Terror attack in france with a truck

i hope you're not referring to the iraq war, because france was one of the countries that actually opposed it.

...

yeah, let's ignore that these people practice believe they'll be rewarded for killing infidels and scream 'allahu akbar' as they commit these attacks. really they just want to even the score with the bloodthirsty west.

Yea because they sure are going to lay awake from that.

France is a NATO member which is heavily involved in wars in Afghanistan, Yemen, the Islamic State, ect.

I'm not blaming the proletariat. They are not the ones who are pulling the strings here. But there is certainly a faction of people who vote for candidates that explicitly support war in Middle East.

The attackers explicitly say their actions are in response to the West bombing the Middle East. Get off pol and read a book.

Wait, was it just a truck or a truck and then the driver shot people?

Is this Daesh again?

truck drove over people and he has a gun, but police started shooting at him before he could go with gun

That wasn't Nice.

But how did he even get a gun? Guns aren't allowed in France.

...

bullying is not Nice m8

Islam enables this type of response since it teaches people that they will be rewarded for killing infidels. Notice that you don't see Buddhists running hundreds of people over while they praise God. It's too bad Muslims don't practice self-immolation.

On a side note, could you explain to me why these people bomb middle eastern countries more than western ones if they're motivated purely by western interventionism?

...

Some quality digits there. Really Nice.

The attackers in Europe are motivated by Western imperialism. Attacks that take place in the Middle East are motivated by the actions of other Middle Easterners. The Middle East is full of warring nations, they aren't a single block of people. This is kiddie stuff yo

Most people believe killing their enemy is a good thing. You don't see too many mainstream Christians saying all soldiers are going to hell, do you?

But they do

the working people don't deserve to die like this.

you mean actions like not abiding by sharia law?

the enemy of america isnt everyone who doesnt follow christian morality.

The enemy of the USA is the USA.

AKA it's whole IDEOLOGY.

Also, it's not immigrands or people FROM middle east (Algeria isn't even middle east, it's north africa.. oh wait.. like it's said in The Dictator, the movie, you 'Muricans see the all as arabs), they are people born in france, belgium and so on.

They are EXACTLY like nazis or blacks in 'Murica that instead of capitalism find the enemy in eachother.

Not on same scale nor with same effects.

Sure. Lots of countries kill people for disobeying the law. Nothing unique to Islam about that.

Could have something to do with there being 4x as many Muslims as Buddhists. Also Buddhist nations not being the target of Western imperialism for various reasons (far away, not sitting on troves of oil, ect.)

The point is that religion is just an outlet/excuse for violent people to do what they want to do anyway. And that Islam is always singled out, while others get off the hook. No one asked if Judaism was a violent religion when Israel killed >2000 people, mostly civilians, a few years ago.

ok me mates itssa time to lern to waggle your own willies.youve come very far in the willy academy of waggling and its time for yer finaltest…accounts for 70% of your final willywaggling grade!!!!!!JUST WAGGLE YOUR OWN WILLY AT YER COMPUTER RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!! GET A COPY OF THE BEANO OR YAHOO SOME BIG BOOBIES!!!!!!!! I LOVE TO WAGGLE MY WILLY And so should you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! aaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!MY WILLLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!MY WILLY IS GOING TO EXPLODEOHYESMEMATES ;) AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ello mates ;) good ev'nin,as they say on the streets of england!!!!! i was just waggling my willy the other day when i googled something into yahoo…callled "porno"…..oh man me mates you gotta check this out!!! all these boobies and bums for all the eye can see!!!!!my willy has never been so overwhelmed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!imwagglingmywilllyyyaAaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!MY WILLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaathat hit the goodstuf.im a bit of an artful dodger you see you pick up these tips and tricks from the rookeries and streets of england so dont go around telling anybody about porno ok???ok:)me mates we have a deal ;) waggle it away maties!!

ooooooooohhhh man me mates!! allo me chapss!!! i think me mates i have just made a major breakthrough in the field of the majestic art of the waggle..!lissen closely maties,its not often u hear wagglin tips down the line like what im abouta drop now!!

