It Took Nearly Three Hours For France's Terror Alert App To Respond To Nice Attack (theverge.com) 278
Amar Toor, reporting for The Verge: A terror alert app released by the French government last month has come under criticism after taking hours to notify users of Thursday night's attack in Nice. The app, called SAIP was released by the French Interior Ministry on iOS and Android in June, ahead of the Euro 2016 soccer tournament. According to the ministry, the app would provide users with alerts and information within 15 minutes of a terrorist attack being confirmed. But it apparently took much longer to send out alerts following last night's attack in Nice, where a man drove a truck into a crowded seaside promenade during Bastille Day celebrations, killing at least 84 people and leaving 18 others in critical condition. Users who had downloaded the app posted phone screenshots to Twitter last night showing that SAIP sent out its first alert just after 1:30AM local time -- nearly three hours after the attack began. Facebook, by contrast, activated its Safety Check feature shortly after the attack was carried out, and French politicians urged those in the area to check in using that feature, as SAIP remained silent.
I'm just waiting for.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm just waiting for.... (Score:5, Funny)
I rented a large "moving truck" last year. I didn't even need a background check. They didn't even ask why I needed such a big truck
It is scary how easy it is to get a large truck like that.
Re: I'm just waiting for.... (Score:2)
You were already veted, and registered in a government database, and you needed proof of that to rent the car.
It is called a driver's licence.
It is a lot more security than you have with guns.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to have a license to BUY a car.....you don't even have to have one if you use it on private property.
Re: (Score:3)
I rented a large "moving truck" last year. I didn't even need a background check. They didn't even ask why I needed such a big truck
It is scary how easy it is to get a large truck like that.
If the truck is black with plastic trim does that make it an assault truck?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, of course Sensible Truck "Safety" laws will include closing the Truck Show loophole. And we need to stop them from purchasing fully Automatic Assault Trucks too!!
Re:I'm just waiting for.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Though in this case, it turned out the only (semi)effective defense against the bad guy with a truck was a good guy with a gun....
Re: (Score:2)
The only 100% effective method is to start addressing the problem about a decade before the guy gets to the stage where he wants to commit mass murder.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for making me laugh!
I really needed it after this horrific event.
Re: (Score:2)
...the democrats to get on the air quickly and start advocating for Banning ALL Assault Trucks immediately!!
Considering that a lot of the flappy headed media turned around and were using phrases like "children feared dead as truck attacks family event." [twitter.com] It wouldn't surprise me. So far I've seen CBC, NYT, WAPO and CBS all using language that would make you think the truck got up all on it's own and decided to attack people.
Re:I'm just waiting for.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The media is certain that guns force people to kill, so trucks must do it as well.
They refuse to deal with the real problem, there are batshit insane people in the world that want to kill others....
Maybe making murder illegal will fix it?
Re: (Score:2)
The media is certain that guns force people to kill, so trucks must do it as well.
Seems to me there is a lot of political correctness going on, the media(many reporters, editors, and owners) would rather believe it's *anything* other than what it actually is. In many cases those people who were at the front of saying "it's okay, there isn't a big problem" or whatever else, don't have a way out and have to double down on the narrative that they've created rather then saying: "Gee, I guess those awful xyz people(conservative/right wingers/libertarians/etc) were right."
But you're right, th
Re: (Score:2)
...the democrats to get on the air quickly and start advocating for Banning ALL Assault Trucks immediately!!
And the NRA has called for everybody to shoot at all trucks coming suspiciously close.
Re: (Score:2)
...the democrats to get on the air quickly and start advocating for Banning ALL Assault Trucks immediately!!
I believe the Brits are already talking about trying to limit "truck crime".
Re:I'm just waiting for....ban on assault trucks!! (Score:5, Funny)
Well, come on..lets be *reasonable*..I mean, who needs 30 gallons of gas JUST to go hunting, you know?
What we need are Common Sense Truck Laws...at this point, even 80% of truck owning Americans agree with this.
Next week, we also need to take up knife and folding chair safety legislation, you just never know what one of these terrorist bastards will pick up next to kill with....
Re: (Score:2)
That is great! I really want to steal that and post it on my facebook.
If I hadn't already marked you as a friend so your posts would stand out, I'd be marking you now.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm...he'd have to have been a REALLY good shot to kill 280 people more with an AR-15 and 4 magazine??
