Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Nice Terror Attack: ISIS Claims Responsibility, More Known About Driver

Nice Terror Attack: ISIS Claims Responsibility, More Known About Driver

Attacker a “weird loner” who may have been more suicidal than devout^tfw

We’ve been covering the Nice, France terrorist attack here at LI, including updates as more information becomes available.  Today, ISIS has claimed responsibility for the terror attack that killed 84 people, including two Americans, and wounded hundreds more.

The New York Times reports:

The Islamic State claimed on Saturday that the man who attacked the seaside city of Nice, France, was one of the group’s “soldiers.” France’s defense minister promptly blamed the terrorist network for inspiring the assault, while its top law enforcement official said the attacker, who was not previously known to intelligence agencies, may have “radicalized himself very quickly.”

. . . .  The Islamic State had kept silent on the Nice attack until Saturday morning, when it declared, in a bulletin issued in Arabic and in English on its Amaq News Agency channel:

“Executor of the deadly operation in Nice, France, was a soldier of the Islamic State. He executed the operation in response to calls to target citizens of coalition nations, which fight the Islamic State.”

Although the NYT contends that such claims should be taken with a grain of salt, France’s defense minister has no such qualms about placing the blame on ISIS.  Repeated calls for violence by ISIS via social media and various websites are being heeded, he says.

The NYT continues:

The claim must be greeted with caution. The Islamic State has in the past asserted responsibility for attacks carried out in its name, even when there was no sign of its direct involvement. For example, the group asserted responsibility after a husband and wife killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., in December and after a man killed 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., last month. The group has intentionally blurred the line between operations that are planned and carried out by its core fighters and those carried out by sympathizers inspired to commit violence only from a distance.

But France’s defense minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, blamed the Islamic State for the attacks. He noted that its spokesman, Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, has called on the group’s followers to attack Westerners in retaliation for strikes by the United States-led coalition fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. France is part of that coalition.

“I remind you that Daesh’s ideologue, Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, has for several weeks repeated calls to attack directly, even individually, Frenchmen, in particular, or Americans, wherever they are, by any means necessary,” Mr. Le Drian said after a cabinet meeting at the Élysée Palace, using an Arabic name for the Islamic State. The “minds of those like the truck driver” are susceptible to such calls for violence, he said.

A short while later, the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadist communications, said the Islamic State had also put its claim of responsibility in a news bulletin on its radio station, Al Bayan, and that it “threatened that ‘crusader states’ are not safe.”

Watch the report from India News:

Further details are also emerging about the truck driver responsible for mowing down these people as they celebrated Bastille Day.  It appears that he had a long history of being “troubled” and of run-ins with the police.

Reuters reports:

Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, who killed at least 84 people by driving a truck through crowds in the French town, was not a pious, educated man in the mould of Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers behind the 9-11 attacks in the United States in 2001.

Rather, neighbors and family describe him as a troubled man who lived apart from his wife and three children and drank alcohol, something forbidden by Islam.

“It seems that he was radicalized very quickly,” said French interior minister Bernard Cazeneuve.

That poses a big problem for authorities, who have put much of their focus on tackling hardline Islamist ideology by seeking to spread counter-arguments in schools and mosques.

Tunisia-born Bouhlel, who was shot dead by police, had several run-ins with the law, including a March 2016 conviction for hurling a wooden pallet at a driver in a road rage incident.

His sister also told Reuters he saw psychologists for several years before he left Tunisia in 2005.

Authorities are reportedly considering the possibility that Bouhel was suicidal and decided to “make his suicide look like a terrorist attack.”

The Telegraph reports:

Tunisian-born Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel – described as a “weird loner” who “became depressed” when his wife left him – was a French passport holder who lived in the Riviera city and was regularly in trouble with the law.

Bouhlel was reportedly not on a terrorist watch list and investigators are seeking to establish his motives – and are also looking for possible accomplices.

. . . . A police source has told The Telegraph that Bouhlel might have been motivated more by a desire to commit suicide than by an Islamist ideology. The source who is close to the investigation said that the 31 year old attacker may have been “a suicide case who decided to make his suicide look like an Islamist attack. Investigators are being cautious about definitively ascribing a motive for the time being.”

We’ll keep you updated as more information becomes available.

[Featured image via @Nice_Matin]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Idiots all, they look for “motive” and it is staring them in the face…
Every time one of these monsters kill massive amounts of innocent people and shout “Allah Akbar ” were busy looking for motives pass the obvious.

Obama and these fools will all get us killed.