so u know howdo waggle ur willy.and you now it causes willy pleasure. but did u know what if you stick your finger up your bum and wiggle it around u get bumbum pleasure instead?? combine it with the willy waggle for dubble trubble 0_o whOaAOAOAOaoAOoooo!!!!!!!!!!nows thats what i callsome relief eh esse..mmmhmmm…….stick me finger up my bum……pull it out….hehehehehit smells lilke poopie…eh ey kid,…smell me thinga eheheh smell me smellie fingers kid heheheheheh!!!!!!!!!…..

if u want advanced bumpleasure shove TWO or maybe THREE fingers up ur bum!!!! keep wagglin until ur entire body starts convulsin w/ PLEASURE!!!!!!!!!!!!aaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1MYBUMANDMYWILLY THEYFEELLIKE ITS AN EARTHQUAKE IN ME BUM A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAAaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i dress up in me sisters school unform.finga me bum and take pictures and post it on the internet!!!!!!!! i always ask me mummy and daddies permission to use the net first 0_o just because mummie and daddie dont wanna see u waggle doesnt mean u can be a freeloader breakin the house rules -_-

well until then.pippip cheerio me wankas!!!im off to finga me mates bums and put the picturegrabs on a website called "domblr.com"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!until then waggle it away maties!!!!!!

MY WILLY IS HUMAN, EVEN AS I, BECAUSE IT IS MY LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!THUS, I WILL LEARN IT AS A BROTHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I WILL LEARN ITS WEAKNESSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I WILL KEEP MY WILLY CLEAN AND READY, EVEN AS I AM CLEAN AND READY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WE WILL BECOME PART OF EACH OTHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WE WILL…
BEFORE GOD, I SWEAR THIS CREED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!MY WILLY AND I ARE THE DEFENDERS OF MY COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WE ARE THE MASTERS OF OUR ENEMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WE ARE THE SAVIORS OF MY LIFE.
SO BE IT, UNTIL VICTORY IS BRITAIN'S AND THERE IS NO ENEMY, BUT PEACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Listen upp here old pal …. *sighs* twas an aeon ago it seems … ehhh… the first wiggler rally in Luton… AHHH RELIEVE!!!! … Me and my pals built our own old tree house *wally rises of memory* whatever we did we Always came back home from school to do a Little wally wiggling in the ol treehouse… Ahhh…. waggler they called me … *nothing personell kiddo* but I just kept on waggling, day in and day out. I waggled for Charles, I waggled for Margaret Thatcher. I even at one Point waggled the willy to Ho Chi Minh…. Ahhhh… the memories of the hazy wiggle waggling summer of 1986…. I still remember the wiggle wally race we had in Surrey…. We would gather… Me, this bloke from Newcastle and some guy named Ian the clam… waggling our Willies in record speed…… AHHH RELIVE ….. CUM!!!!!!!!!!

Budhists aren`t trying to expand their caliphate to Europe nor anywhere else. Militant Buddhists for example were only a response to islamic expansionism. Same goes for the jews, and christian militias in Africa.

oh good on you me m8 good one good one gday gady


but ill be wagging my willy out to u
ill be waggin

a lotta me M8S not be into tthe janny turdie but ell ome m8 u see i do be

im A BIG FAN

imm a waggle my willy all day

IM GOING TO WAG MY WILLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


aaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

MY WILLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! my WILLY IS GOING TO EXPLODE


aaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


IM GOING TO EXPLODE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

sweet release me mates…

...

fucking liberals

Muslims aren't trying to expand their caliphate into Europe either.

What exactly is "this war"? The war against ISIS? So tell me: was the government just supposed to shrug and say "oh well" after ISIS started executing attacks on French soil? Or should they have just stood idly by to begin with, when ISIS was busy persecuting religious minorities in its territory.

Furthermore: what was Belgium's crime?

Ah yes. Those Tamil Civilians were tearing down legions of people with their mighty fists. I remember all too well. A Rohingya 12 year old punched my buddy Jims head clean off. Poor bastard.

Also the ones in Africa are largely against the "witches" infesting the area. Lol.

...

We aren't bombing Nepal for oil, retard.

Because they think the entire Middle East is their territory. It's also a lot easier to access.

The Islamists want the Middle East. Only ISIS actually wants a "global caliphate" and they are too stupid to achieve it.

