Islamic State Has Claimed Responsibility For Nice.

[ladybirder]

No question. Only answers if possible.

[Gromit]

People that knew him say he was frightening and not 'normal'.

He was known to police as a petty criminal and violent. It will be interesting to learn when he was last in prison. It is common for radicalisation to occur while locked up.

Though I have doubts that he was a proper terrorist and that he was controlled by IS.

[Zacs-Master]

You did. Feeling up to answering my question this morning?

[naomi24]

I've forgotten what it was. I'll have a look later.

[Zacs-Master]

Just like I forgot you'd posted the link eh? Nice one.

[mushroom25]

//Though I have doubts that he was a proper terrorist and that he was controlled by IS. //

this guy drove his truck into a crowd and killed 84 people.
how big an atrocity is necessary before one can be labelled a "proper terrorist", bearing in mind yesterday's death toll was four times that recorded in the birmingham pub bombings, which most commentators accept were perpetrated by "proper terrorists"?

[beso]

Whether it is the responsibility of ISIL or not is irrelevant.

However it can be unambiguously attributed to an Islamist guided by the tenets of the Quran.

Every subscriber to any of the Abrahamic religions that uphold the notion that "eternal truths" are given to man through ancient "prophets" have blood on their hands every time someone kills int he name of these disgusting faiths.

[naomi24]

Zacs-Master, no. If I say I'll look, I'll look.

[Zacs-Master]

It's far from irrelevant whether he was controlled by ISIS. If he was, then it shows a measure of organisation which the French authorities missed. If it was a lone nutcase acting without their knowledge, then it's an entirely different matter.

[Old_Geezer]

I'm sure folk say a lot of things, but just because Daesh suggested something it is no proof that they are responsible for it. It's hardly something that couldn't be figured out anyway. But of course there bound to be a suspicion that the suggestion might be what encouraged an independent action by someone with mental problems.

[Zacs-Master]

Never said you wouldn't look N.

[TTG]

Thank goodness we have MI5. I imagine there are a significant number of people already in this country that have the murderers mind-set or could easily move that way.

[naomi24]

Zacs-Master, no, you didn't. Can't think why I got the impression that you doubted me.

[Zacs-Master]

I know my little automaton.

[naomi24]

Oooo ... you sweet talker, you.

[Gromit]

Mushroom,
This is certainly an atrocity, but was it carried out on the orders of Islamic State, or the act of a madman? Blaming IS or letting them take 'credit' when there isn't any proof is a mistake. Just because IS says it was their work is not proof that it was.

From the information that is in the public domain now, the killer is described as 'not normal' and unislamic in that he didn't go to the mosque, he drank alcohol and ate pork. He was a criminal with a record for violence.

If more information is made public, and a connection is made to IS, then I may change my assessment. But at the moment it looks to me like the act of a madman with a grudge rather than a jhadist.

I expect we will know soon which it is.

Funny you should mention the Birmingham Six. That was a case of the wrong people being blamed.

[Zacs-Master]

My point exactly Gromit.

[mushroom25]

i didn't mention the birmingham six gromit, you did. i spoke of the birmingham pub bombings which, notwithstanding there was a miscarriage of justice, happened. (i know someone who was there). notwithstanding the miscarriage of justice it is accepted that the IRA were involved. "Proper terrorists" in anyone's book.

[Zacs-Master]

Exactly mush, proper terrorists. Not one lone nutcase acting in their name.

[mushroom25]

whether he had the backing of a national or international group, or whether he acted alone, he still had a point to make in the action he took, howsoever warped or otherwise. he terrorised his "audience". he was making a point, although i suspect we'll never know for sure what that was. nevertheless he was a terrorist.

[Old_Geezer]

Someone may terrorise but I think one should reserve the label "terrorist" for those with an allegiance to a group that has an aim of achieving something from the terror. I don't believe a single individual can claim they gained anything for themselves by their act, save notoriety. The size of the incident isn't the deciding factor.