Terrorist Attack in France 84 dead and counting

  • News
  • Thread starter StevieTNZ
  • Start date
  • #26
22,089
3,286
That's just disingenuous. Delete "Islam" from your post if you think it irrelevant.
Arguing whether you should say radicals or radical muslims is pretty irrelevant in how to actually solve the problem. So it is just arguing semantics that have no purpose in actually solving the problem. This is silly according to me. Describe them how you wish, the description won't solve the problem.
 
  • Like
Likes StevieTNZ
  • #27
131
40
Reference please, for the US President acknowledging the connection of Islam and terrorists, and not simply "extremist." What he has said instead is that the phrase is a "political talking point", mocking those that say the connection is important.
Do you mean a connection between Islamic extremists and ISIS? He's pretty clear that they follow a perverted brand of Islam:

While Obama has not used those words, he has acknowledged Islam plays a role in the Islamic State’s strategy. Obama has said that even though the Islamic State uses religion to justify its extremism, its ideology does not mesh with mainstream, modern Islamic thought.

"They try to portray themselves as religious leaders — holy warriors in defense of Islam. That’s why ISIL presumes to declare itself the ‘Islamic State.’ And they propagate the notion that America — and the West, generally — is at war with Islam," Obama said at the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism last week. "We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam."

Some have noted that this isn’t that different than some of former President George W. Bush’s language following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and at the onset of the war in Afghanistan.

"This great nation of many religions understands, our war is not against Islam, or against faith practiced by the Muslim people. Our war is a war against evil," Bush said in 2002.
If saying that they follow a perverted brand of Islam is significantly different to you than saying that they're Islamic extremists, then you're looking for reasons to be outraged.

If you mean a connection to "real" Islam, however impossible that is to define, then once again you may be shocked to learn that not everyone agrees with you, including all of those Muslims fleeing in terror from ISIS. If you're going to dig up quotes from the Quran, as if all Muslims study it, interpret it the same way, and live their lives by it, then go ahead. I think that most Muslims are regular people trying to live regular lives, who happen to be Muslim because of where they or their parents were born, just as most people in the southern US just happen to choose to be Christian.

ISIS wants there to be a sharp divide between Muslims and non-Muslims so that Muslims will feel so persecuted they'll have no choice but to run to ISIS-controlled areas. Identifying ISIS with Islam in general will help them achieve that goal.
 
  • Like
Likes micromass
  • #28
russ_watters
Mentor
19,863
6,287
I wonder how much longer people would rather not offend anyone than to take an honest look at the world with respect to religion - maybe it's finally starting to settle in what the cost of walking on eggshells is.
While I do still see that as somewhat of an issue, the PC situation there is improving on that front (including Obama's characterizations, after 7 years of beating it into him). The unfortunate reality is that the more and more Islamic terrorists strike locally in the West, the harder and harder it is to downplay the problem. What's the problem? The problem is that "the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful" is only kind of true if you spin the data right, but either way leaves an enormous number of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers and a huge danger. But people are at least feeling freer to point it out than I think they were before ISIS became so successful:
Islam gets a bad rap, some say, following terrorist attacks these days. After all, “the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people.” I, for one, am glad that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people, especially since there are 1.6 billion followers of Islam in the world....
So where does that leave us?
Seven percent of Muslims in America told Pew researchers that violence against civilians is “sometimes” justified in the name of Islam, and one percent said “often.” Whoa! This means there are more than 100,000 Muslim adults living in this country who could justify a suicide bombing in the name of their religion.

That is not to say that 8% would actually strap on an explosives-packed vest, but the fact that so many find it justifiable is scary enough....

Who would knowingly and willingly accept these odds of a peaceful existence in their own family, neighborhood, workplace or church? For example, would you feel safe accepting a job at a “mostly peaceful” company of 100 employees if that meant only eight of them believed a suicide bombing was sometimes or often justified in the name of their religion (or in the name of anything, for that matter)?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...lam-muslim-radical-lone-wolf-column/86670606/
 
  • #29
22,089
3,286
While I do still see that as somewhat of an issue, the PC situation there is improving on that front (including Obama's characterizations, after 7 years of beating it into him). The unfortunate reality is that the more and more Islamic terrorists strike locally in the West, the harder and harder it is to downplay the problem. What's the problem? The problem is that "the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful" is only kind of true if you spin the data right, but either way leaves an enormous number of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers and a huge danger. But people are at least feeling freer to point it out than I think they were before ISIS became so successful:

So where does that leave us?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...lam-muslim-radical-lone-wolf-column/86670606/
Couple of things I'd like to know an answer to:
1) How many US citizens would say it is sometimes necessary to kill civilians in order to protect US interests? What about killing in name of christianity?
2) With those muslims who say that it is sometimes necessary to kill civilians, what exactly are the reasons under which it would be acceptable to them?
3) What was the exact question of the people who were polled? How were the people sampled exactly?