Do you really think world leaders have ever actually cared? At all? It's just an excuse to wage a war of imperialism, usually for easy economic gain.

It's not France's business.

Because the war against terrorism has worked already so well in the case of Al Quaida. Afghanistan is now a liberal demoracy and no one believes in Islam anymore. Weeee!

Actually, that would have led to less attacks than what they decided to do, which was bomb the Middle East. Notice how few attacks there are in countries that are not involving themselves in this conflict. Do you think its just a wacky coincidence that ISIS has never attacked, say, Japan?

Maybe the people of France think it was worth it. Ten more terrorist attacks from now, maybe they will feel differently. I don't see how bombing the Middle East has brought a resolution to anything, or gotten us closer to any sort of peace.

You will notice that Japan does not have a Muslim population.

But fine, whatever. I see I muddled the waters by bringing up imperialism, of which I obviously disapprove. Let's stick to the core issue: making civilians responsible for the actions of their governments (even those civilians that are against the actions of their government).

I.e. Chirac went to war in Afghanistan, therefore every citizen of France is personally guilty.

And you wonder why the Fascists get all those votes and you don't.

...

Not assigning guilt. Just pointing to a simple cause and effect, which for some reason gets lost in these discussions: The reason France was attacked by ISIS is because France bombed ISIS.
Sure, having people who sympathize with the people you are bombing in your own country might be a contributing factor for retaliatory attacks. But focus on that and you are missing the big picture: That this is a war of choice France has decided to involve itself with. And attacks on civilians are just a part what "war" means, and has always meant.

It really is pointless to reason with you, is it? Is this just not getting through to you?

LEFTISM WILL NEVER SUCCEED BECAUSE YOU ALLY YOURSELF WITH THE ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE

When the dead are lying in the street, your point your fingers like the ignoramus you are, smarmily lecturing them about how its "their" fault. Not the fault their government, or, God forbid, the fault of the actual perpetrators, but the fault of France as a whole, as if countries were persons. How well is that going to go over? Will it likely make you more popular or less popular?

You are assigning guilt.

Is France a single person in your mind? Did 100% of the French people vote YES on a referendum to bomb Syria? Did Hollande advertise himself as a "warmonger" during the election? Is the French government synonymous with the French people (including those French people that oppose their government)?

I don't even know why I'm trying to help you. I guess it's just that instinct that compels one to talk another person out of committing suicide. These sorts of lazy, "it's our own fault because colonialism"-type explanations might have flow in 2002, but they're not flying anymore. The mood is close to boiling over with regards to Islam and people like you absolutely do not help. If you don't reorient yourself fast, and stop blaming the people for the actions of their barely accountable government, you will all but guarantee that left-wing politics will be despised and ostracised from the realm of acceptable discourse for a generation.

The only enemy of the people is French imperialism. France is a Western European country that colonized Africa and the Americas and which engaged in the trans atlantic slave trade. Amongst the countries the French imperialists colonized were Muslim ones in Africa and in Syria and Lebanon. After the Sykes-Picot agreement the French imperialists took over Syria and Lebanon leading to what happened today. The French also supported the Zionist regime in Israel multiple times. You can't be support the people without denouncing both French imperialism and Islamophobic lies.

You will be first to hang on rope day

I don't know much about French politics, let alone the election of Hollande. I know in the US, there were many people who wanted Bush to wage war in the Middle East. He won re-election in 2004 by a fair popular majority running that being central to his platform. I'm not saying that these voters deserve terrorist attacks to happen to them. People vote out of desperation, and are basically powerless. But if you vote for warmonger, don't be surprised when war actually happens in your own borders.

If it is true, like you say, that people are wanting to turn against Islam in an even more brutal fashion, then don't expect these attacks to end anytime within our lifetimes. What we need to bring peace is de-escalation, not "boiling over".

But if you want war, war is what you shall receive. And you we haven't seen the half of it.

Is taking Muslim immigrants, many of whom are reactionary, of relatively low intelligence, and a terrorism risk, something that the Left should advocate? The lower classes will be the ones who will have to interact with these people, since porky lives in a gated community.

