[News] Lorry attack in Nice

[Guy Crouchback]

It does look like he's a nutter and likely acting alone

The French police have already arrested three men in connection with the terrorist attack in Nice (altogether 5 people were detained, including ex-wife of the terrorist).

it may be semantics but as he did it in the name of Islam I would say that classes him as radicalised?

No, he was a representative of moderate islam: he was driving at speed of 35-40 mph, whilst a radical muslim would have driven at least 55 mph.

 

[beorhthelm]

Yes, it's in denial. It's not Islamophobic to call out the Nice attack as Islamic terrorism - it's the clear truth. I certainly don't have the answers and I've never once suggested mass expulsions but surely the first step in dealing with a problem is acknowledging that the problem exists. Until then we are screwed.

a problem exists. you cant automatically assume that any crime commited by anyone of a certain ethnicity or religious bent is part of that problem. as far as i see at this point, and information may come to light that changes this view, this is not terrorism - it had no political purpose. it was simple violence, a deranged madman. i dont care if he was muslim and shouted a muslim slogan, that doesnt automatically attribute it to islamic terrorism. its notable that no group has claimed it. the neighbours say he was rude and drank, he sounds like a loner with a grudge against the world, that is not radicalisation, otherwise you have to start calling every criminal radicalised.

 

[The Clamp]

The French police have already arrested three men in connection with the terrorist attack in Nice (altogether 5 people were detained, including ex-wife of the terrorist).



No, he was a representative of moderate islam: he was driving at speed of 35-40 mph, whilst a radical muslim would have driven at least 55 mph.

Yeah, just heard about the arrests on the news. I heard he had grenades and rifles with him, by definition whoever provided those would be in involved.

 

[Mackenzie]

a problem exists. you cant automatically assume that any crime commited by anyone of a certain ethnicity or religious bent is part of that problem. as far as i see at this point, and information may come to light that changes this view, this is not terrorism - it had no political purpose. it was simple violence, a deranged madman. i dont care if he was muslim and shouted a muslim slogan, that doesnt automatically attribute it to islamic terrorism. its notable that no group has claimed it. the neighbours say he was rude and drank, he sounds like a loner with a grudge against the world, that is not radicalisation, otherwise you have to start calling every criminal radicalised.

Is it that easy for a lone individual to obtain AK47's and grenades?

 

[The Clamp]

a problem exists. you cant automatically assume that any crime commited by anyone of a certain ethnicity or religious bent is part of that problem. as far as i see at this point, and information may come to light that changes this view, this is not terrorism - it had no political purpose. it was simple violence, a deranged madman. i dont care if he was muslim and shouted a muslim slogan, that doesnt automatically attribute it to islamic terrorism. its notable that no group has claimed it. the neighbours say he was rude and drank, he sounds like a loner with a grudge against the world, that is not radicalisation, otherwise you have to start calling every criminal radicalised.

I think this case is radicalisation, albeit in a small scale. Individuals can be radicalised.

Pure conjecture but I imagine this nutter became radicalised, approached a cell who provided the weapons and truck and sent him off with a "praise Allah! 72 virgins await you beautiful martyr". If that's the case it'd be pretty hard to say this wasn't a radicalised person doing the deed in the name of Islam.

Also, I think we should judge the scale of radicalisation not by how many committed the act but by how many are affected. In this case 84 dead, countless relatives in mourning and Europe in shock. That to me is obscenely radical.

 

[Soulman]

a problem exists. you cant automatically assume that any crime commited by anyone of a certain ethnicity or religious bent is part of that problem. as far as i see at this point, and information may come to light that changes this view, this is not terrorism - it had no political purpose. it was simple violence, a deranged madman. i dont care if he was muslim and shouted a muslim slogan, that doesnt automatically attribute it to islamic terrorism. its notable that no group has claimed it. the neighbours say he was rude and drank, he sounds like a loner with a grudge against the world, that is not radicalisation, otherwise you have to start calling every criminal radicalised.