Let's see, 4 x 30 shots each, is 120 total bullets. So, 120 if each and every one of those was an individual kill shot....so, he's have to kill 4 people with each bullet to get to the 280 mark.
Now THAT would be quite the marksman...
Re: (Score:2)
Trump will build brick walls!
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm...I"m guessing it is too soon, then, for any classic "dead baby" joke, eh?
The keyword is "being confirmed" (Score:5, Insightful)
The keyword is "being confirmed". It take time to confirm that a truck running over people is a criminal act and not 'just' an accident.
But in the end this demonstrate that this application is completely un-useful...
Re: (Score:2)
The keyword is "being confirmed". It take time to confirm that a truck running over people is a criminal act and not 'just' an accident.
Why exactly does it have to be a confirmed terrorist act first? Seems to me that it doesn't. Send the alert out with the existing relevant info for all suspected terrorist attacks, and then update the alert as more information comes in.
I can only think of one reason not to do it this way, and its because some people for some strange reason feel that it has to be a confirmed terrorist attack first.
You are one such person. Please explain it to us, why exactly does it have to be a confirmed terrorist atta
Re: (Score:2)
The keyword is "being confirmed".
Right. Because if this was the USA and it turned out to be an old person driving a large sedan, it would have been confirmed as being "Thursday".
Re: The keyword is "being confirmed" (Score:2)
It does not take 30 minutes to drive a mile at 50 mph. Try doing the math. If he hadn't done the whole thing in less than two minutes people would gotten out of way, and police would have killed him faster.
Terror Alert delay is the Insightful news? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know that news such as this one always attract criticism about the lack of technology from "some" people ion the community, but as many others /. users have pointed out, /. is also supposed to be about "stuff that matters".
So, my question is, how did it occurred in the editor's compassionless mind that the stupid delay of the terror app was more relevant than the +300 victims of this tragedy?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I do feel /. should try to put a nerd/tech spin on things and not be just another general news source but it requires some tact and delicacy to not come across as "oh and 84 people died too". Maybe something like:
"Bastille Day terror in Nice, Alert App warns three hours later"
"Last night a man drove a truck into a crowded seaside promenade during Bastille Day celebrations in Nice, killing at least 84 people and leaving 18 others in critical condition. The attacker was killed after a firefight with pol
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I do feel /. should try to put a nerd/tech spin on things and not be just another general news source but it requires some tact and delicacy to not come across as "oh and 84 people died too". Maybe something like:
"Bastille Day terror in Nice, Alert App warns three hours later"
I sincerely try to understand your point but I just don't get why. Why do we need to put something "nerdy" when 95% of all discussion will be about the actual tragedy anyway?
Re: (Score:3)
Question for you: Should every single website on the internet feature nothing but the same outpouring of compassion for the 300+ victims, not to mention news papers, TV and radio as well? Should we shut down the world and ban anyone from talking about anything but these 300+ people?
God forbid there was a piece of technology involved some nerds may be interested in. Nope we shouldn't talk about that on slashdot, we should just have the same thing I would get from every single other source of media social or
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to mod him up just to add some irony, but unfortunately, I've already posted on this page.
Is it even yet confirmed as terrorism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Last I heard, there was considerable evidence that it might not have been terrorism; it might have just someone going apeshit and committing mass murder.
My guess is that the French government had no idea whether or not it was terrorism, and after 3 hours they just decided to err on the side of caution and issue the alert, just in case.
Of course, that raises the whole question as to why anyone would give a damn what the motive behind a mass murder is, in any situation where they're trying to get information quickly. Regardless of whether the truck driver is politically motivated or not, you want to get the fuck out of his way. It sounds like the very idea of a "terror alert" app just might be amazingly stupid. A "danger alert" app would be a hundred times more useful.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
considerable evidence that it might not have been terrorism
The usual suspects in the left-wing media are indeed pushing that line.
Of course, that raises the whole question as to why anyone would give a damn what the motive behind a mass murder is
No, it really doesn't raise the question. Motive is always crucial. Politicians use the motives of mass killers for political capital. There is never any concern for this "question" when politicians can use an event for gun control purposes, for instance.
Re: (Score:3)
Motive is always crucial.
A guy with a history of petty crimes, in the process of getting divorced, and had just been fired from his job. Even with the Muslim name, it sounds more like a guy going postal than anything else.
Re:Is it even yet confirmed as terrorism? (Score:4, Insightful)
A guy with a history of petty crimes, in the process of getting divorced, and had just been fired from his job.
