Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SMEGGGY)
    Truck kills many....on Sky News CNN

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well, the Frenchman are faulth on their own for this. Nobody forced them to import so many muslims and africans.

    Now, they have to pay for this mistake. Since they saw this coming nobody should drop a tear for them.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    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/wo...s-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.”
    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?

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

    Are you ashamed of it?
    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".
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    People (especially religious people)who have a history of any kind of violent or assaultive behavior...should be monitored or stalked secretly. They could become terrorists.

    The police and secret agents need to work harder.

    Name:  1468611413250.jpg
Views: 45
Size:  11.7 KB

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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?
    He was a lone wolf, not affiliated to ISIS in any formal sense, who has adopted the ideology because of his own inadequacies. A failure, he has become a "somebody." He also believed that he has died as martyr and will be received in heaven by your God.

    He seems to be a low level criminal, so in all likelihood was converted to Jihadism in prison.

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

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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".
    In one sense, no-one else really cares whether or not you realise what has happened here. It doesn't affect the truth that Mohammed Boulhel was a Muslim, caught between two cultures, who hated France and the French and used a Jihadist ISIS narrative to vent is anger and bitterness. In the most appallingly evil way imaginable.

    Muslim denial (and although you won't admit it, we all know you ARE a Muslim) of the reality of Islamic terrorism in the west is a big issue though.

    Instead of being part of the solution you are part of the problem.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    This will all come out in the next few days. *How do I know? It has happened so many times before
    So you don't actually have any of this confirmed then. You don't know, you suspect.

    Thanks, that's pretty much all I wanted to know.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed)
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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 independance day . his islamic chanting shows he was driven by some islamist ideology ( or at least thats what he thought during the attack)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed)
    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 *.
    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.*
    *
    his islamic chanting shows he was driven by some islamist ideology ( or at least thats what he thought during the attack)
    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.

    Even if it had nothing to do with religious ideology there's still every chance he would have said that, just because he is a Muslim, and Muslims always say it.*
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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.*



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

    (Original post by tazarooni89)


    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.


    on saying this , he is showing he is ideologically (islamically specifically) driven, and therefore so is the action he is taking. the further question remains where did this specfic ideology come from? my suggestion is islamist groups based in tunisia with links to IS. but just as easily could have been on online islamic forums
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed)
    so after 4 hours of pointless argumentative pedantry from you, you now are saying what everyone else heres been saying. well done
    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.

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

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed)
    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).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed)
    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
    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.*
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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.
    Here you go...
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7140381.html
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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.*
    no, it is known for a link to islam. the 'extreme part' was known from this guys actions. sure muslims can chant during any particular excercise but only those things they beleive is acceptable in islam. ie they wont make islamic chants while necking a bottle of vodka will they. unfortunatley any muslim is susceptible to islamist dogma in a way a non muslim is not. At the end of all your predictable denial and pedantry - IS have now confirmed he was one of their followers too. the evidence is too heavy even for the biggest denier.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed)
    IS have now confirmed he was one of their followers too.
    Great, that's what I was looking for. It's now a confirmed terrorist attack.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ethnic cleansing is what is needed to stop these terror attacks especially these muslims
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swiss_cheese)
    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
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.