France Truck Massacre 23 replies

Please wait...

Aeia

Live with honor, die for justice!

90 XP

3rd May 2016

0 Uploads

181 Posts

1 Threads

#1 2 years ago

It is very surprising to see no active Pub-reporters have posted about it.

France Truck Massacre  Basically a sadistic lunatic got in a heavy truck and rode over scores of people on Bastille Day. The police shot him dead in his cabin. The criminal is known as (Mohammad) Lahouaiej Bouhlel.

And he is not a Muslim despite having a Muslim-sounding name  This is the third most devastating massacre in France in 18 months. As usual isis has jumped on the opportunity and claimed responsibility for the attack.

I wonder why those monkeys would want to harm France, though, considering France has openly shown a pro-Palestinian stance in its January 2016 statement.

In January 2016 French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius announced that France would convene an international conference with the objective of enabling new Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. He said, however, that if these talks were unsuccessful, then France would recognize a Palestinian state. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France%E2%80%93Israel_relations#2000s)

And it doesn't have any vivid part in the large scale massacre going on in the middle East. What is wrong with some people?




RadioactiveLobster Forum Admin

Jeff is a mean boss

565,401 XP

28th July 2002

0 Uploads

53,121 Posts

1,330 Threads

#2 2 years ago

Have there been massive public outcry to ban trucks yet?

As for the attack itself, its horrible (obviously) but it's very hard to combat people like this.


If there is no image, Mikey broke something...



Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,365 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,147 Posts

5 Threads

#3 2 years ago

I find it instructive in such issues to ask the question 'why not?' rather than 'why?' Why not take a truck and slaughter dozens of innocent people? You or I wouldn't, because we're invested in a society and the wealth of the country and the safety of its members to some degree align with what we identify with - but that really doesn't go for everyone.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,010 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#4 2 years ago

"Aeia"It is very surprising to see no active Pub-reporters have posted about it.

France Truck Massacre  Basically a sadistic lunatic got in a heavy truck and rode over scores of people on Bastille Day. The police shot him dead in his cabin. The criminal is known as (Mohammad) Lahouaiej Bouhlel.

And he is not a Muslim despite having a Muslim-sounding name  This is the third most devastating massacre in France in 18 months. As usual isis has jumped on the opportunity and claimed responsibility for the attack.

I wonder why those monkeys would want to harm France, though, considering France has openly shown a pro-Palestinian stance in its January 2016 statement.

In January 2016 French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius announced that France would convene an international conference with the objective of enabling new Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. He said, however, that if these talks were unsuccessful, then France would recognize a Palestinian state. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France%E2%80%93Israel_relations#2000s)

And it doesn't have any vivid part in the large scale massacre going on in the middle East. What is wrong with some people?[/quote] Of all European powers France is, perhaps with exception of the UK, the most hard-core supporter of military action in the Middle East. They played an important role in the intervention in Libya and have contributed more to the fight against IS than other European nations, including a carrier task force.

However, France has a relatively large Muslim population that isn't well integrated due to France's historical background as colonial power. That makes it easy for IS to recruit second-generation migrants and have them participate in revenge attacks for France's involvement.

Also, France is a much easier target because of the open borders of the EU, so France takes some hits that would otherwise likely have come to the US or UK.

I don't think IS cares a whole lot about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The IS is a group of extremist Sunnites whereas Palestinians mostly receive support from Shia Islam.

[quote="RadioActiveLobster"]Have there been massive public outcry to ban trucks yet?

France already has pretty strict regulation of trucks, but obviously they understand that even strict regulation doesn't help with this sort of terror attack. Still, it is very likely that security policies regarding vehicles on national holidays will be reviewed. That's because the French have a strong tradition of collectivism which places the interests of society above the short-sighted egoistical concerns of people who pretend like free access to trucks is a right on par with the really important aspects of a modern free society (which was basically invented by the French).