    ConradCA in reply to gonzotx. | July 17, 2016 at 12:37 am

    The real problem is that Islam as created by Muhammad is a religion of war dedicated to world conquest and the imposition of a Sharia based tyranny. The peaceful moderate Muslims are apostates and know it. Most of them can be easily turned into jihadist warriors for Islam AKA terrorists. That’s what this mass murderer did.

“The claim must be greeted with caution. The Islamic State has in the past asserted responsibility for attacks carried out in its name, even when there was no sign of its direct involvement.”

What the hell difference does that make? What kind of POS group would make such a claim? If some idiot does what ISIS states he should do, then that is the connection. If some liberal shoots up a movie theater and the NYT finds out the person once drove past a Tea Party meeting, the NYT immediately blames the entire Tea Party for everything wrong on the planet.

The NYT and its comrades say some really stupid things to protect the stupid narrative.

    Ragspierre in reply to TX-rifraph. | July 16, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    Jeebus, TX, you’re smarter than this.

    A claim…a false claim…of responsibility/infamy by an outfit like ISIS is great psy-ops. We want to know REALITY, not bullshit. Plus, it gives them creds all over the world they don’t deserve, and exaggerates their fear-inducing image in the West.

    Why do you think they produce all those snuff videos (which I never watch)?

    They’ll take responsibility/infamy for a hurricane if we let them!

      TX-rifraph in reply to Ragspierre. | July 16, 2016 at 5:59 pm

      Good point although I am totally unfamiliar with those videos! I did not consider the point of view of ISIS and I see your point. I was looking more at the NYT and how they apply the narrative. If the TxAG told Texas residents to go to the Rio Grande and shoot people entering the US illegally and somebody actually did shoot somebody crossing the river, the NYT would not use any caution in blaming the TxAG. Yet here, ISIS and other Islam leaders issue general orders for the execution of infidels and somebody does it. Now, the NYT uses caution. My problem is the NYT double standards and their vague use of terms (“direct involvement” which is not clear as context can alter the meaning). I will think through this more, however, and I appreciate your prodding to do so. I should also be more clear.

        Valerie in reply to TX-rifraph. | July 16, 2016 at 8:24 pm

        ISIS is trying to become a “meme,” in imitation of Anonymous. Being a meme is great, because all you have to do is suggest something, and presto! somebody does it for you.

        I think Newt Gingrich had a point the other day: we can distinguish between modern Muslims and Islamists by asking whether they believe in Sharia law.

        Those who believe in Sharia law think that Islam and the State are ideally the same thing. This has been called “political Islam.”

        Of course, NPR has already run some women “educating” us that Sharia is personal, and has nothing to do with government. She may honestly believe that, but she is in the distinct minority among Muslims, worldwide, and there are a lot of them who would be happy to tell us all about it.

    Mannie in reply to TX-rifraph. | July 17, 2016 at 9:33 am

    Daesh is less of a command driven organization than a movement. If you say you are daesh, then you are daesh. They have their command driven elements. Charlie Hebdo and Bataclan seem to have been organized attacks. But you also have the self actuated. Some of them are radical moslems, like the Pulse Club couple. (I won’t dignify any of these subhumans with names.) The Nice turd just appears to be a violent loser with a hatred of everyone. Islime is attractive to these losers, because it gives them a noble justification for their butchery. They are hard to predict as the turd had nothing more in his jacket than a string of petty offenses and misdemeanors. Those don’t have to be pious, or ever really isamic. Islime attracts them like files to shit.

    The non command aspects of daesh may become the more dangerous, as they are self activated, so there is no organization that can be rolled up.

Not to worry, our fearless and brilliant Dear Leader Obama has it all figured out, as usual.

Yesterday, Obama laid out his plan to defeat Islamic terrorism:

“. . . by working with partners around the world, including Muslim communities, to push back against hateful ideologies that twist and distort Islam — a religion that teaches peace and justice and compassion. We will defeat these ideologies by offering a better vision of development and economic progress, so people, especially young people, have more hope and opportunity and are less susceptible to extremism and violence in the first place.”

As Obama has been saying since 9/11, Islamic terrorism is obviously caused by lack of hope and lack of economic opportunity!

Hmmmmm, I wonder what kind of hope and economic opportunities the 9/11 attackers, who were mainly well-educated men from solid middle or upper class Saudi families, lacked? What hope and economic opportunities did Major Hasan, the Ft. Hood jihadi, lack? He was a Ph.D.-holding, 6-figure salaried army major, with U.S. citizenship. What hope and economic opportunities did the San Bernardino shooter lack? He had a job in the U.S., and enough money to fly back and forth to the Middle East to find himself a jihadi wife. What hope and economic opportunities did the Orlando shooter lack? He was a U.S. citizen, had a family, and a job as a security guard. What hope and economic opportunities did the Nice, France terrorist lack? He lived in the French Riviera, had a job, and reportedly earned enough money to send over $100,000 back to his family in Tunisia shortly before he went on his killing spree.

