:

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. There in black and white. He had a chance to say otherwise, but no, he specifically says that the old laws still apply.

That's some tenuous linkage you've got going there. The 'old' testament hadn't even been compiled when Jesus was around. It was assembled by committee some hundreds of years later. To use those 'quotes' from his mouth to justify a whole load of vicious bile written by religious fanatics is somewhat unfair.

Ro_S

DrJazzTap said:

Of all the places in the world Nice is the last place in the world id expect something like this    

eh?   why would one think that?

It's in France.

Ro_S

@quarky said:

OK. Radical Islam is different from normally practiced Islam, just as radical Christianity is different from normally practiced Christianity.

There is no singular ''normally practiced Islam".  They are different branches, types, forms and varieties of Islam (as is often the case with other major religions).  ISIS follows a certain type.
To portray Islam as a singular religion followed in one universal way, with one radical form existing outside of it, is just false.  
it is ignorant and naive.
It is most unhelpful because it stops us from properly understanding the problem and therefore  trying to deal with it effectively.
It's the same kind of ill-informed thinking that has caused the West to intervene in the Middle East etc in a really bad way.
   

ToneControl

quarky said:

I don't think that is true. The OT talks about killing disobedient children, and non-believers. The Koran "only" talks about making them slaves.

None of the Mosaic texts are shining examples of tolerance, but the Koran is not any worse than the bible or the Torah.

not what I've read, feel free to show me something that contradicts these sources, which I am wary of endorsing, since I don't have enough knowledge to challenge them:

subject: Jews of the Bani Quraizah.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/muhammad/qurayza.aspx



http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=33&verse=25&to=27

(33:26) Allah brought down from their fortresses those People of the Book who had supported the invading confederates40 and cast such terror into their hearts that some of them you kill and some of them you take captive.
40. That is, Jews of the Bani Quraizah.

I never saw anything in the OT  endorsing armed conquest/conversion and genocide.
Anyway, Christianity is based on the NT

ToneControl

impmann said:

There have been millions of people put to death in the name of Christianity since the get go, so lets just park that idea that Christians have any moral high ground.

Radical Islam is different from Islam. FACT. The vast majority of Muslims do not support this sort of action nor do they want to be associated with this.

as far as I can tell, ISIS are closer to the original teachings
the fact that most muslims in the world don't want to  kill is great

I don't give dead Christians from centuries ago the moral high  ground, I rely on the ones alive now not to kill people in the name of God, and since they are currently not launching religious wars , genocide and mass rapes, I would give the ones alive now the moral high ground:  

I can't see your logic really, is it "centuries ago Christians did shitty  things, so did Muslims, therefore  no one can criticise any muslims today who are  doing evil things today"

PolarityMan

It's weird but since having a kid I think this shocks me far more than it would have. I guess maybe even just 5 mins it has made me more empathic with the idea of children being hurt / killed.

dont get me wrong I'd have though it was horrendous before.

a bit of a tangent to the main discussion on religion but there you go

lloyd

The hash tag makes it look like people are saying well done, I know they're not but #niceattack is like #nicetits

quarky

ToneControl said:

as far as I can tell, ISIS are closer to the original teachings
the fact that most muslims in the world don't want to  kill is great

I don't give dead Christians from centuries ago the moral high  ground, I rely on the ones alive now not to kill people in the name of God, and since they are currently not launching religious wars , genocide and mass rapes, I would give the ones alive now the moral high ground:  

I can't see your logic really, is it "centuries ago Christians did shitty  things, so did Muslims, therefore  no one can criticise any muslims today who are  doing evil things today"

Well, lets not forget the IRA. I am pretty sure they are Christian terrorists. There are plenty of killings in the US over abortion done in the name of Christianity. Also the terrorist in the Wisconsin Sihk attack was a Christian. He believed god told him to do it. Scott Roeder killed a physician (who practiced abortions) too. Eric Rudolph who bombed the Atlanta Olympics also tried to bomb abortion clinics in name of Christianity.

Timothy McVeigh was obviously a Christian too. You can say that McVeigh didn't act in the name of Christianity, which I would accept, but did the Nice truck driver? Or was he driven by being a few can short of a six-pack, social exclusion, and living in a society where he feels more in common with people (getting bombed) in Syria and Iraq, than in France?