That's the new recruiting criteria for ISIS affiliates. People who only ever had it together in a marginal sense going through yet another crisis realizing they can now be somebody by killing a bunch of people in the name of some religious identity they barely have.
These people are Travis Bickle from the movie "Taxi Drivier" except rather than focusing their simple minded rage and failure on crime, they're focusing it on the larger society they only sort of fit into, and usually only sort of fitting into it for reasons that have nothing to do with their religious identity.
In many ways,the Dallas cop shooting was an ISIS attack in all but name -- disaffected loser unable to reconcile his place in life with his own actions, lashing out at the part of society he blamed for it in the name of a larger and more righteous cause. That shooter just chose to identify with some kind of black power mindset rather than Islamic terrorism.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> there was considerable evidence that it might not have been terrorism
Right... the guy ramming his box truck into ~300 people (84 dead, 200+ injured as of this morning), while accelerating, firing a machine gun, and shouting "Allahu Akbar" the entire time (as reported by eye witnesses), might NOT have been terrorism... There was no period in time where there was considerable evidence of anything BUT terrorism. Anyone on the scene knew what the deal was, the first responders knew, the cops that pumped
Re: (Score:3)
Last I heard, there was considerable evidence that it might not have been terrorism; it might have just someone going apeshit and committing mass murder.
According to various sources the driver was shouting "allahu akbar" (search for it on Google or read the wikipedia article if you do not believe me). Guns and grenades were found in the vehicle after the attack as well. I'm not sure how that could leave any doubt about whether it was terrorism or not.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how that could leave any doubt about whether it was terrorism or not.
There isn't any doubt among the French at least. Hollande has called this terrorism, and Islamic terrorism at that. The only people trying to muddy these waters are the smirking class liberals that haven't had anyone they care about run over, blown up or shot yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, terrorism has a higher chance of coordinated secondary attacks. If it is just a random guy in a truck who cracked up and went bezerk, it would probably not concern the rest of France. If it is a terrorist attack, you may want to avoid public areas for a little while to be safe.
Granted, an app for an attack already in practice seems about as likely to help as a duck and cover drill.
What's the difference? (Score:2)
> Last I heard, there was considerable evidence that it might not have been terrorism; it might have just someone going apeshit and committing mass murder.
What's the difference, exactly?
When will they get it? (Score:2, Insightful)
There are many problems that cannot be solved with the app. Not the terrorism.
This app was a scam by design: there are little benefits of knowing of attack 15 minutes after it took place.
Reality is that the app was just another project to skim money from government, like they have skimmed thousands of times before that. Remember the $2 million app that randomizes whether to go to left or to the right? Reality is that once money have been consumed, those who made profit moved on and they no longer care. Also
Re: (Score:2)
This app was a scam by design: there are little benefits of knowing of attack 15 minutes after it took place.
I guess it depends on whether or not the attack duration is longer than 15 minutes. If a group of guys is roaming a downtown area with RPKs and grenades for an hour and a half, I might want to know what parts of town to avoid, even if they don't tell me for 30 minutes after it started.
It might even be useful to know if you're not danger close, so you have some understanding why roads or closed or people are running away like it was the zombie apocalypse.
Around here in the Midwest, we get weather alerts on
Re:When will they get it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Reality is that a single semi-automatic rifle would have been extremely effective in stopping the madman in Nice attack.
I don't know how long it took that guy to plow through the crowd but I am quite positive no one in that crowd would have had the time, situational analysis, and space to end the threat without taking out more innocent bystanders.
I'm not anti-gun, there are just very few people trained to respond with deadly force in traumatic situations. Your average citizen is not one of them. Your average citizen is going to protect their own life by getting the fuck out of the way.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the same point I try to make a lot.
There's been a lot of research since WW2 in to what it takes to actually get somebody to be able to respond appropriately in a 'deadly force encounter.' A two day CCW course isn't it. By and large, police training isn't it, either.
Unless you're doing regular training exercises, in real life, using something like simunition, you are very likely to simply be useless when something happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Reality is that a single semi-automatic rifle would have been extremely effective in stopping the madman in Nice attack.
I don't know how long it took that guy to plow through the crowd but I am quite positive no one in that crowd would have had the time, situational analysis, and space to end the threat without taking out more innocent bystanders.