I think that telling these people that they need to accomodating towards more Muslims because their countries were ruined by imperialism will not win the Left many fans. Why should an average person have to carry out penance for an action done by an unaccountable government he probably didn't vote for, whose actions he probably didn't support and may not have even been alive for?

Apply that same logic to the people from countries you want to ban from immigrating, and you will see why you are wrong.

Iraqis, for instance, are victims of Western imperialism. This is something that should be stopped, of course.

Because they're victims of imperialism, the West needs to admit them as refugees, because barring them entry would be equivalent to asking them to suffer imperialism under an imperialist government they didn't vote for. Is this the logic you're getting at?

Those are quite different statements than those in but whatever, I don't want to hold a grudge or anything. I'm just exasperated with this kind of talk.

People ARE tired of the endless adventurism and you can win them over by blaming them for their own suffering, even implicitly. Look at Trump: non-interentionism is a core part of his platform and people respond to it well, but he never blames the American people for their support for Bush and his idiotic wars. One can be against imperialistic wars without pointing fingers at the public for their perceived or real support for it. Doing so is lazy and serves no purpose other than to aggrandise the accuser.

Sympathy for Muslims might also be viable (for now), but that has to be used very sparingly and never in preference to victims of Muslim terrorism. "Look, neither of us want these bullshit wars, let's just try to live in peace" is a good thing to say; "dey gud boys, nuffin, it's all your fault anyway, Frenchie" is not. Whatever the motivation of a terrorist might be, people DO NOT want to hear that he had good reasons for mowing through a promenade, crushing families with a truck, or shooting up a concert. Fuck those people and fuck any sympathy for them. They are to be anathematised and placed categorically outside the bounds of the human community.

As for ISIS: it does not matter how this war started. It has escalated beyond the point at which one side can just step back and call it quits. The people are not willing to just forgive the killers of their children and their families. Only the elimination of one side will do here and the very best-case scenario is to isolate the phenomenon of ISIS from the broader Muslim community and to single them, and only them, out for retribution. Telling tales about all the legit reasons ISIS had for shooting up the Bataclan, or killing the people at Charlie Hebdo, or running over all the people in that truck, will only fuck over you and Muslims in general.

By the way, and in the interest of full disclosure: I am from Holla Forums. Me giving you actual good advice is my way of… I don't fucking know… offering an olive branch, I guess.

A truck?

youtu.be/stdY7NMWhLc

...

That was a different person. I never blamed anyone for "voting for warmongers" I don't care how people vote in bourgeoisie elections.

Christ. LRN2 current events.
uk.businessinsider.com/frances-military-is-all-over-africa-2015-1?r=US&IR=T

You mean the Trump who declared that he wants to not just bomb ISIS, but also the families of ISIS members? The people who Trump appeals to are the same people that Bush appealed and the same people who boycotted the Dixie Chicks, because they said something against war.

Holla Forumstards tend to see what they want to see in Trump rather then realizing he is a warmonger himself and likely controlled opposition for the Clintons

You make very reasonable points about being careful when communicating with people. I would not explain these causes of terrorism at my work, for instance. But I do think that a change in the way we think about terrorism must take place for there to be a resolution That change in attitude won't happen from an internet post, but through gradual changes in thinking in our cultural memes, the narratives that we tell ourselves to explain the world. A big missing piece of our narrative is the simple cause and effect or terrorism. If we could somehow (and sure, maybe today is not the time) inject into the collective consciousness that the reason why Orlando/Nice/Beirut/San Bernadino happened is because the West is bombing innocent people in the Middle East, maybe we can finally come to a reasoned decision about what we want to do about it. But missing that crucial piece of information, the public can never come to a reasoned decision because it is not understanding the simple connection.

I think the shaming of militaristic attitudes has its place as well. It's part of the US glorification of militarism, the "cowboy diplomacy" that got us in this mess to begin with. I am old enough to remember the chest-beating war-hungry public in 2003. I remember talking to one man, who conceded that "Even if the US was just invading Iraq for the oil, "the US needs oil to stay strong, doesn't it?"

