It’s so nice that France continues to maintain that he was radicalized while admitting that there is absolutely no proof of this.
No chance that he was just a suicidal, homicidal, psychopath who happened to have an Arabic name now is there? No chance that the fact that he never entered a mosque and didn’t pray (a MAJOR no-no in Islam) could indicate that he wasn’t religious and didn’t do this in the name of Islam? No chance that his history of violence, rage, and mental instability could indicate that this was the work of a violent, enraged man?
Nope. His name is Mohamed so this must be an act of ISIS.
I am beyond disturbed by France’s response to this.
“…a source close to the investigation told CNN that a phone number belonging to Bouhlel cropped up in a counterterrorism investigation into an associate of Omar Diaby, a 41-year-old Senagalese jihadi who lived in Nice before traveling to Syria.” http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/16/europe/france-attack-on-nice-isis/index.html
We are always saying that radicalized Muslims don’t represent the majority of them. Yet when one attacks we expect him to be like the majority of Muslims? (Going to mosques, not drinking, not eating pork, etc.)
“His violent tendencies and anger remind me of the Orlando shooter.”
Fareed Zakaria, when talking about ISIS terrorist attacks, always includes the Orlando shooter. He basically said the same thing already expressed by some posters here along the lines that ISIS is a death cult recruiting disturbed individuals to cause death and suffering. An added bonus to ISIS is the nationalism and anger towards Muslims it stirs up.
The mass of the truck is much greater compared to a human body. They got lucky that it was only 84 killed (might go higher though). That truck in such a crowd going at even only 15 - 20 miles an hour has the force to kill hundreds if it was not stopped.
In events like these, I think it’s important to have a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to breaking news information esp on social media (though I do love it for events like these) until it’s reported by a reliable source.
Home grown terrorist is a 100% misnomer and nonsensical when one analyzing what it really means. it is merely deflection to create a fake narrative.
With the internet, home grown makes zero sense because home grown means that the elements which made the person do what the did emanated from/was created in/was caused by the home country.
However, terrorists born in the US or a European country are invariably looking at the same radical Islamic websites from OTHER parts of the world, as the internet is worldwide.
I think it’s almost irrelevant whether this killer was a “follower” of ISIS or was “radicalized.” I’m guessing that ISIS leaders are gratified whenever someone kills a bunch of people using a method they have mentioned (in this case, BTW, a method that anyone with even half a brain could come up with), whether or not they’ve heard of the killer before.
He had people smuggle approximately $100,000 to his family in Tunisia. He had this money from eight years of driving a truck in France. That recently and on top of money he had sent over the years. Sending such a small fortune should have raised suspicions.
Well, half of Catholics believe in abortion and many also use birth control, even though the Church doctrine states otherwise on both. Gay marriage is another is issue that is viewed disparately by believing Catholics. Does this make the people who are not 100% devout not Catholic anymore? Of course not. And no one would even begin to put forth such a concept.
Therefore, in the same vein, this fake meme/concept that if one is not a totally devout Muslim, then one is not Muslim and thus any terrorism one does cannot be in the name of Islam is ludicrous. Religion is not an all or none deal. In every religion, there are tenants that some accept and tenants that some choose to think differently about.
Remember Dylan Roof? Many people had no problem calling him a Christian terrorist when he had no indication at all that he followed any theology that preached killing apostates. Same with the Colorado theater shooter - people called him a Christian terrorist on here as well - even though, there was zero indication that he followed any religion that taught the killing of apostates was allowed.
Yet now, denying any connection to Islam for a angry, violent Muslim who openly says he is killing in the name of Islam is the new meme du jour if he is not 100% devout. However, a angry, violent mass shooter who says nothing about religion during his act is dutifully labeled a Christian terrorist.
Occam’s Razor comes into play here - One does not have to be 100% devout of anything to be dangerous; one just has to believe and follow the worst part.
What a bigot this French interior minister is. [url=<a href=“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0plC24YuoJk%5DWatch%5B/url”>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0plC24YuoJk]Watch[/url] what Sarah Haider says about bigotry. Yes, condemning the mindset & belief-system that motivated the killing of Quandeel Baloch is an exhibition of bigotry.
In case there are still doubts about the statement that ISIS has claimed that this is their attack, CNN has reported the claim, and attributed it to Amaq Agency (described by CNN as the ISIS media agency). Amaq called the attacker one of their “soldiers.” In my opinion, this does not necessarily mean that the attacker had any contact with ISIS members ahead of the attack–but they have certainly claimed him as their agent.
“So much for the 'they are ‘poor and jobless’ excuse and therefore are susceptible to commiting jihad.”
Who has ever said this?! It’s well known many jihadists come or came from relatively educated, well to do backgrounds. I hope this wasn’t a straw man that you believe “the other side” thinks.