Armed police was in the crowd, and armed police took him out within a few hundred seconds of the start of the attack.
Still no reason for anyone else to carry arms, it was already covered by armed professionals, and they responded immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you'll never know, will you?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying an armed public is the answer. But this is the wrong way to analyze the situation. The proper threshold isn't "without taking out more innocent bystanders." That's an impossible-to-achieve zero-failure standard.
The proper threshold is: can someone end the threat, while on average taking out fewer innocent bystanders than would d
Re: (Score:2)
"train will derail and might kill everyone if you do nothing". Ugh, what a whopper of a typo.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with applying Philosophy 101 to real life
Re:When will they get it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Reality is that the attacker was stopped by the first man with a firearm.
Actually, no. Video made of the truck just getting started shows French police shooting at it. It continued on for at least a mile. One or two snap shots aren't going to have much change of stopping something like a truck. The truck stopped on its own, then they killed the driver.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Reality is that the attacker was stopped by the first man with a firearm. Reality is that automatic and semi-automatic gun ownership just got another solid, not even a theoretical card, to use when defending the gun ownership from nutty gun fearing zealots. Reality is that a single semi-automatic rifle would have been extremely effective in stopping the madman in Nice attack.
If he had an automatic rifle, would he need a truck? Just spray and pray, when it's packed with people you're going to hit somebody. And if you pull a gun, are you a terrorist or a good guy? During that police shooting in Dallas, you had 20-30 open carry activists in the crowd. How many of them pulled out their guns to try help shoot the bad guy? I'm guessing none, because they wanted to live. I'm sure there were many police officers along that parade, as France is still in a state of emergency. That doesn'
Gun Nut. (Score:2)
Reality is that a single semi-automatic rifle would have been extremely effective in stopping the madman in Nice attack.
First you have to be in a sheltered position where you can make the shot cleanly and safely. Second you are aiming at a small moving target protected by tons of metal and laminated glass --- and quite probably in body armor. Third it is night. What lighting there is may be casting strange shadows ---- more confusing than helpful.
Re: (Score:2)
Reality is that automatic and semi-automatic gun ownership just got another solid, not even a theoretical card, to use when defending the gun ownership from nutty gun fearing zealots.
Let's not get carried away. These were trained policemen shooting at the truck, not civilians.
And even counting the latest terrorist attacks, the per capita murder rate in France is still seven times less than in the United States. Not to mention, the muslim population in France is around 10% of the entire population, which is way more than in the US.
What are we supposed to believe? Guns and trucks don't kill people. Mostly American people kill people.
Missing The Point (Score:4, Insightful)
Needs to be re-thought (Score:3)
Nice Attack (Score:2)
France vs USA (Score:3)
Had this event happened in the US instead of France, our elected idiots would be running around in little circles because they can't blame it on guns this time.
I suppose we would see legislation along the lines of No Fly No Drive or something equally stupid.
The only thing positive to come out of this is the fact this provides irrefutable evidence that no matter how hard you try to ban a thing, folks will find ways to kill one another en masse.
The problem is, and always will be, people.
Is its real purpose to help? (Score:2)
Perhaps its meant for something else.
Maybe because it wasn't terrorism (Score:2)
A madman running over people in a crowded street doesn't have to be a terrorist.
In fact this accident looks a lot like what happened in Akihabara, Tokyo in 2008 where a guy ran over people with a rental truck. He was much less successful than the Nice killer, probably because the place was less crowded, so he stepped down and stabbed random people with a dagger. Absolutely no link with terrorism, just a madman, in the US he probably would have been a school shooter or something.
Well, maybe he really is a te
Re: YOU HAVE TO GO BACK (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep, why take chances in which ones are good and which ones are bad. Deport them all and let them fight it out. Maybe if they have no countries to run to and ruin, they will fix their own. Or maybe they'll all kill each other. Either way they won't ruin other countries anymore.
Re: YOU HAVE TO GO BACK (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You should be the first to go then.
Well, since you are obviously scared, and scared people are known do do stupid things, you are obviously more dangerous. You go first.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Historically, the "good" ones are silent when Islamist terrorists act.
A Muslim extremist wants to cut your head off.
A Muslim moderate wants someone else to cut your head off.
Re: YOU HAVE TO GO BACK (Score:5, Insightful)
The funniest part about this is how you would even know this, do you attend your local Mosque?
