Breaking: Terror attack on French gas factory, several casualties

wes

France beheading attack: Yassin Salhi tells investigators he murdered and beheaded his boss because of 'problems at home and at work'


The truck driver who beheaded his boss before trying to blow up a chemicals factory may have been deranged, rather than motivated by religion, French investigators believe.

Breaking his silence after Friday’s attack, Yassin Salhi, 35, told interrogators that he had decapitated his employer “in a car park” because of “problems at home and at work”.

Before attacking the factory near Lyon, Mr Salhi used his mobile phone to take an image of himself with the severed head of his boss, Hervé Cornara, 54. He then sent the image to a number in Toronto, Canada. French and Canadian investigators believe the number may have relayed the image to an acquaintance of Mr Salhi who is fighting with Isis in Syria.

But searches of Mr Salhi’s home in the Lyon suburbs have produced no evidence to suggest he was in contact with a terrorist network. He was taken to his home by police on Sunday to assist in a new search. There was nothing to indicate he had planned either the beheading or the attack on the Air Products chemical factory at Saint-Quentin-Fallavier, south-east of Lyon.

Rather strange turn of events, he may have gone postal, and they haven't found links to a terrorist org

Either way the crime is reprehensible, regardless of the ultimate motive.

KingBrian2

People are hired to broadcast a climate of fear in that part of the world just to provoke a fire storm. That Egyptian who manufactured sectarian riots with his video, Danish cartoons that ended up in the Muslim word a long time after they were publicised just to stir up conflict and the war correspondence in Syria making false reporting. These incidents are unleashing a wave of terrorist atrocities. No transparency or ethics of events occurring is being spread as gossip so Muslims and Christians are distrusting one another leading to this horrible crime.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Again, during his time, that would have been common. Appraising him by the standards of his time, rather than modern standards, is that wonderful thing we call "context".

.........

Indeed, and his views, being of that time - narrow minded, racist, sectarian etc - can easily be discounted, the Nazi remark being the broken clock effect clearly demonstrated.

SeanW

Considering his predecessor Neville Chamberlain stepped off a place in '38 with a piece of paper signed by Adolf Hitler and said "Peace in our time" I think it's safe to say Churchill was a little bit more accurate, not only than his contemporaries, but a little more than "a broken clock".

I assume you do not ascribe the same "narrow minded, racist, sectarian blah blah blah" to Neville Chamberlain? If not, how would his views be more accurate given the monumental cluster**** his miscalculations caused?

BuilderPlumber

SeanW wrote: »

Considering his predecessor Neville Chamberlain stepped off a place in '38 with a piece of paper signed by Adolf Hitler and said "Peace in our time" I think it's safe to say Churchill was a little bit more accurate, not only than his contemporaries, but a little more than "a broken clock".

I assume you do not ascribe the same "narrow minded, racist, sectarian blah blah blah" to Neville Chamberlain? If not, how would his views be more accurate given the monumental cluster**** his miscalculations caused?

Sometimes, peace can be very fake and the world is lead into a false security. Nazism was a massive global threat then but it was hoped Hitler could do a deal. But it does not work like this. Afterall, Hitler was being egged on by people much more extreme than himself and the dice was cast. Fanaticism meant that Nazis had to have Czechoslovakia and then Poland and then ... everywhere else! Whatever deal Chamberlain did died in 1938.

ISIS are not the first or last fascist organisation to shock the world with their savagery. Religious extremism in general is a major threat. Islamofascism is the most publicised but there is a rise in Buddhist terrorism in countries like Sri Lanka and Burma. Also, Hindu and Sikh extremism is rife in poorer parts of India. Not to mention the extremist Christian LRA terrorists in Central Africa.

What all have in common is a violent, repressive and warped view of their religion and a willingness to kill innocent people deliberately. All have extremist preachers, priests, Mullahs or monks who legitimise things religiously for them. Savagery done in the name of religion is more common than ever. Wellknown terrorists like ISIS or lesserknown terrorists like guntoting Buddhist monks or terror-orientated Hindu fanatics have made many places extremely dangerous.

BlaasForRafa

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

What all have in common is a violent, repressive and warped view of their religion and a willingness to kill innocent people deliberately. All have extremist preachers, priests, Mullahs or monks who legitimise things religiously for them. Savagery done in the name of religion is more common than ever.

It just seems like Islam has far more of these extremists than pretty much every other religion added together.

KingBrian2

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Sometimes, peace can be very fake and the world is lead into a false security. Nazism was a massive global threat then but it was hoped Hitler could do a deal. But it does not work like this. Afterall, Hitler was being egged on by people much more extreme than himself and the dice was cast. Fanaticism meant that Nazis had to have Czechoslovakia and then Poland and then ... everywhere else! Whatever deal Chamberlain did died in 1938.

ISIS are not the first or last fascist organisation to shock the world with their savagery. Religious extremism in general is a major threat. Islamofascism is the most publicised but there is a rise in Buddhist terrorism in countries like Sri Lanka and Burma. Also, Hindu and Sikh extremism is rife in poorer parts of India. Not to mention the extremist Christian LRA terrorists in Central Africa.

What all have in common is a violent, repressive and warped view of their religion and a willingness to kill innocent people deliberately. All have extremist preachers, priests, Mullahs or monks who legitimise things religiously for them. Savagery done in the name of religion is more common than ever. Wellknown terrorists like ISIS or lesserknown terrorists like guntoting Buddhist monks or terror-orientated Hindu fanatics have made many places extremely dangerous.