In the US, we have a presidential candidate who says he would target civilians in order to deter terrorism. Sounds a lot worse to me to be honest.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
jim hardy
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
Dearly Missed
9,839
4,879
reasonable.jpg
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #31
1,518
618
I don't know why, I never watched him when I was younger, but this man always makes me feel better.

I always look for the helpers in the pictures. There are a lot more people wanting to help people than there are those wanting to hurt people.
 
  • #32
russ_watters
Mentor
19,863
6,287
Couple of things I'd like to know an answer to:
1) How many US citizens would say it is sometimes necessary to kill civilians in order to protect US interests?
2) With those muslims who say that it is sometimes necessary to kill civilians, what exactly are the reasons under which it would be acceptable to them?
3) What was the exact question of the people who were polled? How were the people sampled exactly?
If that was an attempt at a mirror image poll question, it was pretty poor. The poll can be found here (linked through from the article):
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/...igion-politics-society-selected-questions.pdf
The exact question is:
"Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?"

I'll let you read about the sampling, but this was from Pew, a respected polling organization.
What about killing in name of christianity?
That's a valid question and concern about the polling that there isn't much basis for comparison: Unfortunately, the polling data on that is fairly poor. I spent a few minutes looking for public opinion polls on the most specific form of Christian supported terrorism I could think of (attacking abortion doctors/clinics) and came up empty except for an online poll.
In the US, we have a presidential candidate who says he would target civilians in order to deter terrorism. Sounds a lot worse to me to be honest.
1. Unless I'm thinking of a different quote, you're misquoting (paraphrasing) him. Are you referring to the quote about going after terrorists' families?
2. Trump bashers view him with self-contradictory glasses, both believing (as nearly everyone does) that he speaks the first thing in his head without thinking while simultaneously believing everything he says is serious.
3. He retracted that (again, if we're thinking of the same quote).
4. So no, I don't agree that it's anywhere close to as bad.
 
  • #33
22,089
3,286
I'll let you read about the sampling, but this was from Pew, a respected polling organization.
I don't care about the respect of an organization. I don't believe any poll or result until I had a careful look at the methodology used.

1. Unless I'm thinking of a different quote, you're misquoting (paraphrasing) him. Are you referring to the quote about going after terrorists' families?
2. Trump bashers view him with self-contradictory glasses, both believing (as nearly everyone does) that he speaks the first thing in his head without thinking while simultaneously believing everything he says is serious.
3. He retracted that (again, if we're thinking of the same quote).
4. So no, I don't agree that it's anywhere close to as bad.
Yes, I'm talking about that quote. And sure, he retracted that and whatever. But I'd say that a lot of american voters would agree with him on that. And he still gets the republican nomination while saying horrible stuff like that. So I think it's a pretty bad situation. If I were looking at this from muslim glasses instead of western glasses, I'd say it's worse than the poll you linked.
 
  • #34
1,518
618
2. Trump bashers view him with self-contradictory glasses, both believing (as nearly everyone does) that he speaks the first thing in his head without thinking while simultaneously believing everything he says is serious.
I think the biggest problem with that is that to be a presidential candidate, that type of thought simply shouldn't pop into your head in the first place. It shows that he simply hasn't thought about it. I'm not political, but even I know that trying to fight terror with more terror doesn't work. Anyone who knows history knows that. The best way to fight terror is with stability and education.

Most ISIS supporters were children or not even born during the US invasion of Iraq, we institutionalize violence in those children so now that's all they know. Dick Cheney said the problem with this way back in 1994: we had nothing to replace Saddam with. It still holds true today, he predicted what would happen almost exactly.
 
  • #35
russ_watters
Mentor
19,863
6,287
I think the biggest problem with that is that to be a presidential candidate, that type of thought simply shouldn't pop into your head in the first place. It shows that he simply hasn't thought about it.
Don't misunderstand me: I agree with you. I have said repeatedly that I don't believe he's serious about much of anything and in particular his candidacy.
 
  • #36
1,518
618
Don't misunderstand me: I agree with you. I have said repeatedly that I don't believe he's serious about much of anything and in particular his candidacy.
Me too, Clinton seemed more prepared with his VP pick than he did. I was kind of hoping during the primary that at some point he's quit the campaign with the legacy "I just wanted to show how stupid people are., it was all a stunt."