The fact is almost all Western Mosques and Imam's routinely condemn terrorist attacks and terrorist sponsoring groups. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. And the most ironic thing about it is you wouldn't expect your own church congregation and priest to attack and condem acts of Christian violence around the world. For example where was your condemnation when the Christians of the Central African Republic went on a rampage murdering all Muslims including women and children? Where was your public statement? Oh they don't represent you, do they? So why would you expect radical Islamic militants represent all muslims?
You are a fucking bigot.
Re: YOU HAVE TO GO BACK (Score:5, Insightful)
This is indeed a bad day when a hate-filled post like this gets modded +5 Insightful.
Historically, the "good" ones are silent when Islamist terrorists act. How many mosques have you seen speak out against ISIS and Islamist terrorism?
Yeah, they speak out all the time, though you wouldn't know it by reading the mainstream media. Every major terrorist event is generally followed by loads of denunciations by prominent Muslim leaders. And then there's stuff like this [csmonitor.com], where 70,000 Muslim clerics have issued a fatwa against terrorist acts.
The Islamist terrorist activities are encouraged by their "holy" books. .... I encourage everyone to read the Koran.
I'd encourage people to read other sacred texts written over a 1000 years ago when violence was much more common and compare. For example, have a look at the stuff in the Bible [evilbible.com]. Just one of those verses from Leviticus motivates dozens of killings of homosexuals every year, for example. But you don't tend to hear as much about them, because they tend to be individual killings. The main difference between Christianity/Judaism and Islam in terms of "holy" books (as you put it) is that the former tend to ignore the tenets of their scriptures more these days... compared to say a few centuries ago when they happily went around killing people in God's name too. (Heck, even in the 20th century you had genocides partially motivated by Christian sectarianism.)
The Western world has been shielded from this truth for too long. We can share a planet. We cannot share a country with these folks.
And it's people with views like this that are playing directly into the hands of the terrorists -- and by terrorists, I mean actual terrorist leaders and those motivated by political/religious ideology, not this numbnuts in France who from recent reports appears to be far from motivated by ideology [huffingtonpost.co.uk]. The reports are still early, but if recent media stories and interviews with family members and neighbors are to be believed, this guy was just a whackjob with a previous arrest for road rage and whose personal life had self-destructed. He doesn't appear to have been religious at all, drinking, doing drugs, eating pork, never attending services, etc.
So what about the reports that he shouted "Allahu akbar!" during the killings? Well, if he did, he was probably playing into the "terrorist" fantasy world you're putting him into.
If you don't mind, I'm not going to dignify him by calling him a "terrorist" -- that's insulting to actual politically motivated folks who feel the need to act violently in the name of an ideology. I'll just call this guy "Numbnuts," which is the level of respect he deserves.
From recent reports, it appears that Numbnuts was a depressed loner. In the past, some idiotic coward afraid of dealing with his own life might have quietly offed himself with a gun to the head in his own house, or maybe jumped off a bridge or something. Or maybe he would have "gone postal" and killed some family or coworkers just to take some of the people he hated with him. (Note that term go postal [wikipedia.org], remember that? Dozens of incidents of postal workers shooting up people over a decade, and I don't remember anyone calling for them all to be deported... sure no incidents on this scale, but still.)
Anyhow, Numbnuts here doesn't sound like a terrorist. He was just a screwed-up lunatic with a death wish. And if he shouted some Muslim phrase at the end, it's probably because he read some BS on the internet and people like you af
Re: (Score:2)
How do you plan to detect if someone is a Muslim or not?
Re: (Score:2)
Deport them where?
Unfortunately France has this problem where they used to have a few colonies and most of "those people" are from there. Came here 40+ years ago. It's likely that the person who drove that truck was born in France and is French. Where to do you wish to deport someone like this?
And ... does that mean that by extrapolation, we have to expect a lot of US people that are going to flood Europe when they get repatriated by the natives?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Deport them where?
Who fucking cares? Just put them in boxcars and pull the train to Syria (or on a boat and run it aground on their beach) with full air support to crash through the border, and leave them there and reseal the border. Make it their problem. Fuck them all. Unfortunately we are too weak to do what needs to be done. Blame the politically correct for putting us all in danger and allowing these people out of the middle east to begin with. Oh, and stop trying to rescue those damn people in their s
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I figured that much. Populist bullshit position without content.
Same solution you have for unemployment, housing, urban unrest, gentrification... someone should do something somewhere.