What I would love to see is the Pope the Dali Lama and the Ayatollah all in a room having a drink together, it would do wonders for religious tolerance.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Considering his predecessor Neville Chamberlain stepped off a place in '38 with a piece of paper signed by Adolf Hitler and said "Peace in our time" I think it's safe to say Churchill was a little bit more accurate, not only than his contemporaries, but a little more than "a broken clock".

I assume you do not ascribe the same "narrow minded, racist, sectarian blah blah blah" to Neville Chamberlain? If not, how would his views be more accurate given the monumental cluster**** his miscalculations caused?

I'm fairly sure I would, though I never gave any more credence to chamberlain over Churchill in the previous posts. However, doubtless he was right about something at some stage. A football result, perhaps.

Nodin

KingBrian2 wrote: »

What I would love to see is the Pope the Dali Lama and the Ayatollah all in a room having a drink together, it would do wonders for religious tolerance.

Not if it ended in a row.

BuilderPlumber

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

It just seems like Islam has far more of these extremists than pretty much every other religion added together.

This is because it is a far bigger religion. The Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh terrorists are every bit as bad but are confined to certain regions. Christian terrorism is also bad but confined to Africa. Islamic terrorism, or more precisely Sunni terrorism, is as of yet the only one directly targetting Western countries hence all the publicity. Plus there is no Western war directed at a Buddhist or Hindu country at present. The Iraq wars of 1991 and 2003 really drove the whole thing to new levels.

Not a NSA agent

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

It just seems like Islam has far more of these extremists than pretty much every other religion added together.

I wonder why this is myself, if we look at nearly any other religion they are hardly religions of tolerance and understanding but most people arent going around beheading people, they'll just campaign against the law allowing things like divorce or same sex marriage. Is it just how violence is more common in these regions rather than going through the legislation route we have here?

The Black Oil

It's funny to hear some people running around requesting that Muslim groups condemn attacks. Frankly, it comes across that they are not in the slightest bit interested in hearing them do so. It's same mentality with travellers committing offences, and the keyboard heads are battling away wondering why Pavee Point aren't all over it. What level of condemnation is acceptable to you?

Muslim groups speaking out does not make for interesting headlines, nor will their statements top the news cycle. The way some people go on unless a Muslim organisation has issued a condemnatory statement within 30 seconds of the first shot being fired they obviously condone it.

Such is the quality of online debate.

Herb Powell

The Black Oil wrote: »

It's funny to hear some people running around requesting that Muslim groups condemn attacks. Frankly, it comes across that they are not in the slightest bit interested in hearing them do so.

Well you're spot on with this, because muslims regularly DO condemn attacks, but it's very convenient for a certain breed of cunntbag not to listen.

MathDebater

The Black Oil wrote: »

It's funny to hear some people running around requesting that Muslim groups condemn attacks. Frankly, it comes across that they are not in the slightest bit interested in hearing them do so. It's same mentality with travellers committing offences, and the keyboard heads are battling away wondering why Pavee Point aren't all over it.

Pavee Point are all over the media when there is a perceived slight against their community. Some priest refused a traveller woman entry into his church as he claimed she was not appropriately dressed for a communion. The head honcho was on the airwaves and in the print media talking about how disgusted he was at the unchristian attitude shown. A few days later there were people murdered at a traveller wedding. Not a peep.

Muslim groups are constantly speaking out against Islamophobia and publishing reports on same. 'Islamophobia on the rise 64% since Lee Rigby murder' - that sort of thing. Then you read the report and Muslims being stared at and internet trolling is included in their data. It would be nice if they condemned headhacking and mass murder carried out by Muslims too.

BuilderPlumber

KingBrian2 wrote: »

What I would love to see is the Pope the Dali Lama and the Ayatollah all in a room having a drink together, it would do wonders for religious tolerance.

The Pope openly drinks, many Ayatollahs drink in secret and the Dalai Lama I'm not so sure about!

That's another thing just dawned on me. The three religious leaders you named probably mean the current Catholic Pope Francis, the Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Dalai Lama. Unfortunately, none of these represents Sunni Islam. Say what you like about any of these, at least they represent leadership and have pragmatic traits. Nothing like it exists for the Sunnis. In fact, the Sunnis do not seem to have any great central leadership whatsoever. It seems that any old guy can set himself up as a cleric and perhaps this is the problem.

Alexis Sanchez

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

This is because it is a far bigger religion. The Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh terrorists are every bit as bad but are confined to certain regions. Christian terrorism is also bad but confined to Africa. Islamic terrorism, or more precisely Sunni terrorism, is as of yet the only one directly targetting Western countries hence all the publicity. Plus there is no Western war directed at a Buddhist or Hindu country at present. The Iraq wars of 1991 and 2003 really drove the whole thing to new levels.

Any time I see one of your posts, they're full of anecdotal data, like your "thier brand of Islam is bogus statement". ISIS are trying to create a caliphate and there's been 4 of those in the past, so this isn't new to Islam. The Prophet Muhammad was a warlord and conquered Arabia, so Islam was born out of the same violence were seeing ISIS commit.

According to a report by the National Counterterrorism Center, Sunni Muslim terrorists committed about 70 percent of the 12,533 terrorist murders in the world in 2011: http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.nctc.gov/docs/2011_NCTC_Annual_Report_Final.pdf&date=2012-08-04

Those statistics only account for Sunni, Muslims it would be higher if it included the other sects of Islam.