Maybe. It's not like the West ever *tried* to call it quits to see what would happen. But I concede that at this point the prospects of peace seems dim. I don't think it will be as easy as "eliminating ISIS" as you say. Opposition to the West's militarism is an ideology. It doesn't end with ISIS, it doesn't even end with Islam. They more countries the West crushes, the more innocent people they kill, the more opposition they will have from their own people. You see it already with normal Western folk becoming "radicalized". There is no end to this. You can't bomb your way to world peace.

You're a big guy.

Is meant for

This isn't a campaign event. There's no need to bullshit.

As I said: ISIS has burned too many bridges in the West for even an unofficial truce. People want blood. This, however, does not change the fact that Trump is still anti-war and doesn't want to repeat the mistakes of Bush and his Neocon friends. People want ISIS wiped out, but they're not interested in new foreign wars or nation-building.

I do not see how that's relevant to his anti-war stance. Brutalizing an existing enemy has little to do with seeking out new enemies. Trump wants to fuck ISIS sideways. Clinton, as an opposing example, would start 5-6 new wars, though she'd never say the outrageous things Trump has said. I think I'm still justified in calling Trump anti-war (and Clinton pro-war).

9/11 was a very traumatic event and back then, the propaganda machine of the mainstream media worked much better than it does today. In any case, it does not matter. We can simply say that the people had been whipped into a misguided frenzy and that they are not similarly frenzied now. The neocon narrative of "we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" has been thoroughly discredited. There is no public desire for any more foreign wars, in Lybia, Iran, or elsewhere.

You can't be fucking serious.

You belong at Holla Forums. You are no better then the person who blames the French for "voting" for warmongers. The person people vote for doesn't determine who they will go to war with. How can you be this naive?

Yes, it has. That's how ISIS came into being to begin with. It was a reaction to prior brutalizations. ISIS was born in an U.S. prison camp in Iraq. That's also how Al Quaida came into being. That's how islamic fundamentalism itself was born in the middle east.

Q: You've said, "we've got to get rid of ISIS, quickly, quickly." How?

TRUMP: Well, four years ago, I said, bomb the oil and take the oil. And if we did that, they wouldn't have the wealth they have right now. Now, we're doing little pinpricks. If somebody's driving a truck, they give notice to the person driving the truck, "we're going to bomb." If they don't get out of the truck, the truck sails away with the oil. We don't want to bomb the oil, because we don't want to pollute the atmosphere. Can you imagine General Douglas MacArthur or General Patton saying we can't bomb because we're gonna hurt the atmosphere? You have to knock the hell out of the oil. And you have also back channels of banking. You have people that you think are our great allies in the Middle East, that are paying tremendous amounts of money to ISIS. So we have to stop those circuits. So between the oil and the banking, you will dry them up. But it should have been done four years ago, not now.
Source: 2016 ABC Republican debate on eve of N.H. primary , Feb 6, 2016

Trump said the US was right to invade Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks–a reversal of his position earlier this month when he called the war a "mistake."

"We made a mistake going into Iraq. I've never said we made a mistake going into Afghanistan," Trump told CNN. Trump said on October 6 that he believed entering Afghanistan was a mistake and worried about U.S. forces getting stuck there.

"At some point, are they going to be there for the next 200 years? It's going to be a long time," Trump said, when asked about Afghanistan. "We made a terrible mistake getting involved there in the first place. We had real brilliant thinkers that didn't know what the hell they were doing. And it's a mess. And at this point, you probably have to stay because that thing will collapse about two seconds after they leave."

Trump first signaled his backtrack when he said Afghanistan is "where we should have gone," meaning the US should have focused its attention on Afghanistan over Iraq.
Source: Tom LoBianco on CNN, "Afghanistan war not a mistake" , Oct 20, 2015

Citation needed.

...

This is a tangent, but I'd like to propose two statement between which one ought to differentiate:

1. Western wars contribute to terrorism.
2. Western ware are the sole cause of terrorism.

In many of these discussions, it seems as if people do not accord any internal social dynamic to the Middle East/The Third World at all: The people there are completely reactive, with no agency, internal quarrels, or ambitions of their own, and they just react to what the West is doing.