Try again when you have an actual solution. Until then allow me to inform you that, yes, everyone has by now noticed that there's a problem and no, nobody else has any kind of solution either. Because, guess what: If someone HAD a solution, we'd be implementing it!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the problem is circumcision?
Circumcision leading to sexual frustration leading to anger.
Re: (Score:2)
And ... does that mean that by extrapolation, we have to expect a lot of US people that are going to flood Europe when they get repatriated by the natives?
Sure if the natives take over the country and chose that.
Re: (Score:2)
France still have a few islands in different places. Some of them not inhabited by anything but birds.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be an idiot. Having the West give up freedom of religion is precisely the point of these attacks. ISIS is losing, such angry and unthinking actions on our part are their only hope.
This is war. Fight with your brain, not your heart, least you aid your enemy. We don't even know if this had anything to do with Islam rather than an unhinged petty criminal with a history of violence finally going over the edge.
Re: (Score:3)
Deporting all Muslims is the only way to save western civilization.
Western civilization isn't the one at risk, the reason for these attacks, the reason Muslim conservatives hate immigration even more than Western conservatives, is that repressive Muslim cultures are the ones under real threat.
We're worried about people coming from a different culture and regressive beliefs. They're worried about those same immigrants becoming liberalized and spreading those ideas of tolerance back home.
That's one of the reasons why ISIS is attacking the West, so that Western nations exclud
Re:YOU HAVE TO GO BACK (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, because the healthy, normal response to feeling a little out of place is to murder people. Surely we can all agree that a culture which promotes mass murder because their feelings are hurt is one which must be honored, cherished, and brought into our homelands in droves.
Re:YOU HAVE TO GO BACK (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: YOU HAVE TO GO BACK (Score:2, Insightful)
Only a king bigot would want to kill all people he/she thinks are bigots. I think you need to look in the mirror and reflect on the monster you have become.
Re:YOU HAVE TO GO BACK (Score:5, Informative)
You think that bigotry caused this? Or any of the other previous terrorist attacks? No. Stop being so damned naive. Countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Quatar? They're funding extrimism in our own backyards by paying for the institutional buildings to spread that type of hate. You should probably pick up a history book as well. Then you'll find out that this has been an on-going problem for nearly 1300 years at this point. I'm sure someone will come out whining but what about the crusades. Oh yes, those crusades that were a response...after nearly 200 years of attacks against European countries, against muslim slavery, destruction of churches and religious sites. Rape, pillaging and murder of entire towns. It's so stupidly easy to chart the initial battles, slavery camps, slave markets from historical documents(the feudal governments and catholic church were malicious about it). And even easier to see when the initial push-back started.
That there are serious problems with muslims entering from the middle east and africa causing no shortage of problems. That in their new host countries, they continue the old way of life instead of integrating. That there are mosques and madrassa's that teach extremism as the bread and butter of their faith. You can find them easily all over Europe. Before someone goes..."but you're a white male, you don't know anything!" Let me finish out with I'm a first generation kid in Canada, born to mixed race parents who's parents integrated into society, left the old world bullshit behind, became productive members of society and were respected for it. So with that, I respect muslims that will turn around and leave the old world garbage behind and become productive members of society. The rest? Nope. And those ones that won't? They'll even attack their fellow brothers because they believe that they're not muslim anymore. See what happened here in Canada after the double terrorist attacks within a week of each other. When leaders of reformist muslim movements, and liberal mosque leaderships denounced and then stated that all mosques should be under police surveillance. The response? "You're not muslim, you should be killed. You're an apostate! Etc, etc, etc."
Re: (Score:2)
So what do you think they're trying to accomplish? All that effort can't hope to cause enough damage to weaken Europe militarily. But it can give our nationalists just enough help to succeed in tearing EU apart, and if at all possible to give up liberty so it won't tempt their subjects anymore. After that, all they have to do is wait for the continen
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You could almost say that the oil industry is really to blame. We've got a 60 year history of destabilizing a region where this mad ideology originates and then funding (and arming) their dictators. Oil industry and banksters have wrought this upon us. And a family named, "Rothschild"
We'll never deal with terrorism until we deal with that and the fallout from Balfour.