But hey, never mind the evidence that has continually and consistently, for decades, disproved Obama’s thesis. Obama has a narrative he likes, and he’s sticking with it — no matter how many people get slaughtered as a result.

    Valerie in reply to Observer. | July 16, 2016 at 8:47 pm

    I agree with you, but I also observe that the Muslim countries are 3rd world messes that are far too adept at producing disposable young men.

” . . . A police source has told The Telegraph that Bouhlel might have been motivated more by a desire to commit suicide than by an Islamist ideology. The source who is close to the investigation said that the 31 year old attacker may have been “a suicide case who decided to make his suicide look like an Islamist attack. Investigators are being cautious about definitively ascribing a motive for the time being.”

Dear God, the level of idiocy is breathtaking.

He wanted to commit suicide… and murdered all those people in order to disguise his suicide attempt?

That… there are just no words.

    Ragspierre in reply to clintack. | July 16, 2016 at 6:20 pm

    “…the 31 year old attacker may have been “a suicide case who decided to make his suicide look like an Islamist attack.”

    Now, see, THERE’S the problem. All of them are “suicide cases”. And the ARE committing an Islamist attack.

    It’s often a way for a loser to go out “for Allah”. Plus BIG headlines! PLUS, some big $$$ from the caliphate if they’re lucky.

    What could possibly be more attractive to the Muslim petty criminal/loser? And HOW could this not be obvious to anyone?

      Interestingly, Rags, this guy was a loser by all accounts. If he were suicidal (having already broken a zillion Islamic laws as noted in my post above), he could conceivably have imagined that being a “soldier for Allah” and taking out as many innocent kafirs as possible would redeem him in some way, glorify his cowardice, and land him in Allah-land with his 72 virgins.

      I do think, though, that your point about ISIS happily taking credit for random terror attacks is correct. It’s just not irreconcilable with this guy being a life loser who wanted to die.

      TX-rifraph in reply to Ragspierre. | July 17, 2016 at 7:06 am

      I agree. The MSM has called these “Suicide” bombers from the start as though the murders were just collateral damage from a dramatic suicide. They are murders where the killer died. The shooter of the DPD cops just separated the two parts so the MSM could not say it was a suicide attack. The question is “What is the killer’s purpose?” The purpose can have more than one element as you say and more than one beneficiary — personal and organizational.

    Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to clintack. | July 16, 2016 at 7:38 pm

    Disguise his suicide attempt from WHOM?? Pretty sure allah wasn’t fooled.

      TX-rifraph in reply to Rick the Curmudgeon. | July 17, 2016 at 6:57 am

      Good question. I think many suicides are disguised from the life insurance company as an automobile accident. For example, a police investigation can find no “cause” for a head-on collision or hitting a bridge at 100 mph. There is a purpose, such as insurance money for somebody.

    Mannie in reply to clintack. | July 17, 2016 at 9:39 am

    They’re closing in on it, but they don’t have it yet; probably deliberately missing the mark.

    The Nice turd was a violent, depressed loser. Maybe he did want to commit suicide. But his butchery was not camouflage, it was justification. Violent losers attach to islime because they can justify their vileness with a “noble cause.” This makes them even more dangerous.

EXCLUSIVE: Brother reveals ‘violent, drug-crazed’ ISIS ‘soldier’ Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel smuggled £84,000 to his family in Tunisia DAYS before murdering 84 in Nice

That “was a soldier of the Islamic State” statement says nothing at all. It’s generic pap. Divining meaning there is about as useful as reading sheep’s entrails.

France has two problems which have little do with each other; militant Muslims overseas, and homicidal Muslims at home. There’s a connection between the two, but it’s not terribly strong and, operationally, it’s not very important.

Obviously, Hollande would prefer the problem to be treated as one of militant Muslims overseas. That he can handle, even if not very well.

The problem of homicidal Muslims at home he probably has no idea how to handle, and he won’t even try. So he’s certainly not going to talk about it, even if he knows all about it. (It’s possible he doesn’t grasp it; he is a Socialist, so we know he’s capable of believing all sorts of silly things.) In any event, he’ll talk tough about foreign Muslims, and leave it at that.

There really isn’t anything else he can do.

The French Islamic problem goes ‘way back, long before Merkel’s “refugees” became a pox on the land. The roots are in the collapse of European colonial administrations in Africa and Asia, and the attempts by Britain, France, and Belgium to hold on to them after WW2. Long story short … France made this bed, and now France, Morocco, and Algeria are sleeping in it.

How did this Muslim get grenades and firearms?