Obviously, terrorists do have specific grievances with the West, but not all of their grievances have to do with Western wars. The tactic of "eliminating the grey zone", as desribed in "The management of savagery", for instance, makes no mention of Western campaigns against ISIS and has solely to do with perceived Western licentiousness. The Wahhabists see the Western lifestyle as degenerate and they want to force Muslims to choose between (Wahhabi) Islam and Western liberalism. These are their words, not mine. Certainly, they often fault Western intervention for this or that attack, but if they take their own doctrine in this regard seriously, they'd arguably engage in terrorism even in the absence of Western intervention.

Another example: Sayyid Qutb spent the 1940s in Colorado and he was appalled at the mores there.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb#Two_Years_in_America

That's nothing to do with terrorism, granted, but we already see a contempt for the Western way of life. Back then, there was no US-led intervention in the Middle East and no State of Israel.

And as for Orlando and the Bataclan: If their grievances were purely political, then why did Muslims target a concert and a gay bar specifically? They could have targeted soldiers. Western wars were part of their motivation, but their target selection was not a coincidence.

Lastly, the obvious objection: if terrorism is solely due to oppression and has nothing to do with Islam, then why do Tibetan Buddhists not blow up Chinese buses? We've all heard this.

Going back:
can be packaged reasonably, as a general anti-war message.

Which is often said, or which people at least often hear, cannot. First of all, it is Third Worldism. It denies the agency of non-Whites and reduces them to puppets of Western action. Yes, politics is part of it, but these people have had their own problems long before we ever meddled in their affair and they'll keep having problems if we left tomorrow. It also cannot be denied that they have grievances with us that do not involve military aggression on our part. To a degree, they do dislike our culture. Many Muslims are also just envious of us and want to see us succumb to Islam, which is a proselytising and aggressively expansionist religion, after all.

The way I see it, a confrontation with Islam is inevitable. The only thing that remains to be done is to minimise the damage from that: ISIS is our enemy and there's no changing that. However, it is still possible to avoid indicting Islam as a whole, but only if one frankly admits to our incompatibilities and avoid the unbelievable "it's all our fault for bombing the innocent brown people" line of thinking, which will have no power to stem the anti-Muslim reaction at all.

...

Let's just stipulate that that's true. ISIS came into being because of the power vacuum created by the US invasion. Had Saddam not been deposed, he would've shut the shit down on Al Baghdadi and any Islamists following him.

Thus I contend that avoiding invasions and the destruction of regimes is a far surer guarantor of peace than avoiding brutalising existing enemies.

Trump says a lot of things, to be honest. One has to keep in mind, though, that Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lybia (also Syria, where the US financed the rebels) were not motivated by economic interests, but by geopolitical games. The running theme of Trump's platform is security and economic interest. It is almost never economically beneficial to go to war and no hostile regime and seriously threaten the United States. I am thus reasonably certain that won't go abroad looking for enemies, or making the world safe for democracy, or prioritising Israel's security interests over those of the US (in that last case, I at least hope it). I don't care about his chest thumping. If he at least tells the military-industrial complex to shut the fuck up and doesn't play geopolitical games, I'll sleep easy at night.

Citation needed for the claim they would.

Avoiding invasion and destruction of regimes and avoiding brutalization and killing families of terrorists are not mutually exclusive.

Of course they're not. I'm not advocating for either here, I'm just saying that, if one has to choose, fucking up an existing enemy is preferable to making new ones. Much preferable, in fact. Trump might have proposed killing the families of ISIS members, but at least he hasn't proposed sticking our dicks into Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Egypt, Russia, and God knows where else.

"Fucking up an existing enemy" has been the justification for all internventions in the middle east.
Afghanistan was fucked up because Al Quaida had its training camps there.
Iraq was fucked up because Saddam was our enemy.

That's why I'm there. I'm here as a sort of outreach because I'm sympathetic to left-wing economic policy. I'd legit be willing to live under Communism if it'd be in a White country without minorities.

I have a pretty good idea as to who determines the foreign policy. I'm just hoping that Trump will be able to resist those influences… my other options are Clinton, whom I know to be 100% beholden to them, and Leftist revolution, which is unlikely to happen and would result in my getting fucked anyway because of the SJW faggotry that infest contemporary Western leftism.

That is true. By "existing enemy" I specifically meant "an entity with whom were at war", not "unfriendly regime". I should've explicitly mentioned that.