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,365 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,147 Posts

5 Threads

#5 2 years ago

I've yet to see immigrant integration done particularly well anywhere. Many of us moan about the problem, but I don't see too many programmes lining up to teach them English or French when they get off the boat, or translating their qualifications into the local equivalent, (which despite there supposedly being a parity across the EU for such things needs to happen.) Nor do I see too many programmes that try to avoid people being economically pushed into little cultural enclaves where they'll have a concentrated sub-culture at odds with your own.

If you make the assumption that the immigrant problem cannot be controlled at the borders, then actually putting the support in place for them to integrate is probably a good idea.




Aeia

Live with honor, die for justice!

90 XP

3rd May 2016

0 Uploads

181 Posts

1 Threads

#6 2 years ago

"Nemmerle"I find it instructive in such issues to ask the question 'why not?' rather than 'why?'[/quote]

Because the possibilities are infinite and most countries have population in tens of millions. We cannot really investigate why not would everyone of these millions act psychotically because we do not really know all the details about everyone. We focus on the cause of the problem, because the factors applying against the cause are just too many to calculate.

In the set of all the people in the world, the norm is to not go on a rampage, mincing people under truck-tyres. So the research ought to be focussed at finding the factors active behind the exceptions, not the norm.

[quote="MrFancypants"]Of all European powers France is, perhaps with exception of the UK, the most hard-core supporter of military action in the Middle East. They played an important role in the intervention in Libya and have contributed more to the fight against IS than other European nations, including a carrier task force.

Intervening in Libya and overthrowing Qazzafi was probably one of the worst decisions by the western powers. This has only led to more anarchy and unrest in the region than stabilizing it. Anyway, that's not the point of the current thread.

It is rather ... strange to see a Western power working against  the generally perceived political/military interests of the West. While most western powers are unified in their desire to overthrow Assad (somehow they always feel inclined to bend over for KSA's interests). Overthrowing Assad (shia) and installing a puppet government (sunni) in Syria would irreparably damage the political equilibrium of the region. First, they took out Saddam then Qazzafi and Mubarak, later sponsoring uprising in Yemen. And now Syria. What is the whole damn point of this? Anyhow, this is also off-topic.

What is seriously dangerous is that shocking massacres are occurring in a Western power which is working against terrorism and violation of human rights in Middle East. Is this all blind rage by the is monkeys or a coordinated series of well-planned killings to pressurize French government to rethink their stance on Palestine-Israel and Mid-Eastern situation?




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,010 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#7 2 years ago

"Nemmerle"I've yet to see immigrant integration done particularly well anywhere. Many of us moan about the problem, but I don't see too many programmes lining up to teach them English or French when they get off the boat, or translating their qualifications into the local equivalent, (which despite there supposedly being a parity across the EU for such things needs to happen.) Nor do I see too many programmes that try to avoid people being economically pushed into little cultural enclaves where they'll have a concentrated sub-culture at odds with your own.

If you make the assumption that the immigrant problem cannot be controlled at the borders, then actually putting the support in place for them to integrate is probably a good idea.

Quite a bit of effort goes into integrating refugees over here. The government pays for language courses and free housing (while making sure that there is no clustering). There is also a lot of volunteer work. Maybe that is not enough, but it beats the support that previous migrant waves received.

But if France and Belgium are any indication of things to come we will be in pretty deep shit a couple of years from now. In my opinion what would be needed to avoid terrorist attacks in the near future would be a sort of de-islamisation program for migrants. Unfortunately there is a lot of polarization going on. There are right-wing populists with their extremist position. Noone wants to be associated with those idiots, so everyone else sort of ignores the issues that come with those Muslim refugees. Their world view is very different from ours. And it is different in a bad way.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,010 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#8 2 years ago

"Aeia" Intervening in Libya and overthrowing Qazzafi was probably one of the worst decisions by the western powers. This has only led to more anarchy and unrest in the region than stabilizing it. Anyway, that's not the point of the current thread.