The killer, a 31-year-old French Tunisian who was known to police,
5 people have been detained.
What with shouting Ali Akbar etc, seems he was not just a nutter or a loner does it.

 

[studio150]

as far as i see at this point, and information may come to light that changes this view, this is not terrorism - it had no political purpose. it was simple violence, a deranged madman. under the .

Under the UK Terrorism Act 2000, the act of violence does not need to have a political purpose. The definition includes:

the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

Whether the killer was motivated by any of these may be difficult to find out.

 

[Buzzer]

i dont care if he was muslim and shouted a muslim slogan, that doesnt automatically attribute it to islamic terrorism. its notable that no group has claimed it

Then I think we'll have to agree to disagree. There's not an official terrorists' club that you have to join before you can officially be called a terrorist, you know and a lot of terrorists are sad loners and hypocrites who don't practice what they preach. This, only days ago, from Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, former chief of the Pentagon Defense Intelligence Agency : "The vast majority of files found by US officers on laptops taken from Islamic State contain pornography".

Watch the video and you'll see Nawiz explain that as far back as 4 years ago, ISIS were encouraging Muslims to drive into crowds of people, especially in France. This bloke DID do that, he was shouting Allahu Akhbar, the French Government have described it as Islamic terrorism, the Quillam Foundation which is the leading Western anti-Islamic terror think-tank set up and run by Muslims thinks it's Islamic terrorism.

The Nice attack was an act of Islamic terrorism in my opinion and I think I have the experts on my side in this case.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ruck-driver-who-killed-84-named-as-loner-fre/

ISIL-claim responsibility for attack

 

[spence]

It does look like he's a nutter and likely acting alone, it may be semantics but as he did it in the name of Islam I would say that classes him as radicalised?

Lol.

You think he did this alone?

 

[The Clamp]

Lol.

You think he did this alone?

Sorry, I meant he was on his own when he did it. As my other posts say, he could never pull this off on his own, he'd have been supplied with weapons a truck and Allah on "his side".

 

[beorhthelm]

The killer, a 31-year-old French Tunisian who was known to police,
5 people have been detained.
What with shouting Ali Akbar etc, seems he was not just a nutter or a loner does it.

known to police make him a criminal (and they can obtain obtain AK47 and grenades on the continent). people detained is pretty much standard procedure. shouting slogans doesnt make you a radicalised relgious devotee, it means you shouted something.

Under the UK Terrorism Act 2000, the act of violence does not need to have a political purpose. The definition includes:

the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

Whether the killer was motivated by any of these may be difficult to find out.

"political, religious, racial or ideological cause" are facets of the same point, they are a cause. the evidence this far does not suggest any cause, except his own selfish rage.

im not trying to defend anyone or anything, i just think people are too happily attributing this to "terrorism" so that it explains away the really frieghtning aspect, that anyone could commit such an act so easily. chalk it up to terrorism if it makes you feel better, doesnt help understand the motive or prevent copycat acts. i came in on the point of "what can you do about it" and i dont see any one proposing any answers.

 

[Buzzer]

i came in on the point of "what can you do about it" and i dont see any one proposing any answers.

Did you really expect anyone on here to have an answer to it when the collective resources of the Western world haven't figured it out?

You may have come in on that point but you stayed to downplay the link to terrorism and I think you've been roundly shot down on that (excusing the inappropriate pun).

 

[beorhthelm]

You may have come in on that point but you stayed to downplay the link to terrorism and I think you've been roundly shot down on that (excusing the inappropriate pun).

yes, i accept that, you know why? because i worry we are wrapping ourselfs up in fear. because its bloody scary that anyone can rent a truck and mow down a crowd, you dont need to be radicalised to do that, just loss of sanity or rational thought.

 

[studio150]

i came in on the point of "what can you do about it" and i dont see any one proposing any answers.

In terms of the actual events, there is nothing you can do about it.

There have been examples in the UK of a driver deliberately using their vehicle as a weapon and driving into queues or people on the pavement, but obviously killing or injuring far less people.

