Truck Plows into Crowd in Nice, France.

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,906
1,905
113
Well, Germany always did have a problem with nice.

Nice biscuits are nice. When I was a kid I used to think the NICE etched into them said "nice" - because they taste nice - until one day my mum said: "It doesn't say nice. It says Nice, which is a city in France."

 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
47
48
66
If Nice was a "Bad man, Lone Wolf that drank and ate pork, why are 5 in custody ?

French Prosecutor’s Office Says 5 In Custody In Wake Of Bastille Day Attack In Nice

The Paris prosecutor’s office says that five people are in custody following the deadly truck attack in the French resort city of Nice.

The office released no additional information about the arrests; it was unclear who was in custody or why. Messages seeking further details were not returned.

Eighty-four people were killed and 200 more wounded when Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel slammed his vehicle into a throng of fireworks spectators on Nice’s seaside boulevard.

The identities of most of those brought into custody were not clear. But neighbors in the Nice neighborhood where the Bouhlel used to live told The Associated Press his estranged wife had been taken away by police on Friday.

French prosecutor's office: 5 people in custody in wake of deadly truck attack in Nice

funny how the media jumped on the "pork eating drinking booze" bandwagon as fast as calling Zimmerman a white man.

Deal with it, he had an "epiphany" 'FOUND alla" and did his masters bidding to earn rewards in the afterlife.

Read more at LiveLeak.com - If Nice was a "Bad man, Lone Wolf that drank and ate pork, why are 5 in custody ?

 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
47
48
66
^cuck

"By any reasonable count there are a few hundred million Muslims who in some way approve of terror"

When snipers fired on Union soldiers from Tennessee or Kentucky villages, Sherman expelled residents, burned houses, and laid waste to crops. There are lessons here for what we used to call, quaintly, the Global War on Terror.


Like Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, who burned a great swath through Georgia and the Carolinas, Sheridan believed that war is won not just by killing soldiers but by denying them support from a broader civilian population. There’s nothing particularly clever about this insight. One learns from James Lee McDonough’s new biography of Sherman how ordinary the great man was–a competent military officer without a minute’s combat experience before the war began, then an honest but unsuccessful banker. When the war came Sherman came close to a nervous breakdown, trying in vain to convince his masters that they would have to kill 300,000 Southern soldiers and devastate the Confederacy to win the war. He then distinguished himself in combat at Shiloh in 1863 and went on to become the scourge of the Deep South.


The Union always had more men and more resources; what it lacked was generals with the stomach for the job. That meant not only the grisly war of attrition waged by Grant, another middling commander with absolute resolve, but also retaliation against civilians: When snipers fired on Union soldiers from Tennessee or Kentucky villages, Sherman expelled residents, burned houses, and laid waste to crops. There are lessons here for what we used to call, quaintly, the Global War on Terror.


Destroying ISIS, al-Qaeda and other Muslim terror groups is not particularly difficult, far less difficult than Sherman or Sheridan’s task during the Civil War. It simply requires doing some disgusting things.​
A conversation that's way overdue

Nice attack: Why the terrorists are winning the intelligence war — Spengler – Asia Times
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,501
8,100
113
B.C.
^cuck

"By any reasonable count there are a few hundred million Muslims who in some way approve of terror"

When snipers fired on Union soldiers from Tennessee or Kentucky villages, Sherman expelled residents, burned houses, and laid waste to crops. There are lessons here for what we used to call, quaintly, the Global War on Terror.


Like Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, who burned a great swath through Georgia and the Carolinas, Sheridan believed that war is won not just by killing soldiers but by denying them support from a broader civilian population. There’s nothing particularly clever about this insight. One learns from James Lee McDonough’s new biography of Sherman how ordinary the great man was–a competent military officer without a minute’s combat experience before the war began, then an honest but unsuccessful banker. When the war came Sherman came close to a nervous breakdown, trying in vain to convince his masters that they would have to kill 300,000 Southern soldiers and devastate the Confederacy to win the war. He then distinguished himself in combat at Shiloh in 1863 and went on to become the scourge of the Deep South.


The Union always had more men and more resources; what it lacked was generals with the stomach for the job. That meant not only the grisly war of attrition waged by Grant, another middling commander with absolute resolve, but also retaliation against civilians: When snipers fired on Union soldiers from Tennessee or Kentucky villages, Sherman expelled residents, burned houses, and laid waste to crops. There are lessons here for what we used to call, quaintly, the Global War on Terror.


Destroying ISIS, al-Qaeda and other Muslim terror groups is not particularly difficult, far less difficult than Sherman or Sheridan’s task during the Civil War. It simply requires doing some disgusting things.​
A conversation that's way overdue

Nice attack: Why the terrorists are winning the intelligence war — Spengler – Asia Times
But why would we want to learn from history ?
By the time we begin to think about such measures we will already be in a war .
 

B00Mer

Make Canada Great Again
Sep 6, 2008
47,127
8,145
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.canadianforums.ca
But why would we want to learn from history ?
By the time we begin to think about such measures we will already be in a war .

Is that all you have, empty platitudes?

In the last 100 years man has achieved incredible advancement while still being plagued by the same problems of war, famine and disease.

The problem is greed. There are more than enough resources in the world today to wipe out famine and find cures for diseases, however the few .01% don't want to give up their riches for the betterment of the other 99.99%.

Greed.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
^cuck

"By any reasonable count there are a few hundred million Muslims who in some way approve of terror"

When snipers fired on Union soldiers from Tennessee or Kentucky villages, Sherman expelled residents, burned houses, and laid waste to crops. There are lessons here for what we used to call, quaintly, the Global War on Terror.


Like Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, who burned a great swath through Georgia and the Carolinas, Sheridan believed that war is won not just by killing soldiers but by denying them support from a broader civilian population. There’s nothing particularly clever about this insight. One learns from James Lee McDonough’s new biography of Sherman how ordinary the great man was–a competent military officer without a minute’s combat experience before the war began, then an honest but unsuccessful banker. When the war came Sherman came close to a nervous breakdown, trying in vain to convince his masters that they would have to kill 300,000 Southern soldiers and devastate the Confederacy to win the war. He then distinguished himself in combat at Shiloh in 1863 and went on to become the scourge of the Deep South.


The Union always had more men and more resources; what it lacked was generals with the stomach for the job. That meant not only the grisly war of attrition waged by Grant, another middling commander with absolute resolve, but also retaliation against civilians: When snipers fired on Union soldiers from Tennessee or Kentucky villages, Sherman expelled residents, burned houses, and laid waste to crops. There are lessons here for what we used to call, quaintly, the Global War on Terror.


Destroying ISIS, al-Qaeda and other Muslim terror groups is not particularly difficult, far less difficult than Sherman or Sheridan’s task during the Civil War. It simply requires doing some disgusting things.​
A conversation that's way overdue

Nice attack: Why the terrorists are winning the intelligence war — Spengler – Asia Times

How are conbots so dumb?

You end up creating more terrorists by killing the ones you thought were terrorists but were actually peaceful.

Cuck.