Terrorist Attack in France 84 dead and counting

[newjerseyrunner]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[micromass]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[Tobias Funke]

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.

 

[Evo]

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/

 

[newjerseyrunner]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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).

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[mheslep]

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.

 

[Dr_Zinj]

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.

 

[mheslep]

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?

 

[mheslep]

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.

Agreed, an accurate description alone won't solve the problem. However, refusal to adequately define the enemy makes the problem of fighting and beating an enemy unsolvable.

18. Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Some cut and paste Tzu is not required here; knowing the enemy, the level of threat, their abilities, their motivation, is common sense. One type of radical, say the Weather Underground, consisted of a few like minded upper class individuals who made a ~dozen bombs to blow up a few people and buildings around a single issue. Another, the Unabomber, sits in a remote cabin in the woods recruiting nobody, limited to murder and mutilation via the mail. Radical Islamic Jihadists demand tyrannical control over a nation state, actively preach world domination by that state along with the end of times, recruit from the margins of a billion Muslims worldwide via a twisted religious message.

Treating all these groups the same is bound to fail to arrest/eliminate them.

 

[rootone]

Most reports I read about this suggested the guy was not known as a religious extremist and not even a regular attendee at a mosque.
He did however have a history of being unpredictably violent, was known to social workers etc, and while not in treatment for a psychosis, that might have been a good idea.

 

[dipole]

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.

1. It is not the US's policy to kill civilians. Many civilians have died in the Middle East due to U.S. military activity there, but frankly that number is dwarfed by the number killed due to Islamic in-fighting. And given how many civilians we could kill, or have the capacity to kill, the U.S. has shown remarkable restraint. Muslim terrorists, on the other hand, have killed about as many people as they possibly can, given their capacity to, and deliberately target innocent people. There is a huge difference here you are ignoring.

Further, even if polls did find that a similar number of people would agree it's justified sometimes to kill in the name of Christianity, the fact is Christians aren't doing it. There are virtually zero Christian terrorists targeting innocent people. The Muslims, on the other hand, have not only made their opinion known, but have shown time and time again they're willing to act on it.

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.

Then find a flaw with it and report back. Otherwise you're just burying your head in the sand because you don't want to accept the findings of the poll.

 

[nikkkom]

http://www.gettyimages.com/pictures...ding-refugees-welcome-on-news-photo-487115924