[Frollein]

What do you propose, Frollein?

Not tolerating that ideology or its proponents inside our own borders would be a start. You can't found a Nazi party in Germany, but you can scream racist shit inside a mosque and ax people on a train without problems. Do you see a problem with that? I do.

[Frollein]

It appears that the French authorities still have no evidence to link the attack to an Islamist group. Aside from an SMS sent by the attacker asking for more arms, they don't seem to have much. And even this SMS message sent minutes before the attack contradicts what the French authorities are saying. If the attack was planned, why ask for more arms only minutes before the attack? If he had been decided on a suicide attack at that moment, it wouldn't make any sense to order arms for later use.

The assassin of Nice had planned his attack with the help of at least five accomplices, according to investigators. The 31 -year-old Tunisian Mohamed Lahouaiej - Bouhlel had assistance in the preparation of the attack, the French anti-terror prosecutor Francois Molins said Thursday in Paris. The attack itself had been planned for months.

Molins' office opened a criminal investigation for membership in a terrorist organization against five suspects and asked for their detention. The alleged helpers of the assassin are four men and one woman.

Source

Ok - what bullshit apology will you come up with next?

[abu afak]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Jihad Report
Jul 09, 2016 -
Jul 15, 2016

Attacks - 41
Killed - 364
Injured - 491
Suicide Blasts - 6
Countries - 13

Jihad Report
June, 2016

Attacks - 238
Killed - 2055
Injured - 2006
Suicide Blasts - 43
Countries - 33

(+Lists of specifics last 30 days
or 10 yrs)

[skinster]

...local authorities in Nice have refused a request by French anti-terror police to destroy CCTV images of last week's lorry attack.

[Atlantis]

The attacks in France show that its colonial past endures

In new talk of a war against terror with no frontline, the legacy of empire in north Africa and its impact on the French Muslim community is ever present

The attack in Nice, in which 84 people were mown down by a French resident of Tunisian origin, has been a watershed in French politics. After the trauma of the killings, incidents of open, blatant, anti-Muslim hatred have sparked a new, worrying phase.

Some point to the French republic’s specific brand of secularism – its model of laïcité (the prohibition of religious influence on anything that relates to the republic) inherited from the 1905 law separating church and state – which is often caricatured and misunderstood. Others point to France’s recent military interventionism in the Muslim world, from west Africa to Iraq. Yet more highlight the discrimination its Muslim minorities suffer. None of this can be ignored.

But an essential backdrop to many of the reactions to recent terror is France’s history, which ties its domestic politics to the turmoil of the Arab world like those of no other European state. France and Germany have the largest Muslim populations in Europe. Unlike Germany, whose Muslims are mostly of Turkish origin, France’s minority is overwhelmingly Arab because of the country’s colonial past. (In the UK, for reasons also linked to empire, Muslims are generally of Asian background.)

Chaos and violence in the Middle East resonate in France as nowhere else in Europe. This is rarely mentioned by French politicians and officials, who tend to point to the fact that jihadi terrorism targets all western societies. But France’s specific complexities are hard to overlook. Talk of a country “at war”, in the aftermath of terrorist attacks whose perpetrators and accomplices have in most cases been French Muslims, stirs the ghosts of the Algerian war of 1954-1962.

In France, the colonial past is not dead, and it’s not even the past. Marine Le Pen’s Front National is often described as a neo-fascist party, but unlike other far-right movements in Europe, its origins aren’t found in the ideologies of Mussolini and Hitler but in France’s colonial history.

The historian Benjamin Stora has described this backdrop as a “transfer of memory”: memories of the colonial era across the Mediterranean are transferred to contemporary France. Millions of people in France still live with conflicting views on Algeria: the families of the one million French conscripts who served in the war; those of the approximately one million colonial pied noirs (Christian and Jewish people) who fled Algeria after its independence in 1962; those of hundreds of thousands of harkis, Muslim Algerians who worked alongside the French colonists and later also fled to France.

And then, of course, there are the children of migrants from North Africa, many of whom feel disenfranchised. Gilles Kepel, a prominent French academic, has written about how some of these youths, consciously or unconsciously, are “refighting” the battles their parents or grandparents papered over when they settled in France.

Look no further than France’s current state of emergency to see how the Algerian war is ever present. The French 1958 constitution and its high concentration of executive power was born from that conflict. Words such as “assimilation” and “integration”, much used to this day when immigration is discussed, hark back to this era. France has a hard time thinking of Islam in terms other than assimilation or ghettoisation, and that has to do with the way it treated its Algerian territory from 1848 to 1962. This predated laïcité.

