New terror attack france many dead

We can tell you the motives (such as they) were, but my point is that you will never accept them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-urges-more-attacks-on-western-disbelievers-9749512.html

"Abu Mohammed al Adnani urged the group’s supporters: “If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way, however it may be,” he said."

“Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him.”

Why won't you admit that you are a Muslim by the way? Despite being asked three times now.

Are you ashamed of it?

Okay, you've told me ISIS have urged their supporters to kill Western disbelievers (and we already know what ISIS' motives are). Are you saying that the attacker carried out the attacks because he was an ISIS supporter?

So that you can't start saying "Oh well you're a Muslim, obviously you're biased and none of your questions or points count for anything" and start dodging the question.

I've told you I'm happy to accept that the attack is Islamic terrorism, as soon as the motives are explained and confirmed. For example, if you can provide evidence that the attacker was influenced by ISIS (as you seem to be hinting above), I will say "Okay, you're absolutely right".

This will all come out in the next few days. *How do I know? It has happened so many times before

Yes; as I've said earlier on this thread "Allahu Akbar" is a phrase that Muslims say when they do pretty much anything.

Most Muslims pronounce the name of Allah when they know they're about to die, for example.

or when they are committing murderous terrorist acts?

Yes, sure.

But it's illogical to say "The phrase Allahu Akbar was used, therefore it's a terrorist attack", when that phrase is used for pretty much everything.

the fact its was a terrorist murder was illustrated by this guy driving his gun laden truck into innocent civilians in the street during french independence day *.

his islamic chanting shows he was driven by some islamist ideology ( or at least thats what he thought during the attack)

Do you think that the attack was in protest of the French people celebrating bastille day? If so then it would be correct to consider it a terrorist attack, in my opinion.

Though equally, it could have just been an opportunistic attack, occurring on bastille day simply because lots of people would be gathered in large crowds (similarly to the authorities fearing that attacks would be planned during the Euros).

It may be possible, even quite likely that it was a terrorist attack. But I think the news outlets that are still reporting it as "suspected terrorism" rather than "confirmed terrorism" are correct.*

As I've explained, I think it proves nothing other than the fact that he was a Muslim. Muslims say the phrase "Allahu Akbar" before many actions, whether the action is ideologically driven or not.

so after 4 hours of pointless argumentative pedantry from you, you now are saying what everyone else heres been saying. well done

on saying this , he is showing he is ideologically (islamically specifically) driven, and therefore so is the action he is taking.

I've said right from the beginning, I'm totally happy to agree with you as soon as the justification for your position is provided. The whole point of this exercise was for me to find out from you, why I should agree that it is terrorism.

But I don't quite agree just yet. As I said, I'm still seeing it as "suspected terrorism" at the moment, and not "confirmed terrorism" like other people.



I've replied to this already.
There is a difference between (1) being a Muslim, and (2) performing an Islamically driven act.

The phrase proves (1) but not (2).*

why would you chant islamically before an action if you didnt believe what you were doing was islamically required or acceptable?

Because if you're a Muslim, you say "God is great" during any event of any significance, as an expression of faith. You don't just do it before doing something that is Islamically driven or required.


To illustrate this with an example (quoted from Wikipedia):

"Just before a Garuda Airbus A300B-4 crashed into the jungle near Medan, Indonesia, the pilot screamed "Aaaaaaah! Allahu Akbar!" into his radio. According to a radio communication transcript, the pilot's conversation with the air controller had been in English, but his last words were this Arabic phrase as the plane crashed on September 26, 1997, killing all 235 people aboard in Indonesia's deadliest crash. It was suspected that the crash may have been due to either disorientation or engine failure caused by local dense smog resulting from forest fires."

If you used the same logic and investigated this plane crash, I'd envisage that you'd think that this too was a terrorist incident (even though it wasn't).

(Note this is just an example, I'm not suggesting that the truck incident was accidental).

this is not comparable in the pilot case ,if it was indeed confirmed wasnt deliberate, he was shocked and terrifed and blurted out arabic or islamic chants. in the case of this truck driver - his action was planned and intentional. his chanting began with him driving up the street shooting at people from his window - he knew what he was doing and had it seemed planned it - so his chanting was reinforcement of his intensions

I've said right from the beginning, I'm totally happy to agree with you as soon as the justification for your position is provided. The whole point of this exercise was for me to find out from you, why I should agree that it is terrorism.

As I said, I don't claim that the truck driver committed his actions unintentionally.

The point is that chanting "Allahu Akbar" is used in far more situations than you seem to think. The same wikipedia article states that in the West, the chant has become known for its use in Islamic extremism, which it has. This leads people to think that if it is used, that's an immediate indicator for Islamic extremism.

What people don't realise is that it is used in all sorts of other situations. Being shocked and terrified is one of them, but there are hundreds of other possible reasons to use that phrase. That's why I say, people who use the logic that you're using would have also thought that the plane crash was Islamic terrorism, not realising that it is used in other circumstances too.*

Here you go...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nice-terror-attack-isis-claims-responsibility-lorry-massacre-france-coastal-city-a7140381.html

IS have now confirmed he was one of their followers too.

I wanted to hang myself after reading some of the nonsense people post on this thread, pretty much a hate all Muslims gathering...

cuz islam is the problem wake up they will attack the uk next