Grenoble Terror Attack - Skeleton Argument.

For almost the past year a US-led coalition of more then 40 nations have certainly been trying to give the impression of fighting a war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

In response ISIL have frequently called on their supporters who live in coalition nations to fight that war by carrying out terror attacks in their local area. This call has been answered so at any given point in any given nation there are several attacks under preparation. The US which has a relatively low Muslim population is currently disrupting such plots at a rate of around one per week. In nations such as France where the proportion of Muslims is much higher that rate is also much higher.

Over the past week I would say that we have entered a period of heightened risk. Apart from the YPG the main reason behind this was last Thursday's (18/6/15) shooting at the Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, North Carolina, US. This prompted demands by members of the so-called "Black Lives Matter" (BLM) protest movement to demand that it be labelled a terrorist act. However there is a strong counter argument that the shootings can't even be considered a criminal act because those killed were members of an organisation - BLM - that has frequently engaged in terrorist activity. Thus with the US Justice system failing to take action to stop BLM's terrorism the shooting became necessary to preserve life and protect the wider population.

This argument has quickly absorbed all other examples of violent acts that could or could not have been labelled terrorism. Lead amongst these was an incident in South Oxfordshire, UK in which a man caused millions of dollars of damage by setting fire to several buildings and then driving a burning car packed with natural gas canisters into the main local council building as part of a dispute over local government planning policy. Despite fitting most legal definitions of a terror attack this was not treated as such because in terms of sentencing a designation of terrorism actually makes no difference whatsoever.

The point the UK was trying to make through this stunt was that the justice system exists to protect people by resolving disputes. If that system breaks down then people no longer feel protected and start taking matters into their own hands. This may be wrong but if the practice becomes widespread good luck trying to stop it. The UK was making specific reference to certain Muslims support for ISIL. If ISIL continue carrying out brutal acts and rather then taking responsibility where it is due their Muslim supporters keep trying to evade justice by hiding behind corrupt lawyers and MP's then eventually people are going to take matters into their own hands and often they seek vengeance rather then justice.

This was an element of the Zack Davies trial that concluded yesterday (25/6/15). If you know anything about Indian politics the fact that Davies attacked a Sikh rather then a Muslim in supposed revenge for the killing of Lee Rigby should tell you all you need to know about the problems with this type of vigilante justice.

Then there was the Nicholas Salvador case that took place in the UK on Monday (22/6/15) and Tuesday (23/6/15). Primarily I think this was just something that happened that the justice system then had to deal with. However the main element of the case was that a black man had been running around a city chopping off people's heads.

Also as part of their constant and unrelenting assault on the US justice system BLM have frequently pointed to cases of black people with severe mental health problems being shot and killed by the police as examples of racism. The Salvador case demonstrated that although only a very tiny minority of people with mental health problems are prone to violence those who are tend to be extremely violent and completely beyond reason.

I should also point out that with both the prosecution and the defence agreeing that Salvador was suffering from severe mental illness at the time this wasn't actually considered a criminal act and the matter wasn't even heard before a Judge. Salvador believed that the woman he beheaded was Adolf Hitler reincarnated by the devil and the cats he killed were demons sent from the underworld. Therefore he needed to kill them to protect himself and everybody else. As such his actions fitted the definition of defence of self/other. We're still locking him up indefinitely though.

Amid this climate it should come as no surprise that this morning one or possibly two men drove a car packed with natural gas canisters into a factory that makes natural gas canisters in Grenoble, France. They proceeded to behead one person and display the severed head next to an Islamic-style black flag for passers-by and news helicopters to see. This a clear example of violence being used to influence the wider public.

With one person arrested there will be a trial where their motives and actions will be calmly and carefully considered. However for the purposes of the investigation and for the wider emergency services response I have absolutely no problem referring to this as a terrorist attack.

I may be back with another post to add flesh to the bones of this if and when new information arises. However if you want an example of post-traumatic shock look at the way everyone is fixating on the type of flag used. It's easier for their brains to do this then attempt to process the horror of the severed head laying next to it.

11:15 on 26/6/15 (UK date).