Given that this can occur at anytime, or anywhere you can not protect the public from it, unless you are willing to spend billions and billions of pounds on putting barriers along every mile of pavement in the UK, which does not offer value for money against the actual risk.

It is also something that anyone can do alone, which does not require any planning within a cell, which the authorities could monitor and stop before the act.

It is just something else that the public need to be aware of.

 

[Buzzer]

yes, i accept that, you know why? because i worry we are wrapping ourselfs up in fear. because its bloody scary that anyone can rent a truck and mow down a crowd, you dont need to be radicalised to do that, just loss of sanity or rational thought.

I'm not afraid of that anymore than I'm afraid to go out walking in a Help For Heroes t-shirt in case I get macheted or afraid to get on a train at rush hour in case there's a bomber or afraid to go to a concert in case of gunmen.

These terrorists are not going to make me change my way of life but I'm also not afraid to call out Islamic terrorism when I see it for fear of being thought of as Islamophobic.

 

[Soulman]

Nice attack was due to ‘decades of multiculturalism and political correctness’ says Polish Interior Minister

Polish Interior Minster Mariusz Blaszczak called for tough action on jihadis
He claimed 'multiculturalism' and political correctness caused Nice attack
The right wing politician wants increased surveillance on terror suspects
He said there there were not any 'no-go zones in Poland' for the police

 

[studio150]

IS have now claimed they carried out attack

 

[Hillian1]

IS have now claimed they carried out attack

Religion of Peace iirc.

 

[Soulman]

For 1500 years Muslims and Islam have been in Europe, 45 million or whatever of them now, living mostly happily, integrated throughout our society, from MPs to Doctors, teachers, police. The politics of their homelands, the brutal regimes, the wars we've seen for decades have created a faction of the Muslim world that you simply cannot taint an entire religion with. Anders Breviek killed 77 people, mainly teenagers, he is rightly considered a psychopath radicalised by the far right. Had he been a Muslim we would have seen that tragedy completely differently. But, crucially there is no difference between Breviek and the driver of this lorry. Both easily radicalised by a doctrine of hate, both able to commit mass murder in the name of a belief. The murderer of Jo Cox no different.

Every religion can be driven to extremism, and almost everyone has at one time or another. The language of hate is an easy tool to radicalise if you can present it as the word of God. For some, like Breviek, you don't even need the word of God.

What do you want to happen, 1.6 Billion Muslims all to say, yes our religion encourages us to be violent, when the vast majority are not violent at all? 5 out of the last 12 Nobel Peace Prize winners have been Muslims. It would be like getting 1.2 Billion Catholics to admit that their religion encourages paedophilia.

The denial and excuses are that we expect some kind of convenient answer, that we can just say, oh its this bit from their book, or its migrants, or whatever else to ease our need for an explanation - it would make us feel safer. However it isn't simple is it. Europe lives with 45 million Muslims, and the continent has seen far more violence from separatists, civil or political factions, or just random acts. Of 1000 terrorist attacks recorded in Europe over the past 5 years, less than 2% were connected to religion.

In our lifetimes we've seen what ordinary Christians can be driven to under the stress of violence. I cannot get my head around how we never blamed Christianity for Northern Ireland and yet need to blame Islam for these atrocities? What is the difference? One was more political, but what do you think the middle east is? The paramilitaries found it easy enough to radicalise plenty of willing people to blow up kids and families out shopping on British streets, and it follows another religion finds it just as easy enough to do the same.

If Islam really was a religion of hate, do you not think we'd be seeing wide spread attacks in every city in the world from a population of 1.6 Billion Muslims? Doesn't stack up that conclusion.

It isn't everyone else's fault, because you are never going to find a convenient 'fault' to blame it on. That is a hurdle we need to get our heads around.

Even the book of hate accepts that there are two kinds of Muslim; those who fight for their [imaginary] god, and those who can't or won't.


“Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath God promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward” – Quran 4:95


The verse sanctions Muslims to ‘fight in the cause of their god. Those that do get the special reward. More suited to the 7th century, would you not agree?