Just to be clear, I am not defending any of the screwed-up retards, but placing the blame on Islam is actually counter-productive because not only is it not a solution, it makes the exclusion problems worse, and is pretty hypocritical given recent history. Don't forget that a lot of the founders of ISIS were from Iraq, where they were often marginalised in US custody, and also from Saudi, who the US and the West continue to support.

As I said earlier, all the Mosaic religions have screwed up holy books, and a lot to answer for. It isn't really fair to single out Islam more than Christianity or Judaism. They all have blood on their hands, but in all cases, the nutters are (thankfully) only a tiny minority.

And of course, not hundreds of years ago, but Hitler, Stalin, and Leopold II were all raised as Christians.

lloyd

@quarky The big difference with McVey, Hitler, and the IRA is that they were not doing those things "in the name of" their religion or belief. Take a look at these: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/ it's pretty sobering. And to say it's "unfair to single out Islam" is a fucking joke, 99% of terrorist events in the last few years have been Muslims or people that identify as Muslims. Now I'm not saying all Muslims are terrorists, or even most Muslims are terrorists, but it's fair to say that (overwhelmingly) most terrorists are (or identify as) Muslims. I'd say the same thing 30 years ago but replace Muslim with NI Catholic, All your examples of people doing it in gods name are lone fucktards where God is telling them to do it-not an organised terror attack backed and financed by people that are doing these things in islams name, and if we're honest, are following the religious texts to the fucking letter-if Christian fundamentalists were following the bibles rhetoric word for word, they'd be just as bad as these whoppers, but they're not. The problem is is that Muslims (not all calm down) are. To deny that Islam is a problem is unhelpful and disingenuous, there's avert fucking real problem with Islam, and until people step up and accept it without fear of being Called racist, it will continue. Check out this guy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_Fatah (a moderate Canadian-naturalised-Pakistani Muslim) in particular his epic address to the Canadian government and their bullshit leftist ways of dealing with the issue and come back with the same thoughts and comments.

lloyd

And of course, not hundreds of years ago, but Hitler, Stalin, and Leopold II were all raised as Christians.


this is just silly and adds nothing to any debate.

lloyd

The title of the link I put up is hugely misleading too....when 14% of Nigerians are in favour of Isis and 20% don't know you're talking about 16million  citizens in favour and 23 million citizens on the fence about them, that's fucked up IMO. 39 million people out of 117million in a country either neutral or in favour of Isis then we have a problem, and it's similar stats across the board in Muslim countries and you're saying there isn't a problem? Please.

ToneControl

quarky said:

ToneControl said:

as far as I can tell, ISIS are closer to the original teachings
the fact that most muslims in the world don't want to  kill is great

I don't give dead Christians from centuries ago the moral high  ground, I rely on the ones alive now not to kill people in the name of God, and since they are currently not launching religious wars , genocide and mass rapes, I would give the ones alive now the moral high ground:  

I can't see your logic really, is it "centuries ago Christians did shitty  things, so did Muslims, therefore  no one can criticise any muslims today who are  doing evil things today"

Well, lets not forget the IRA. I am pretty sure they are Christian terrorists. There are plenty of killings in the US over abortion done in the name of Christianity. Also the terrorist in the Wisconsin Sihk attack was a Christian. He believed god told him to do it. Scott Roeder killed a physician (who practiced abortions) too. Eric Rudolph who bombed the Atlanta Olympics also tried to bomb abortion clinics in name of Christianity.

Timothy McVeigh was obviously a Christian too. You can say that McVeigh didn't act in the name of Christianity, which I would accept, but did the Nice truck driver? Or was he driven by being a few can short of a six-pack, social exclusion, and living in a society where he feels more in common with people (getting bombed) in Syria and Iraq, than in France?

Just to be clear, I am not defending any of the screwed-up retards, but placing the blame on Islam is actually counter-productive because not only is it not a solution, it makes the exclusion problems worse, and is pretty hypocritical given recent history. Don't forget that a lot of the founders of ISIS were from Iraq, where they were often marginalised in US custody, and also from Saudi, who the US and the West continue to support.

As I said earlier, all the Mosaic religions have screwed up holy books, and a lot to answer for. It isn't really fair to single out Islam more than Christianity or Judaism. They all have blood on their hands, but in all cases, the nutters are (thankfully) only a tiny minority.