Follow Mr. Roger's advise though and the world looks better. Christians circling muslims in Egypt so that they could pray. Muslims giving their clothes to christians to help them blend in during an ISIS hostage situation in Kenya.... that's what I look for.
 
  • #37
russ_watters
Mentor
19,863
6,287
I don't care about the respect of an organization. I don't believe any poll or result until I had a careful look at the methodology used.
That's fine - feel free. I'm aware that even respected polling organizations have flaws. A friend of a friend used to run a fairly major polling organization (CBS's, maybe?) and I had several eye-opening conversations with him about them and their flaws. What struck me the most was that as an insider who was proud of the organization, he basically thought they were perfect and wasn't receptive to even the obvious types of selection bias such as choices of polls and questions that is a problem with these "violence" polls.
Yes, I'm talking about that quote. And sure, he retracted that and whatever. But I'd say that a lot of american voters would agree with him on that.
You've got it all twisted around. Again: since he retracted it, "agreeing" with him would mean agreeing we should not go after terrorists' families. However, since I know you mean you think a lot of American voters think we should go after terrorists' families, my response is that I don't know. I suspect our respective political biases would make our guesses on such a poll's results far apart, but there's really nothing but idle speculation to be had there for either of us.
And he still gets the republican nomination while saying horrible stuff like that. So I think it's a pretty bad situation. If I were looking at this from muslim glasses instead of western glasses, I'd say it's worse than the poll you linked.
People are biased by their position. So sure, some Muslims likely would view that as worse, but they are simply ignoring the obvious reality and instead focusing on words.
 
  • #38
russ_watters
Mentor
19,863
6,287
Me too, Clinton seemed more prepared with his VP pick than he did. I was kind of hoping during the primary that at some point he's quit the campaign with the legacy "I just wanted to show how stupid people are., it was all a stunt."
Unfortunately, the best stunts are ones you follow-through to the end.
Follow Mr. Roger's advise though and the world looks better. Christians circling muslims in Egypt so that they could pray. Muslims giving their clothes to christians to help them blend in during an ISIS hostage situation in Kenya.... that's what I look for.
:thumbup:
 
  • #39
22,089
3,286
Again: since he retracted it, "agreeing" with him would mean agreeing we should not go after terrorists' families.
Pure formally, it would mean that yes. But I usually think that if a politician says something and he retracts it later, then he probably does actually mean it.
 
  • #40
russ_watters
Mentor
19,863
6,287
Pure formally, it would mean that yes. But I usually think that if a politician says something and he retracts it later, then he probably does actually mean it.
Usually that's true, because most of what politicians say is very well planned and if a comment goes over badly it is usually because they didn't vet it well enough with focus groups before saying it. And even if they go off-script, they have been trained for decades in measuring words and rarely say something they haven't planned or thought about or don't believe. But again, we're talking about Trump here, not most politicians. It takes quite a doublethink to simultaneously think he's spouting-off without thinking and that he really believes what he's saying.
 
  • #41
russ_watters
Mentor
19,863
6,287
Trying to move on...

Where the rubber meets the road is what is happening now in the Middle East and what just happened in Nice (and Paris and Paris and on a train from Paris and Orlando and San Bernardino and Columbus and Toronto and Chattanooga and...) . ISIL has both a regular army and the ability to export terrorism on a scale that hasn't been seen before.

Broader: Almost all of the armed conflict in the world today is by or resulting from Islamic extremism.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...2.80.939.2C999_deaths_in_current_or_past_year
That's >90% by 2015 death count or conflict list.
The next two biggest wars (the only others killing over 1,000 people in 2015) were the war in Ukraine and the "Mexican Drug War", which I might quibble about whether it counts as a "war", but it has killed an awful lot of people.

My main geopolitical concern for the next 50 years is what happens as normal oil depletion and US/Canadian fracking destroys the economies of most of the rest of the oil producing world. Islamic terrorism and just general Islamic warmaking is going to keep getting worse. Dealing with it effectively is going to challenge our sensibilities and our ethics.

The US has our gun violence problem and when an Islamic extremist uses one to kill a lot of people (and more and more are going to) it is easy (and lazy) to blame our gun culture. France doesn't have a gun culture, but that didn't stop terrorists from killing more French than Americans with guns over the past couple of years or even more French with a truck than all Americans killed by terrorists' guns in the past couple of years.

