1/3 of the victims were muslims. Further proof that those idiots that terrorise us are not muslims and the real danger is confusing all muslims for terrorists and dividing communities.
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/soc...cGMXO5PupDD.01
(this is a rightwing newspaper btw)
They can - for many reasons; including being the wrong kind of muslim. I'm still trying to figure out if there is any real difference between sunni, shia, or the various variants of them - like 7ers, 12ers - but at least I know that the difference is worth killing for.
It's also ironic to claim that 'the real danger is ... dividing communities' - when the terrorists are due to pre-existing divided communities.
- - - Updated - - -
There is a difference between wanting to know the facts to make a judgement based on establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubts - and requiring more facts to not pass any judgement - since there is always some unknown.
People see through that façade hiding the lack of solution, and thus listen to people who present any solution. A year ago no-one thought that a US presidential candidate would want to ban all muslims entering the US.
And you think I don't want to pass any judgement why exactly?
I really don't care what people do. I am still going to wait till I know all the facts before I cast a judgement because its the right thing to do.
I am lucky to have been born in an age of reason and logic. And I'm not going to throw this incredible gift away and start panicking and become irrational.
Because that is, afterall, a sign of weakness.
Djalil is like the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail. The king cuts off Djalil's arm, Dajil says "it is but a scratch" Then the king cuts off Djalil's leg. Dajil says "it is but a flesh wound".
The killer's uncle has said the truck driver was working with ISIS. Another witness said he had started growing a beard.
.
"This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."
-- Capt. Copeland
Neither the uncle's statements nor the fact that the man was growing a beard is enough evidence to cast a final judgement.
You can do that obviously if all you want is reassurances about your own ideas and opinions.
I don't personally need that though.
Your analogy is, as usual absurd and misplaced. But I grew used to it so yeah. You can keep on talking.
Well, I could have worded it better, so ill explain it like this: Actions like the one in Nice, basically always happens due to some sort of "political/religious/similar" motive or other - ie terrorism (which the perpetrator of course might have embraced partly/largely due to personal problems) - and never due to something as simple as the perpetrator "feeling bad". The only example I can think of, right now, where someone killed a comparable amount of people and wasn't a more or less clear cut terrorist, was the german pilot that crashed his plane. Which is a very bad example either way, since it was basically an extended suicide (the passengers were collateral damage, even if he wanted to have such - he never had to actively kill anyone, only himself, and he likely wouldn't have managed to do so either - and most definitely not a la the guy in Nice).
At this point, people will obviously bring up mass shootings and similar events. The thing is though, that when it comes to actually committing crimes like that, it's a world of difference between killing entirely random people, ie viewing the population of an entire city/country as your enemy, children and adults alike, to attacking an institution (like a school) and those that you feel are actual, substantial authors of your pain. Be the reasons logical or not, its a huge difference. Which is most easily seen by the fact that more or less all mass shootings couldn't have occurred in another setting than they took place (be it geographically, or victims) - there was a very, very personal connection there. That is not true for Nice, at all, where he simply chose a location based on it allowing him to kill as many people as possible. The difference can be further accentuated by looking at the death toll - the former method usually doesn't result in numbers even remotely close to the latter.
The guy in Nice absolutely reeks of terrorist, with far more incentive than "feeling bad". I don't doubt that the origin of the issue lies in his personal problems, but it definitely drove him into the arms of something far more sinister, than the out-of-control emotions of a single individual.
Looks like it was a planned terror attack
http://www.wdrb.com/story/32495887/f...ned-for-months
PARIS (AP) - The truck driver who killed 84 people on a Nice beachfront had accomplices and appears to have been plotting his attack for months, the Paris prosecutor said Thursday.
Prosecutor Francois Molins said five suspects currently in custody are facing preliminary terrorism charges for their alleged roles in helping 31-year-old Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel in the July 14 attack in the southern French city. Molins' office, which oversees terrorism investigations, opened a judicial inquiry Thursday into a battery of charges for the suspects, including complicity to murder and possessing weapons tied to a terrorist enterprise.
cont...
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-fra...s-d-images.php
Prosecutor asks to destroy video from 6 cameras of attack to prevent their dissemination, which town says they can't do since they are doing full backup as requested before that and can't stop it???
And that they never had such requests (to destroy evidence) before, and think they might be persecuted if they comply? :/
Wtf is going on in France?
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/fra...plices-n614251
another source
http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Ermittler...e18247991.html
So yeah, planned attack say police investigators as well as state prosecutor Molins. Evidence shows that and that he had several accomplices, who helped at least in getting the weapons found on his person and in the truck.
No direct link to a terrorist organisation has beend discovered as of now, but they have very compelling evidence that he was radicalized (possibly by himself) and repeatedly expressed sympathy for terrorist attacks and isis such as the attack on charlie hebdo.
Well, you are wrong. I've visited 4 muslim majority countries so far (actually thats not "quite a few", but a few at least). I enjoyed each visit and would recommend them all as tourist destinations, with a small caveat for Tunis as they have a rather unstable neighbourhood just now. The other three being Morocco, Turkey and the Maldives.
I don't know what the lack of knowledge thing was about. Are you actually challenging the fact that islam was spread with the sword back in the day? Religion and knowledge are often at odds, which is why I made the last remark. It did not refer to one single religion, rather than all of them. Also, we don't really get foxnews around here, mostly russian propaganda through RT, but it's far too tiresome to watch.
Since we nowadays already know what the dude was all about, I'll leave the "depressed poor guy" thing to rest.
"It's just like I always said! You can do battle with strength, you can do battle with wits, but no weapon can beat a great pair of tits!"