Okay, let's roll with this. You know the US is now sitting on more oil, coal and NG, then there are proven supplies in say Saudi Arabia? Canada comes in just under that US total too. So let's cut the snake off at the head, and start using our own oil/NG/coal/etc. Sounds good right? Oh wait, what do you mean those environmentalists are starting to whine, and the nimby's are so uptight that their assholes are where their mouths are? And there's a brain dead president in power that doesn't want to do any
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It doesn't matter where the oil is geographically. Banksters are above nationality. All that matter is where the money is and where it goes.
There is zero chance of any sort of legislation requiring oil drilled in the US to be sold only in the US.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Keystone XL pipeline extension was planned between Hardisty, Alberta, and Steele City, Nebraska. It does not go to Texas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You're confused with the rest of the Keystone oil pipeline complex, some of which does go to Texas. All of those pipelines have already been built.
In terms of why does any of it go to Texas? Keystone in general goes to refineries in Illinois and Texas. The reason for that is simple. That is where the refineries are.
You sort of have it backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oil from North American sources are significantly more expensive to extract and process. Forgetting the environmentalism concern entirely, are you willing to accept potentially 50% gas price hikes to stop doing business with undesirable nations? If so, great on you(?) but I don't see the market at large taking your stance.
Re: (Score:2)
Oil from North American sources are significantly more expensive to extract and process. Forgetting the environmentalism concern entirely, are you willing to accept potentially 50% gas price hikes to stop doing business with undesirable nations? If so, great on you(?) but I don't see the market at large taking your stance.
Obviously you don't work, have friends that work/etc in the oil industry here in Canada or the US. If you did, you'd know that most of that extraction and processing is profitable above a price of $44BBL, the very heaviest crude including oil sands are profitable at prices above $64BBL. There would be no 50% price hike. Hell oil is at ~45-47BBL right now, and I'm still paying around $1/L or $4.10/Gal, where as I can cross the border and pay $2.10/Gal. Even when oil was at $110-140/BBL the price never to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the US itself is fairly independent of Saudi oil these days.
The problem is that Europe and China are not. Even if we were 100% off Saudi oil, Saudi would still be making bank.
Our purpose in the Middle East is simple, prevent World War III so that we don't have to ride to save the day like we did in WWII. And since nuclear weapons are in play, if there is a WWIII we may not get the chance to play Big Damn Heroes before its all over and we're all fucked.
This is why I tend to favor libertarian idea
Re: (Score:2)
No. We're still importing tons of oil from the Saudis. Remember, it's a global market. Oil that's drilled here in the US doesn't stay in the US. We'll always be at the mercy of the Saudis and OPEC as long as we are hell-bent on globalism.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, you could never, ever get a US congress or president from either party to go along with forcing US oil companies to sell only to US customers. It is not possible.
So you can do all the off-shore drilling and fracking is just going toward shipping our resources overseas. "Energy independent" really should mean "energy independent". Not just "we'
Re:YOU HAVE TO GO BACK (Score:5, Insightful)
You could almost say that the oil industry is really to blame. We've got a 60 year history of destabilizing a region where this mad ideology originates and then funding (and arming) their dictators. Oil industry and banksters have wrought this upon us. And a family named, "Rothschild"
We'll never deal with terrorism until we deal with that and the fallout from Balfour.
Very true. It was such a stable and peaceful place before /sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't a stable and peaceful place, but we had not yet given them the means to influence us by selling them our birthright.
By making the Saudis rich beyond the dreams of avarice, we have allowed them to export their murderous theology around the world.
Re: (Score:2)
We managed to make enemies in basically all camps there. We enriched whichever assholes were in charge at the time. We helped other power tripping assholes into power. The enemies of those assholes logically now view us as the enemy. Then whenever we stopped supporting the assholes in charge they came to view us as enemies. Even the nations and groups that we didn't outright take a collective shit on though have come to dislike, if not hate us, for perpetually meddling in the affairs of their neighbors and
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there was a history of violence and strife, like there is in every part of the world, but we hadn't yet turned the worst actors into billionaires.
Re: If not for poles you'd all say "allah akbar" (Score:2)
Poland rules exactly nothing. It is just a place Germans and Russians go through when they are at war with each other.
Re: (Score:3)
No hanging and quartering, just drawing?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that could work, if we make sure it is in Texas again. The last two fools who were dumb enough to fall into that trap did not do so well.
All we have to do is manage to have enough events like that so that they Darwin themselves out of existence. Brilliant!
Re: (Score:2)
Would probably work in Russia too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Burnout did that ages ago, that's not new.
Re: (Score:2)