Most pundits and politicians (because, Obama) focus more on the gun culture side of it in the US than the Islamic terrorism aspect itself and based on my assumption that Hillary will be our next President, we're not going to do anything about it in the near future. So it will just keep getting worse and worse: I expect 2-4 significant and another half dozen smaller attacks in the US per year over the next few years as people quibble over whether a magazine should be allowed to have 8 or 10 bullets in it.

I don't know how PC politics goes in France, but at least unburdened by gun politics they may have a better chance of dealing with terrorism than we do. They'd better: they are now the West's prime target.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep and jim hardy
  • #42
131
40
I have a few comments about the poll questions but I do want to say that in fairness to mheslep, I don't know if he (I think it's a he) really did try to say that this is representative of true Islam as it's generally understood, which is why I started with an "if." It's just that since no relevant information is being held back, I still don't know what it is that some people are avoiding talking about.

About the polls, that question does say "defend Islam from its enemies," which may put the person being asked in a certain state of mind. Besides swapping Islam with Christianity, I wonder how Americans would have answered the question 60 years ago if Islam was swapped with capitalism and enemies with communism. Considering that the line between civilians and military targets in more traditional wars is never as sharp as people make it out to be (bombing whole cities makes sure of that), would anyone really be surprised if 7% said "sometimes?" A certain percentage of people will always be on board with certain things, Muslims included. It's any attempt to ascribe the cause to Islam itself, or to claim that the other 93% aren't distancing themselves enough from the rest, that bothers a lot of people.
 
  • #43
Evo
Mentor
23,154
2,804
Going back, there is a definite difference between Trump and Clinton.

France attack highlights differences in Trump, Clinton terror responses

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton struck different tones following the France terror attack Thursday night, with Trump saying he'd ask for a declaration of war against ISIS while Clinton called for greater intelligence gathering to fight terror groups.

The two major party candidates' responses again highlighted the sharp differences in their foreign policy stances, with Trump reiterating his belief that the U.S. needs to be "tough" in its response to terrorism.

Although it was not immediately clear whether the assailant had pledged allegiance to ISIS, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly asked Trump if he would seek a declaration of war from Congress against the terror group. (This is not the interview with Wolf Blitzer I had previously referred to)
"I would, I would. This is war," Trump replied. "If you look at it, this is war coming from all different parts."
He reiterated his belief that "we have to be tough" and his view that the U.S. should reverse its decision to allow Syrian refugees into the country.

Asked later Thursday about Trump's response by CNN's Anderson Cooper, Clinton said it was "clear" that the U.S. was at war with terrorist groups, but she said it "was a very different kind of war." But, she argued, greater intelligence gathering, not military force, was necessary.
"They would love to draw the United States into a ground war in Syria," Clinton said. "I would be very focused on the intelligence surge. I would be very focused on working with our partners and allies and intensify our efforts against the ideologues that pedal radical jihadism online."

Cooper then asked Clinton if the U.S. was at war with "radical Islam" -- a phrase Trump often uses on the campaign trail and says is necessary to identify the threat. Clinton and Obama, however, have largely shied away from using the term,believing that associating terrorists with Islam helps to legitimize their interpretation of the religion.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/14/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-nice-france-response/


 
  • #44
1,518
618
Blaming someone else is easier than solving the problem. No jobs? Immigrants took them. Climate going crazy? God's mad at the gays. Economy broken? Jews are hoarding the money. War ravaged and no infrastructure? Progressive muslims and non-muslims are angering Allah.

A person is smart, people are stupid.
 
  • #45
russ_watters
Mentor
19,863
6,287
Considering that the line between civilians and military targets in more traditional wars is never as sharp as people make it out to be (bombing whole cities makes sure of that), would anyone really be surprised if 7% said "sometimes?" A certain percentage of people will always be on board with certain things, Muslims included.
Yes, it is certainly true that up until about 50 years ago killing civilians on purpose was a standard procedure in large wars. So any general/vague question implying such a thing would still have some significant amount of support (and there are broader polls that show that to be true). But the question asked in the poll was not vague, it was highly specific and absolutely not talking about what you suggest.
It's any attempt to ascribe the cause to Islam itself, or to claim that the other 93% aren't distancing themselves enough from the rest, that bothers a lot of people.
Well, again, 93% is only regarding opposition or indifference to the highly specific acts of terrorism like suicide bombings. It doesn't let all of the other 93% off the hook. Much larger fractions support other specific but less severe types religious violence, such a stoning as punishment for adultery. The US isn't covered in the poll, but the majority of Muslims in the world support it:
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

Even broader, the majority of the world's Muslims believe in the subjugation of women.
 
