New terror attack france many dead

It's a rather unfortunate state of affairs when people think that, in order to demonstrate that an incident is one of terrorism, all you have to do is point out that the perpetrator is a Muslim, as though that settles the matter.

On the other hand, where it has been clearly established that violence and threats are being used in an attempt to achieve political aims (e.g. the recent killings of police officers in the US and the stabbing of a politician in the street in the UK), because the perpetrators are not of Muslim origin, we cannot go so far as to describe it as terrorism, even if it fits the definition.


It appears that "terrorism" has now just become a code word meaning "A Muslim did it, and that alone makes it worse than if anyone else did it".

No it's not. It fits an known modus operandi.

The problem with that is that it creates a situation in which, as long as the perpetrator is Muslim, any use of violence will be described as terrorism, regardless of (whether we know) what the actual motivation was.

He shouted "Allah Akbar" before killing people. So definitely a Muslim terror attack.

"Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt."


"Great results, can be achieved with small forces."


"So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak."


"You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended."


-Sun Tzu-


It seems to me the French government failed again. The French leader knows nothing about the art of war? If so, he will fail again. And more innocent people will surely die.





Posted from TSR Mobile

"Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt."


"Great results, can be achieved with small forces."


"So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak."


"You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended."


-Sun Tzu-


It seems to me the French government failed again. The French leader knows nothing about the art of war? If so, he will fail again. And more innocent people will surely die.





Posted from TSR Mobile

a Muslim attacking person in the street would not be terrorism.

A muslim running down men women and children while shouting allah ackbar while armed would be considered as terrorism.

The failure is for the west to accept who is the enemy.

How exactly does that make it a terrorist attack?

It confirms that the person is (most likely) a Muslim, sure. But how do you know that it is a Muslim terrorist attack, as opposed to just an attack committed by a Muslim?

That's not the definition of terrorism though.


The first scenario could quite easily be terrorism. For example, the killing of Lee Rigby was "a Muslim attacking a person in the street", and that certainly was terrorism.

The second scenario could quite easily not be terrorism. As an example, a person could potentially do that if they simply had a mental illness. Plenty of armed massacres of civilians in history have been the result of factors other than terrorism.

"Islamic" extremists like ISIS are the enemy, normal muslims like Sadiq Khan and Jamala are our friends.

all are followers of the same ideology and all of them can change their interpretation.

We know because he shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he was running people over and shooting them.

Are you a Muslim out of interest? Is that the root cause of your absurd denial of something which is obvious to everyone else?

They can change their interpretation, but whether they are evil enough to have the desire to is another matter.

What does "Allahu Akbar" mean?
I was under the impression that all Muslims say this as a matter of course, terrorist or not.*

***


I am not "denying" anything. I just want the logic to be clearly spelled out i.e. what exactly constitutes a terrorist attack (as opposed to any other kind of attack), and how do we know this was one?

But you said any Muslim using violence

this is not the case

also you didn't answer my question.

But why are you trying to down play this?

I see you ask a lot of questions but don't answer them

I've answered your question.*

How exactly does that make it a terrorist attack?

It confirms that the person is (most likely) a Muslim, sure. But how do you know that it is a Muslim terrorist attack, as opposed to just an attack committed by a Muslim?