Cnn saying someone drove down the street for 2km shooting people and running over them. France24 not mentioned shooting at all in last 20 mins.

Who have it right?

What's your plan domer? What should we be doing differently?

I know, "for starters stop coddling Radical Islam". Ok. Then what do you expect to happen or plan to do next?

I'll respond but then shut myself up because this is just a derail. I think it's an extremely important debate to have, but in my experience, when such serious debates come up in venues like a thread reporting the tragic breaking news, they tend to be more emotional, less reasoned, and more bitter/nasty. I didn't make my post as some sort of deep ethical plea for consideration of the victims and their families so please don't take my post as some weird righteousness as that was not my intent. As I said, I think it's an important discussion but I also think it warrants its own thread and will be a better debate there precisely because so many people will get upset at it showing up here. It's not right or wrong, it's just reality.

Great call. Just make it go away.

RELIGION!

You have to appreciate some of the hubris here, though, right, that like the REAL EXISTENTIAL THREAT ('suicidal') is the censorship of 'anti Muslim speech.' I mean look, forgetting entirely for a moment the qualitative impressions and whether it's bigoted trash or whatever, just how ****ing important do you think lectures from western white people are, anyway? Like seriously? Like OK, I'll even ****ing assume for a hot minute here the Islamophobes are right, I mean Muslims are the worst and squishy pussy losers should STAND DOWN and give *******s the floor to say just the worst things about Muslims.

You guys think THAT is the missing piece to the puzzle?! The ****? Look I don't want to bust any precious allusions here but I remain pretty confident Sam Harris and the legions of internet idiots preening about how Islam is turd are really not fundamental to our existence and it's a wee bit ****ing presumptuous for people to run around ham-handedly claiming their perceived censorship is literal national suicide. I mean for ****'s sake, really. Sam Harris isn't saying anything that interesting. And then from there it might be worth pointing out that actually, empirically, Islamaphobic rhetoric is literally EVERYWHERE and yet here we are, this thing in Nice really just happened.

And...? Let's assume this is true.

1/4 of French Muslims support an ideology as evil as Nazism and a group as evil as the Third Reich. Do you think cultural relativism and "softly softly, let's not upset the people with the vile ideology" is working?

How about:

- We stop claiming it's a "tiny minority". That's a straight out lie.

- We stop pretending Islam is a "peaceful religion" - it's the most violent, religiously fascist, xenophobic, misogynist, bigoted religion on the planet by a huge margin. Its worst elements are believed by a large proportion of global Muslims. Yes most Muslims are peaceful. So were most Nazis. Apologizing for Islam is like apologizing for Nazism. Just because there is moderate Nazism (and most Germans were moderate Nazis) doesn't mean Nazism should therefore be apologized for.

- We stop importing into our peaceful, open, female rights, gay rights, free speech countries, people who don't and can't respect those cultures due to their deeply ingrained ideologies.

Is that really so unreasonable?

Where I live, heavily armed soldiers have to patrol synagogues, Jewish schools and houses around the clock, because of a kind of violent antisemitism - widely taught in the mosques here - that hasn't existed since the Nazis, but that Islam brings with it. Jews are leaving France in record numbers because of it.

There's a problem here - let's say it. Let's talk about it. Let's admit it.

This is what happens when you're not even able to say "Radical Islamic Terror" and care more about vanity than actual people - including the Muslims brutalized by ISIS. It's what happens when your view of the world is informed by left-wing cultural relativism rather than reality.

Ideas matter. The conversations we have and how honest we are about this stuff matters. ISIS would not be anything like it is today and this attack tonight would not have happened if a person with a more sane understanding of the world was in the White House.

How does one eliminate radical islam?

I think that the non-articulated and possibly non-conscious thought flow goes like this:

1. Start talking tough about Radical Islam.
2. Put regular Muslims on notice they are responsible for snuffing this stuff out.
3. If regular Muslims can't end terrorism, well they are responsible, so there will be consequences.
4. If those consequences cause more terrorism, well there will be worse consequences.
5. ...
6. ...
7. ...
8. [unclear - but whatever the end game they brought it on themselves]

https://twitter.com/StevieK23/status...810624?lang=en

Islamic terrorism predated this by a long time, including many high profile attacks in the 70s, 80s, and 90s culminating in 9/11. No doubt that these events exacerbated the situation, but they did not create them.

Do agree with the second part of your post, tho.

Easy, just kill all the Muslims.

And like, I think you'll find that France isn't exactly shy about letting people spout off anti-Muslim speech. Telling the PC Police to stand down so you can freely post Le Pen campaign ads sure isn't working.

And I know I'll probably get banned for that post because Wookie and people like him are bigots. So be it. I and thousands of panicked people ran for my life tonight, afraid of an ISLAMIC gunman (what we though it was before we found out it was a truck) and I'm not going to shut up about it.

From what I hear tough words are their kryptonite.

Good, I think you are realizing that it should not even be a question! Tones have changed since Charlie Hebdo. In my mind the first part of defeating a threat is understanding its nature, which many are still in denial about.

I mean look, I can appreciate that from something of an esoteric perspective, like, should the combined powers of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and the curators of AllanWest.com be allowed a completely unfettered TedTalk to trash Islam to no end while Barack Obama nods along and gives them the thumbs up while whiny PC liberals just shut the **** up? Maybe? Well, the answer is no, but OK, whatever, that's a funny thought exercise.

But for ****'s sake if you guys LITERALLY think that is a deterrent to terrorism.

But people argue with an apparently straight face their perceived censorship (again, the world is actually FLOODED with anti-Islamic rhetoric but whatever) is actually allowing these attacks to happen.

Nobody is going to ban you for that, but you aren't offering solutions. Ok, Islam is violent. Great, what now? Ban people from practicing it? Kill the Muslims?

How do you stop people from practicing a religion that you believe to be inherently violent?

It's like people haven't read the Koran.

ISIS are just following the life and acts of Muhammed, who all Muslims consider blameless and an example of a good life.

What do you think the number is?

There's no other group killing innocent people by the tens of thousands, not even if you combine all other groups and individual attacks does it even get close.

Part of this "well maybe you're right it's a problem" shtick is a purposeful and convenient denial of reality.

It needs to be excised from the planet like the deadly cancer it is. Easiest way to do that is probably Muslims themselves excising the worst elements, something that many have heretofore shown little interest in doing.

It is also equally impossible to get average people to understand this, so politics goes on regardless. People (in the West, generally speaking) are immured by ignorance and largely isolated from the direct realities of waging war.

Full stop. Who's not allowed to say that? Sure seems like people are invoking these magic words left and right and somehow that's not stopping ISIS.

Excellent post.

You seem to be mistaken of GWB's motivation for invading Iraq. Comparing the costs of a occupation undertaken to enrich monied interests vs. specific missions to destroy an occupying enemy in an isolated environment is a silly and pointless comparison.