  • #46
russ_watters
Mentor
19,863
6,287
Going back, there is a definite difference between Trump and Clinton.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/14/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-nice-france-response/
Trump shows his ignorance of the war powers he'd receive (possible setup question?) but nevertheless his tougher stance on terrorism than Clinton will put him in good favor on that issue vs her, like basically every Republican candidate ever vs basically every Democratic candidate ever (since terrorism became an issue perhaps 40 years ago).
 
  • #47
Evo
Mentor
23,154
2,804
Trump shows his ignorance of the war powers he'd receive (possible setup question?) but nevertheless his tougher stance on terrorism than Clinton will put him in good favor on that issue vs her, like basically every Republican candidate ever vs basically every Democratic candidate ever (since terrorism became an issue perhaps 40 years ago).
Yeah, but this is not a war where you can point a finger and say "there's the enemy". There are sympathizers (sane or insane) willing to make mass terrorist attacks in the name of ISIS or Islam that these people aren't even aware of, so how would we know about them? What Clinton says makes sense, the way to fight them is with intelligence. Trump can carpet bomb the Middle East and it's only going to make things worse, it'll be like hitting a hornet's nest with a stick, IMO.
 
  • Like
Likes gracy
  • #48
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
Yeah, but this is not a war where you can point a finger and say "there's the enemy".
Those claiming either absolute ends of that question are making the mistake. Not *all* of the enemy can be located, but a great deal of it can be. Al-Raqqah. Mosul. As ISIS resembles in part a macho street gang, the perception of strength matters:

Bin Laden:
"When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will naturally want to side with the strong horse. When people of the world look upon the confusion and atheism of the West, they see that Islam is the strong horse."
Would-be ISIS recruits leaving Europe don't cross the Turkish border and wander aimlessly in the desert; they have a destination. So knocking out its main centers of operations will have an effect on the wannabes, if its done quickly. A prolonged struggle in the ME might encourage recruits, allow tactics to change.
 
  • #49
94
29
Trying to move on...

Where the rubber meets the road is what is happening now in the Middle East and what just happened in Nice (and Paris and Paris and on a train from Paris and Orlando and San Bernardino and Columbus and Toronto and Chattanooga and...) . ISIL has both a regular army and the ability to export terrorism on a scale that hasn't been seen before.

Broader: Almost all of the armed conflict in the world today is by or resulting from Islamic extremism.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...2.80.939.2C999_deaths_in_current_or_past_year
That's >90% by 2015 death count or conflict list.
The next two biggest wars (the only others killing over 1,000 people in 2015) were the war in Ukraine and the "Mexican Drug War", which I might quibble about whether it counts as a "war", but it has killed an awful lot of people.

My main geopolitical concern for the next 50 years is what happens as normal oil depletion and US/Canadian fracking destroys the economies of most of the rest of the oil producing world. Islamic terrorism and just general Islamic warmaking is going to keep getting worse. Dealing with it effectively is going to challenge our sensibilities and our ethics.

The US has our gun violence problem and when an Islamic extremist uses one to kill a lot of people (and more and more are going to) it is easy (and lazy) to blame our gun culture. France doesn't have a gun culture, but that didn't stop terrorists from killing more French than Americans with guns over the past couple of years or even more French with a truck than all Americans killed by terrorists' guns in the past couple of years.

Most pundits and politicians (because, Obama) focus more on the gun culture side of it in the US than the Islamic terrorism aspect itself and based on my assumption that Hillary will be our next President, we're not going to do anything about it in the near future. So it will just keep getting worse and worse: I expect 2-4 significant and another half dozen smaller attacks in the US per year over the next few years as people quibble over whether a magazine should be allowed to have 8 or 10 bullets in it.

I don't know how PC politics goes in France, but at least unburdened by gun politics they may have a better chance of dealing with terrorism than we do. They'd better: they are now the West's prime target.
Russ, the U.S. does not have a "gun" violence problem. We have an urban poor violence problem. It's the culture, not the method, that is the primary cause of deaths. Get rid of the guns, and your basic gang/drug violence will switch to club/knife killing at almost the same rate.
 
  • #50
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
I don't care about the respect of an organization. I don't believe any poll or result until I had a careful look at the methodology used.
Pew has a good reputation because they have a reputation of being careful with methodology, but it is impressive that you both want to be careful and have the mathematical ability to check.

And then comes this from Belgium a few words later:
But I'd say that a lot of american voters would agree with him on that [the killing terrorists families withdrawn comment]....
What's going on?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes russ_watters

Related Threads on Terrorist Attack in France 84 dead and counting

  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
977
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
778
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
10K
Replies
146
Views
10K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
30
Views
5K
Top