Monday, July 18, 2016

A Terror Attack Confirmed

Michael L.

In a recent piece entitled, "Nice Terrorism?" I found it interesting that in Nice we immediately jumped to the conclusion of terrorism yet in Fort Hood and Orlando we did not. 

I wrote:
In virtually every terrorist attack that we have in the United States, or the West, more generally, there has been a great reluctance to use the term "terrorism" much less "radical Islamic terrorism."

Fort Hood, an obvious terror attack, was dubbed "work place violence" by Ostrich-in-Chief, Barack Obama. ...

And, yet, in the hours directly after the horrific Nice attack, yesterday, everybody was using the term "terrorism" to describe this attack. The great irony is that this may be the one that actually is NOT a terror attack.

It might very well be, but we do not know that yet.
Well, now we know.

Just as Orlando was a Jihadi attack, so was Nice.

The Times of Israel, via Agence France Presse, tells us:
Nice, France — The truck driver who killed 85 people in the French city of Nice showed a “clear, recent interest” in radical Islam, the Paris prosecutor said Monday, confirming the attack was “premeditated.”

The investigation showed Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel had trawled the internet for information on a terror attack in the US city of Orlando and on the killing of a police couple in a Paris suburb last month, Francois Molins said.

A search of his computer also found violent images “linked to radical Islam,” he told a press conference in Paris.
Except for the most ideologically blinkered, this should resolve the question of whether or not this was a Jihadi attack.

It was.

There was, however, very little evidence up until this moment that Bouhlel was religious or political, but, as it happens, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls was apparently correct when he said that Bouhlel was only recently radicalized.

One question that we are all asking ourselves, naturally, is where all this chaos and nonsense throughout the West is leading us?

4 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Yes, well, I try not to, Doodad.

      ;O)

      Delete
  2. Maybe the best approach of all is to simply let the European leaders fomenting and fostering this to own it. Just stand back. Maybe they're right and in a year or 2 it will all be glorious and wonderful, gluten free, trans bathrooms compliant, gay tolerant liberal renewable energy Muslim charm. Peace and good will, prosperity and love all around. Could be, who knows? They can own that. If on the other hand it ends in an aria of genocide, burning bodies, civil war, extermination, death camps and sharia then fine. They can own that too. Whatever happens, just keep reminding them they got what they wanted, they were handed the permission they demanded we give them. Just point out that good or bad, that's on them...mantle of leadership and whatnot.

    A bunch of years ago I was being treated for cancer and there was a problem with the particle beam accelerator. So I was there strapped down for an hour, waiting for something to happen until I finally started yelling at them to either start or send me home. The disembodied voice of someone piped in 'We don't want to make you sick'. To which I responded "Sick? Sicker than what? I already have cancer. Fire it up."

    That might be way to approach Europe's 'leaders'. They already have an illness they created themselves on themselves. If they ignore it then that's on them. Maybe it will get better. Maybe not. But we 'don't want to make them sick', do we?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am seriously sick of all the talk about "how Muslim was he" after every one of these attacks.

    ReplyDelete