It seems the attack in Nice has opened a Pandora’s box of painful memories and prejudice. Unlike the 2015 attacks in Paris, this onslaught occurred in a region characterised by a strong presence of “repatriated” families from colonial Algeria and their children and grandchildren. The south-east of France has been a hotbed of the Front National’s political rise.

Nostalgia for French colonial might is still powerful, if unspoken
This is the context in which some families of the Muslim victims of the Bastille Day attack (an estimated third of those killed) have reportedly been insulted in the streets of Nice, in some cases just after they had visited the morgue.

The parallel with France’s Algerian past is the perception that this is now a war with no frontline, in which danger can emerge at any time, anywhere, and in which Arabs living among the supposedly “real” French form a distinct, homogeneous, threatening entity.

The Front National may, under Marine Le Pen, have neutralised its antisemitism (breaking away, for electoral purposes, from the leftovers of the Vichy era of Nazi occupation); but it very much continues to pander to the colonial notion that “true” French identity is threatened by Muslim culture. The roots of its narrative, in a nutshell, are: good Muslims are those who stay subdued and dominated, as in the heyday of France’s colonial possessions.

Nostalgia for French colonial might is still powerful, if unspoken. Yet as Stora and others have analysed, knowledge of that era remains patchy, among both France’s Muslims and its non-Muslims. The National Museum of the History of Immigration was inaugurated only in 2014.

In a recent parliamentary debate on the state of emergency, one of France’s younger politicians, Bruno Le Maire, made an extraordinary statement that reveals much about where the country is heading. Le Maire is running in the rightwing primaries for the presidential election and he comes from the Gaullist side of the political spectrum – not the Front National (which hates De Gaulle because he negotiated Algeria’s independence).

According to Le Maire, the enemy that must be “fought with utmost strength within France” is “political Islam”. He didn’t say “jihadi fundamentalism”. He defined political Islam as “Islam that criticises our culture” and “wants to make women invisible”. This is what French colonists thought about Muslims in general.

France’s republican model is not responsible for the terrorism it endures. But it is a European country that, unlike others struck by terrorism, still has to come to terms with its colonial past if it wants to build an inclusive, promising future for all its citizens.

[Zionist Nationalist]

^ The PC brigade will always search for reasons to put the blame on the white man

[Potemkin]

^ The PC brigade will always search for reasons to put the blame on the white man

History happened, ZN. As the article says (quoting William Faulkner), the past is not dead; in fact, it's not even the past.

[Political Interest]

That article is very old fashioned. It is the sort of analysis you would have expected in 2005.

Most of the recruits to these extremist groups are not doing it because they are disenfranchised. They do it because they are excited young men who are attracted to the romance of a cause. A lot of Islamists come from well of economic backgrounds as well. It is no different to those middle class Europeans who volunteered for the SS.

[Atlantis]

Most of the recruits to these extremist groups are not doing it because they are disenfranchised.

It's the subjective perception of being disenfranchised that breeds resentment.

Objectively, they may be better off than people living in Africa, but that counts little in their feeling of having had a raw deal, just like European underdogs feel resentment against the immigrants even if they are pampered by the welfare state.

They do it because they are excited young men who are attracted to the romance of a cause.

I wouldn't call it romance, but they certainly yearn for a meaning they can't find in their everyday life. That's also what the loner on a rampage and the terrorist have in common, both are dissatisfied with their life and search for something that'll give it meaning.

To try to understand the motives of the desperadoes doesn't mean we condone their acts. Society can only deal with the threat of terrorism by looking at it objectively and by building a stronger social fabric. The haters on both sides want to destroy the society which, in their view, doesn't give them the recognition they feel they deserve.

[Political Interest]

It's the subjective perception of being disenfranchised that breeds resentment.

Yes, but people can very easily convince themselves of this even if they live well and are socially integrated.

What excuse does a successful lawyer have for joining an extremist group?

Objectively, they may be better off than people living in Africa, but that counts little in their feeling of having had a raw deal, just like European underdogs feel resentment against the immigrants even if they are pampered by the welfare state.

I am not sure how we all got the idea that people's beliefs are shaped primarily by their backgrounds and socio-economic status. It might be due to the influence of Marxist and materialist thinking on the way we analyse the world. Not everything is determined by economics. In reality a lot of people simply believe what they do out of conviction. I suspect that most of those who fall into radicalisation know what they are doing and actually want it.

I wouldn't call it romance, but they certainly yearn for a meaning they can't find in their everyday life. That's also what the loner on a rampage and the terrorist have in common, both are dissatisfied with their life and search for something that'll give it meaning.

It is definitely a romantic and irrational attraction. They are given the idea of creating a new political and economic system on earth and the chance to throw off the oppression of the West/Zionists. It appeals to their emotions.