And of course, not hundreds of years ago, but Hitler, Stalin, and Leopold II were all raised as Christians.

You are articulating the commonly-held liberal view that  Islam is "like" Christianity, and that bad apples spoil everything, 

That article in the Atlantic challenges that belief, but all you've done so far is to reiterate it. Do you have any specific points in the Atlantic article that you think are flawed? Basically, the contention is that ISIS are doing exactly what The Quran and Mohammed's biography say that he did. Genocide of other religions, slavery and rape, underage sex - it's all there.

There are terrorists who are Christians, but AFAIK  none are following  bible texts word for word, they are  spinning extrapolations that they have made up themselves. In any case,  unless the  Christian fundamentalists in the US start  a Christian holy war, it's an academic point.

The IRA was/is tribal, religion is the badge.
AFAIK Christianity is not cited as a cause for the actions of  Hitler, Stalin, and Leopold II 
Islam was spread by holy war, and the holy books endorse that

Anyway, that article concludes that dismissing Islam as "just another religion" is a mistake. Clearly, disaffected muslims could look to join  a "noble" cause,  but in this case, the ISIS cause actually fits  unaltered  scripture. This is a very powerful combination, which we should not overlook

lloyd

ToneControl said:

quarky said:

ToneControl said:

as far as I can tell, ISIS are closer to the original teachings
the fact that most muslims in the world don't want to  kill is great

I don't give dead Christians from centuries ago the moral high  ground, I rely on the ones alive now not to kill people in the name of God, and since they are currently not launching religious wars , genocide and mass rapes, I would give the ones alive now the moral high ground:  

I can't see your logic really, is it "centuries ago Christians did shitty  things, so did Muslims, therefore  no one can criticise any muslims today who are  doing evil things today"

Well, lets not forget the IRA. I am pretty sure they are Christian terrorists. There are plenty of killings in the US over abortion done in the name of Christianity. Also the terrorist in the Wisconsin Sihk attack was a Christian. He believed god told him to do it. Scott Roeder killed a physician (who practiced abortions) too. Eric Rudolph who bombed the Atlanta Olympics also tried to bomb abortion clinics in name of Christianity.

Timothy McVeigh was obviously a Christian too. You can say that McVeigh didn't act in the name of Christianity, which I would accept, but did the Nice truck driver? Or was he driven by being a few can short of a six-pack, social exclusion, and living in a society where he feels more in common with people (getting bombed) in Syria and Iraq, than in France?

Just to be clear, I am not defending any of the screwed-up retards, but placing the blame on Islam is actually counter-productive because not only is it not a solution, it makes the exclusion problems worse, and is pretty hypocritical given recent history. Don't forget that a lot of the founders of ISIS were from Iraq, where they were often marginalised in US custody, and also from Saudi, who the US and the West continue to support.

As I said earlier, all the Mosaic religions have screwed up holy books, and a lot to answer for. It isn't really fair to single out Islam more than Christianity or Judaism. They all have blood on their hands, but in all cases, the nutters are (thankfully) only a tiny minority.

And of course, not hundreds of years ago, but Hitler, Stalin, and Leopold II were all raised as Christians.

You are articulating the commonly-held liberal view that  Islam is "like" Christianity, and that bad apples spoil everything, 

That article in the Atlantic challenges that belief, but all you've done so far is to reiterate it. Do you have any specific points in the Atlantic article that you think are flawed? Basically, the contention is that ISIS are doing exactly what The Quran and Mohammed's biography say that he did. Genocide of other religions, slavery and rape, underage sex - it's all there.

There are terrorists who are Christians, but AFAIK  none are following  bible texts word for word, they are  spinning extrapolations that they have made up themselves. In any case,  unless the  Christian fundamentalists in the US start  a Christian holy war, it's an academic point.