If I punch someone, and he punches me back, it IS true that me punching him was not the *sole* cause of me being also punched. If only he had been a pacifist monk instead of a normal person. But most people would call the return punch "retaliation", and not endlessly speculate, as the media (and pol) is apt to do on all the reason I was punched in return ("Is it his religion? Maybe he is genetically violent?").

But yeah, people construct ideologies that justify killing people, which is dumb. But I think the West needs to take a hard look in the mirror before it starts pointing fingers in this regard. Trump explicitly supports killing innocent family members for Christs sake. We need to kill whatever religion or ideology has infected his (and Hillary's, and Obama's and Bush's) brains.

I guess we are coming from different perspectives. I don't know what country you live in, but here in the US the connection between western wars and terrorism is virtually absent in all political discussion. Maybe you'll see it on some left-leaning websites. But the general narrative among the populace (i.e. people who don't even have an internet connection) is a lot closer to an option three:

It's so fucking easy to move weaponry across Europe and not even because of the Schengen agreement. The land borders with places with lax gun laws are huge. It doesn't take a genius to reactivate an assault rifle, especially ones deactivated further east. There were some Brits caught smuggling deactivated AKs from the Czech Republic a few months ago with the intent to make them lethal again, but their fucknuttery using text and email to brag to each other about how badass they are got them caught (rly). Imagine how many non-dipshits have attempted this, without having the channel to hop.

Guns have always been in abundance in Europe, but they were used for organised crime and armed robbery before, now ISIS are recruiting the Muslims who dabbled in this kind of thing when they're trying to get away from crime. This is why you hear so many of them have criminal convictions.

Chinese are not held back by petty democraty. In western democracy, if we have a group 1000 persons with a "terrorist" profile, and only 10 persons who will commit a terrorist attack, we won't jail those 1000 persons preevently. The chinese don't give a shit and slaughter all potential threat.

This is echt old-school insouciance towards the value of ordinary people's lives. We spent a century and a half fighting not to be considered disposable by the bourgeois and their liberal fetishism.

It looks like we might have to start again.

pannekoek

My Gott. This is exactly what Zizek warned us about. The constant self-hate and masochism of the west

I know I'm late for this debate, but those are some pretty weak points imho.

I'm completely certain that you will find anecdotes like this of christian americans visting islamic cultures and feeling a similar disgust towards polygamy, Viking cultures visiting native americans, English and Dutch colonialists visiting Japan, etc.
Point being that "a contempt for the Western way of life" does nothing to emphasize any inevitable conflict.
Disgust and alienation seems to be one of the most primal reactions to a culture shock. The example of Sayyid does nothing to argue or prove that Islamic tradition is somehow more disposed to violent conflict.

This is another dumb point, choice of targets doesn't necessarily say anything about the incitement of the attack.
If I'm a christian missionary, and my brother is slaughtered by some tribesmen, I might decide they are unfit for conversion and burn down their village. It seems natural to then conclude "Christian missionaries burn down villages in the name of their god". But that ignores the fact that I probably wouldn't have burnt down their village if they didn't murder my brother first.
Choosing a gay bar as a target is secondary to the incitement.
I can't speak for this specific case though, it might be he was just some nut really mad that people were gay, one needs to look at more details than just the target.

This is just as fucking retarded as the nature vs. nurture bullshit.
One can be of the opinion that terrorists attacks would have never happened if not for western imperialism, without denying the fact that they also are a result of the culture being oppressed.

idpol has literally nothing to do with geopolitics, I don't understand why people keep spouting this bullshit.

You're right.

Because someone used a truck to kill people, we shouldn't require people to have driver licences to use trucks, or registration on their vehicles. It's clearly not helping anyone if it isn't helping everyone.

This is a genuinely decent point that more liberals need to understand, especially around this thread.

That's also worth noting.

Understanding the actions/policies/wars that contributed to the rise of ISIS and other extremist groups is definitely important in the sense that it points to the dangers of creating cultural destabilization and barriers against societal integration.

But the discussion needs to be solution focused, rather than debating the degree to which the victims had it coming.

youtube.com/watch?v=LfJm2rdbOHU

I disagree .

killing people who dissagre with them slightly

the was 50 years ago faggot the truck driver wasn't even sperm