To try to understand the motives of the desperadoes doesn't mean we condone their acts. Society can only deal with the threat of terrorism by looking at it objectively and by building a stronger social fabric. The haters on both sides want to destroy the society which, in their view, doesn't give them the recognition they feel they deserve.

Of course. I simply think that analysts look too much at disenfranchisement as a means of explaining radicalisation. I think the ideology itself is what radicalises people and it is not necessarily material circumstances or life experiences that drive people to it.

[Atlantis]

I think the ideology itself is what radicalises people and it is not necessarily material circumstances or life experiences that drive people to it.

There are always more than enough ideologies to choose from. The problem is guidance to help young people on the path of virtue. In our permissive and individualistic society, young people are left to their own devices to navigate the turbulent waters of an increasingly complex world. Especially vulnerable young people from dysfunctional families or youngsters who grow up in communities at the crossroads between traditional society and modernity are at risk.

Without strong family bonds or with traditional values crumbling, vulnerable young people will follow the first guidance that is being offered. Some will end up finding a new family in a neo-nazi group, while others will find a new home in Islamism.

Following the collapse of traditional values after WWI, young Germans joined the Hitlerjugend in the 30s. Mao’s red guards were let loose on their peers and on tradition in the 60s. The post war generation revolted against its peers by anti-authoritarianism under the banner of ‘make love not war’, even though a small minority also strayed into left-wing terrorism.

Each new generation has an urge to find its own identity. If that energy is not channelled in a positive direction it is not surprising that vulnerable youngsters are led astray. We have shed the initiation rites of traditional societies, so young people create their own initiations without guidance.

People who grew up in a loving environment will have a natural immunity to the hate of the terrorists or racists. To go on a rampage arbitrarily killing people requires a tremendous lack of empathy. But compassion for others and empathy are not often seen as sexy values among youngsters. We can see this on Pofo too.

As society, we need to emphasize positive values like compassion, compassion also for the refugees who have lost everything. While some politicians are using migrants and refugees to fuel racial tension, Merkel has succeeded in motivating tens of millions to volunteer for helping refugees. That in itself is a tremendous feat. People have more material goods than they need. Why not share some of it instead burying our lives in consumerism? That is the only way of building a robust social fabric to withstand the turbulent times ahead.

[Potemkin]

[Rich]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QyKN45KpLs

Anti Communist that I am, if forced to choose between Stars War's vacuous, sentimental liberal tripe and Stalinism I would have to go with Stalinism:

Love the Trotskyists even if they're a bit misguided.
Love the Kulaks.
Love the German invaders!

[Potemkin]

Anti Communist that I am, if forced to choose between Stars War's vacuous, sentimental liberal tripe and Stalinism I would have to go with Stalinism:

Then at least your heart is in the right place, Rich.

I mean, Yoda is supposed to be almost a thousand years old, and that's the best he could come up with? Lol.

[Ombrageux]

Our PM says we just have to learn to live with these until for 20 years or so.

But why does he think Islamic terrorist attacks would stop then?

I guess he means that, if we show our good will to Muslims by letting them become the majority over our grandchildren, they'll be more gentle.

[Political Interest]

And his comments disgust me. Why should Europeans live with the constant threat of terror over their heads?

It just goes to show how impotent the political establishment of France and the establishments of Europe are.

Valls is a coward and a capitulator if he truly believes this. No patriot could ever be content to accept this as the "new normal".

And it is his own citizens who were killed in Nice! It could be one of our own family members next time! And yet he has the gall to say this is something we just have to put up with? Stuff him.

[skinster]

And his comments disgust me. Why should Europeans live with the constant threat of terror over their heads?

Perhaps because of France's colonialism/imperialism?

[noemon]

Our PM says we just have to learn to live with these until for 20 years or so.
But why does he think Islamic terrorist attacks would stop then?
I guess he means that, if we show our good will to Muslims by letting them become the majority over our grandchildren, they'll be more gentle.

Whey are you bothered with what he said? He has identified an issue and he is informing you openly about that issue, should he not?

[Political Interest]

Perhaps because of France's colonialism/imperialism?

Oh I see, so the French people should be forced to pay a permanent debt and be subject to deaths and killings for all eternity? Again, more guilt and more attoning for the sins of the fathers. And do the Algerians and Tunisians have no sins to atone for?

If you think this, then you are a terrible person.

Uttelry pathetic line of reasoning.

[noemon]

Recognising a reality that exists does not make one a terrible person. If you do not recognise that reality you cannot do anything about it.

The Imperial Wars in the Middle-East are the direct cause of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, once you recognise that you have 2 options, either make peace and come to arrangements or to go to total war and wipe your enemy out.

Or you can pretend that life is beautiful and all these stuff are merely nuisances.