The IRA was/is tribal, religion is the badge.
AFAIK Christianity is not cited as a cause for the actions of  Hitler, Stalin, and Leopold II 
Islam was spread by holy war, and the holy books endorse that

Anyway, that article concludes that dismissing Islam as "just another religion" is a mistake. Clearly, disaffected muslims could look to join  a "noble" cause,  but in this case, the ISIS cause actually fits  unaltered  scripture. This is a very powerful combination, which we should not overlook

Correct

mellowsun

Pointless analysing religious texts as they are all the ravings of lunatics. I've never understood why anyone would want to live their lives by them or be influenced by them.

quarky

lloyd said:

@quarky The big difference with McVey, Hitler, and the IRA is that they were not doing those things "in the name of" their religion or belief. Take a look at these: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/ it's pretty sobering. And to say it's "unfair to single out Islam" is a fucking joke, 99% of terrorist events in the last few years have been Muslims or people that identify as Muslims. Now I'm not saying all Muslims are terrorists, or even most Muslims are terrorists, but it's fair to say that (overwhelmingly) most terrorists are (or identify as) Muslims. I'd say the same thing 30 years ago but replace Muslim with NI Catholic, All your examples of people doing it in gods name are lone fucktards where God is telling them to do it-not an organised terror attack backed and financed by people that are doing these things in islams name, and if we're honest, are following the religious texts to the fucking letter-if Christian fundamentalists were following the bibles rhetoric word for word, they'd be just as bad as these whoppers, but they're not. The problem is is that Muslims (not all calm down) are. To deny that Islam is a problem is unhelpful and disingenuous, there's avert fucking real problem with Islam, and until people step up and accept it without fear of being Called racist, it will continue. Check out this guy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_Fatah (a moderate Canadian-naturalised-Pakistani Muslim) in particular his epic address to the Canadian government and their bullshit leftist ways of dealing with the issue and come back with the same thoughts and comments.

Jesus, how about some line breaks

Without doubt there are a lot of terrorist acts committed by people who are Islamists, I haven't said otherwise. But I think that many of those attacks would go on regardless of which religion those people were. Some of these people are very recent converts who were already trouble beforehand. They were not normal members of society, they already felt ostracised. What is going on the Middle East just gives them an excuse. And those trying to strike out against the people bombing their homes would still be doing it if religion wasn't involved here. The religion just gives them a shared sense of identity.

-if Christian fundamentalists were following the bibles rhetoric word for word, they'd be just as bad as these whoppers, but they're not

I agree. And I think if the Middle East was Christian, they would be doing just that. Or do you think that if Syria and Iraq were following a different relgion, none of this would be a problem? If so, I would be interested to know why that is.


As for my comment about Hitler, Stalin, Leopold II, that was in reference to bad things done by Christians hundreds of years ago. Actually, you don't need to go anywhere near that far back. Didn't Blair and Bush say they got the "ok" from god before invading Iraq and making huge contributions to this shit-storm?

ToneControl

mellowsun said:

Pointless analysing religious texts as they are all the ravings of lunatics. I've never understood why anyone would want to live their lives by them or be influenced by them.

you  don't need to understand it, you just need to accept that it's a fact that they are influenced dramatically, for some to the point of dying for it as a human bomb, and committing mass murder and rape based on those words 

quarky

ToneControl said:

You are articulating the commonly-held liberal view that  Islam is "like" Christianity, and that bad apples spoil everything, 

That article in the Atlantic challenges that belief, but all you've done so far is to reiterate it. Do you have any specific points in the Atlantic article that you think are flawed? Basically, the contention is that ISIS are doing exactly what The Quran and Mohammed's biography say that he did. Genocide of other religions, slavery and rape, underage sex - it's all there.

There are terrorists who are Christians, but AFAIK  none are following  bible texts word for word, they are  spinning extrapolations that they have made up themselves. In any case,  unless the  Christian fundamentalists in the US start  a Christian holy war, it's an academic point.

The IRA was/is tribal, religion is the badge.
AFAIK Christianity is not cited as a cause for the actions of  Hitler, Stalin, and Leopold II 
Islam was spread by holy war, and the holy books endorse that

Anyway, that article concludes that dismissing Islam as "just another religion" is a mistake. Clearly, disaffected muslims could look to join  a "noble" cause,  but in this case, the ISIS cause actually fits  unaltered  scripture. This is a very powerful combination, which we should not overlook

But that is the case. On a holy book level, Islam *is* like Christianity. I don't disagree that ISIS are following selective passages from the Koran, just like anyone could do exactly the same from the bible. And that is the point. The problem isn't the holy books, it isn't the religion (of course those are problems, but *all of them*), it is the lunatic fringe, who are religious, who could belong to any of them. All those things (slavery, rape, underage sex) are in the bible too. Sorry.

And Christianity was spread by war too, against endorsed by the holy book. Have you read the bible?