It is rather ... strange to see a Western power working against  the generally perceived political/military interests of the West. While most western powers are unified in their desire to overthrow Assad (somehow they always feel inclined to bend over for KSA's interests). Overthrowing Assad (shia) and installing a puppet government (sunni) in Syria would irreparably damage the political equilibrium of the region. First, they took out Saddam then Qazzafi and Mubarak, later sponsoring uprising in Yemen. And now Syria. What is the whole damn point of this? Anyhow, this is also off-topic.

What is seriously dangerous is that shocking massacres are occurring in a Western power which is working against terrorism and violation of human rights in Middle East. Is this all blind rage by the is monkeys or a coordinated series of well-planned killings to pressurize French government to rethink their stance on Palestine-Israel and Mid-Eastern situation?

Well the motivation of the IS is pretty clear. They attack France because they want France to withdraw from the coalition that bombs them in Iraq and Syria. Al Quaeda had success with this strategy, for example when they bombed trains in Spain.

As for Libya - it is true that it created instability. But the alternative (letting Gaddafi slaughter his own people) wasn't really an option. Without the intervention LIbya would look like Syria does now - an unresolved civil war with lots of casualties, the potential to spill over and lots of refugees.

As for Syria - it is too bad that the West didn't have the balls to enact regime change early on. It would have been consistent with previous actions (i.e. a strong signal for other tyrants not to kill their own people) and might have prevented IS from being as much of a threat as they are today (Assad used extremist Islamists to defeat moderate Islamists). As things go Syria will turn into another Afghanistan, i.e. a failed state ruled by warlords for the next couple of decades. Not to mention that big risk of the Syrian conflict turning into something much more ugly now that pretty much everyone is fighting everyone there.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,365 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,147 Posts

5 Threads

#9 2 years ago
"Aeia"Because the possibilities are infinite and most countries have population in tens of millions. We cannot really investigate why not would everyone of these millions act psychotically because we do not really know all the details about everyone. We focus on the cause of the problem, because the factors applying against the cause are just too many to calculate. In the set of all the people in the world, the norm is to not go on a rampage, mincing people under truck-tyres. So the research ought to be focussed at finding the factors active behind the exceptions, not the norm.

That depends upon apriori knowledge of what the search space looks like. If there are many factors against a thing, none particularly powerful, and it's some intersection of those factors that creates a sufficient disincentive, then the complexity of the search space in regards to a negative criteria is high. If there are numerous factors in favour of a thing, again none particularly powerful, and it's the intersection of those factors that creates a sufficient incentive, then the complexity of the search space in regards to a positive criteria is high.

Put another way: people may have many reasons for doing a thing and many reasons for not doing a thing. The size of a set does not tell you its variance. It makes sense, if you're starting off investigating something, to start with the obvious and check if it's the same in both cases. Will that give you an exhaustive account? No, there's no guarantee of that without exhaustively going through the search space regardless of the strategy you use. But it's a reasonable place to start.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,365 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,147 Posts

5 Threads

#10 2 years ago

"MrFancypants"Quite a bit of effort goes into integrating refugees over here. The government pays for language courses and free housing (while making sure that there is no clustering). There is also a lot of volunteer work. Maybe that is not enough, but it beats the support that previous migrant waves received.

But if France and Belgium are any indication of things to come we will be in pretty deep shit a couple of years from now. In my opinion what would be needed to avoid terrorist attacks in the near future would be a sort of de-islamisation program for migrants. Unfortunately there is a lot of polarization going on. There are right-wing populists with their extremist position. Noone wants to be associated with those idiots, so everyone else sort of ignores the issues that come with those Muslim refugees. Their world view is very different from ours. And it is different in a bad way.

Cool. Be nice if we did that over here.

As for de-islamisation... I'm not sure how that would work. It strikes me that if you could talk someone out of their religion relatively easily on some objective criteria - just going 'hypothesis complexity high, no supporting evidence... zing!' there would be no religious people.

How do we imagine this working?