Terrorist Attack in Nice

[Berzerker]

One benefit of not being an American is not believing that America is the center of the universe.

canada didn't spend the last 25 years mucking up the middle east... there can only be one great satan and it aint canada

[Berzerker]

You can't very well say that there was a pause - that Islamic terrorists were less radical in 2001 than they are today. The difference is that appropriate security protections were taken and were in place after 9-11. Those have since deteriorated.

The same thing we are seeing in France. And elsewhere in Europe.

there are more terrorists now than 2001 and the invasion of iraq and its aftermath has inspired them

but you think thats convoluted and this guy was motivated by something that happened 50-60 years ago

[Ben Kenobi]

canada didn't spend the last 25 years mucking up the middle east... there can only be one great satan and it aint canada

Canada has had terrorist attacks. The bombing of the Montreal Torah school in 2005, is probably the worst. Then you have the Gharbi Massacre in 1989. Both in Montreal. Two mounties were killed in 2014 in separate terrorist attacks.

[Berzerker]

since you didn't bother reading this the first time

canada didn't spend the last 25 years mucking up the middle east... there can only be one great satan and it aint canada

[kentonio]

That's a good question. "Why didn't they attack France before" Had little to do with not feeling angry, they did attack Frenchmen in Algeria. They didn't attack Frenchmen in France because they couldn't get there.

That they can successfully attack Frenchmen in France is a very recent change. There have been terrorist attacks going back to the 80s with the hijackings. I would cite a failure in French policy in bringing in radical Muslims into France, and secondly, not taking the steps that needed to be taken earlier in the year to prevent the attacks.

That's ridiculous, getting into France from North Africa or the Middle East easily is not a recent development. You even contradict yourself there by pointing to the 80's hijackings and incidents. If they were able to do that in the 80's, and the mass immigration of North Africans and arabs hasnt slowed since then, then why would there be a gap between then and the resurgence of attacks now unless they were triggered by more recent events?

The only terrorist attack of significant size on American soil that happened during Bush's term was 9-11. Since then there have been almost 10 Islamic terrorist attacks since 2009.

And? During that time if terrorists wanted to kill Americans they only had to travel into Iraq or Afghanstan to do it, not travel half way around the world to try and get into a country with extremely strict intelligence monitoring. Incidentally you could stop all terrorism if you clamped down on personal freedoms enough, but most of us don't actually think thats an acceptable cost to pay.

You can't very well say that there was a pause - that Islamic terrorists were less radical in 2001 than they are today. The difference is that appropriate security protections were taken and were in place after 9-11. Those have since deteriorated.

The pause was between the radicalism of the 70's/80's and the resurgence in radicalism after Iraq. It's not that the 9/11 attackers were less radical, just that there were a lot less of them. When you kill hundreds of thousands of people, you radicalize a lot of people, its not complicated. Given the choice between locking down civil liberties (which is what you're actually talking about when you say 'appropriate') and not launching wars of aggression, I'd choose the latter.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's ridiculous, getting into France from North Africa or the Middle East easily is not a recent development. You even contradict yourself there by pointing to the 80's hijackings and incidents. If they were able to do that in the 80's, and the mass immigration of North Africans and arabs hasnt slowed since then, then why would there be a gap between then and the resurgence of attacks now unless they were triggered by more recent events?

That's a good question.

The Hijackings started in '68, and culminated in the Munich Massacre 4 years later. There were 6 successive hijackings by the same organization, which ended in 1977.

Then there were hijackings in 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 1998, 1999, 2000.

So really, what has changed is the tactics.

And? During that time if terrorists wanted to kill Americans they only had to travel into Iraq or Afghanstan to do it, not travel half way around the world to try and get into a country with extremely strict intelligence monitoring. Incidentally you could stop all terrorism if you clamped down on personal freedoms enough, but most of us don't actually think thats an acceptable cost to pay.

That was the doctrine in the US, which is not what the doctrine is now. Getting out of Iraq won't stop terrorists bombing the US. The same with France.

This has been going on since at least 1968. Arguing that the policies of France in the 50s and 60s, ignores the realities that terrorism has been going on for a long time, constantly, since then.

The pause was between the radicalism of the 70's/80's and the resurgence in radicalism after Iraq. It's not that the 9/11 attackers were less radical, just that there were a lot less of them. When you kill hundreds of thousands of people, you radicalize a lot of people, its not complicated. Given the choice between locking down civil liberties (which is what you're actually talking about when you say 'appropriate') and not launching wars of aggression, I'd choose the latter.

What pause? There were hijackings every year in the 1990s by Islamic terrorists.

[kentonio]

No, what has changed is the intensity and frequency of attacks. The previous wave of middle eastern terrorism tapered down around the 80's. Obviously it never completely stopped, but it was nothing like the climate of violence Europe experienced during that earlier time.

[Ben Kenobi]

there are more terrorists now than 2001 and the invasion of iraq and its aftermath has inspired them

but you think thats convoluted and this guy was motivated by something that happened 50-60 years ago

Well, the creation of Israel dates back to the 40s, so yeah, I can see him motivated by something that happened 50-60 years ago.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, what has changed is the intensity and frequency of attacks. The previous wave of middle eastern terrorism tapered down around the 80's. Obviously it never completely stopped, but it was nothing like the climate of violence Europe experienced during that earlier time.

Tactics have changed. They've moved from collecting ransoms to mass terror attacks on citizens after 9-11.

[kentonio]

And you don't apparently see the difference in intensity between small groups of extremists collecting ransom money and large numbers of extremists willing to sacrifice their lives to kill as many people as possible?

[kentonio]

[Ben Kenobi]

And you don't apparently see the difference in intensity between small groups of extremists collecting ransom money and large numbers of extremists willing to sacrifice their lives to kill as many people as possible?

Well sure, but I don't see the motivations as changing, but rather the tactics have become more brutal.

[Kidlicious]

Another option might be to not care as much. Has terrorism surpassed choking on pretzels as a cause of death already?

Not sure much can be done anout choking on pretzels.

[Ben Kenobi]

Interesting post. Unfortunately it doesn't document by the source. I hadn't realized the peak was 450 people.

[Sir Og]

Not sure much can be done anout choking on pretzels.

Doing_something has not worked very well with regards to terrorism either.
We must do_something is what started the Iraq war for example.