Reply to Truck kills 30 in France

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Truck kills 30 in France"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele]Honest question here and I would appreciate serious answers. Can anyone provide any evidence that this event was an act of terrorism? I mean, obviously it terrorized people, but a formal "act of terrorism" requires a bit more than that. In the US, our laws have several, though similar, definitions of terrorism. Here is how the USA Patriot defines terrorism: "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

The Nice attack clearly meets "(A)" and "(C)" is immaterial to this discussion. But, "(B)" has three parts and I am not aware of any evidence suggesting that those factors exist.

Similarly, is there any evidence that this attack was motivated by religion? Many of us -- me included -- immediately jumped to the conclusion that this attack was an act of Islamic terrorism. Now, it appears that it may not have been terrorism at all, let alone Islamic terrorism.

[/quote]

They are reporting he was recently radicalized, extremely quickly.  He could have not been connected, but he answered the call and committed the Terrorist act.  To me, it's even scarier if it's not a 'formal' act.  ISIS is making this idealogogyviral so it will reproduce on its own.  It is harder to track and stop.  It can happen anywhere with little prep time.

http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/islamic-state-group-claims-nice-attacker-as-a-soldier

[/quote]

What ISIS says is immaterial. They could claim that you and I are supporters but it wouldn't make it so. Reports are not evidence. My question is if there is any evidence of a political or religious motive or evidence that the act meets the formal definition of terrorism. If we start calling acts "terrorism" that don't meet the definition of "terrorism", the word really don't have any meaning or usefulness.

[/quote]

There were accounts from sources claiming he yelled out Allahu Akbar, but those were sources most wouldn't value on these threads - The Sun, for example, or The Mirror or Daily Mail.  The NYT, however, is allowing the reader to make inferences by referencing the Nice attack and discussing how the truck has become the killing machine for ISIS.  Apparently, in Al Queda's [i]Inspire [/i]magazine, the truck was described as a weapon to "mow down the enemies of Allah."  The article then referenced a "lone actor" who rammed his car into two soldiers in Quebec after being "inspired" by Adnani.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/16/world/europe/truck-attack-nice-france.html

an article on Adnani - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/isis-told-supporters-run-people-cars-years-nice-article-1.2712241[/quote]

It would be a stretch to even describe this as circumstantial evidence. Inspire is written in English and directed to English speakers. It is AQAP's publication, not ISIS's. I understand that lots of publications and lots of individuals are doing their best to make this a case of Islamic terrorism, but where is the evidence? If there is any, we don't know about it. In the absence of such evidence, a lot of people are jumping the gun, if not outright wrong.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics