Paris prosecutors: Police attack suspect adhered to 'radical vision of Islam'
The suspect had worked for the Paris police since 2003.
Photo: Reuters C Hartmann
The man suspected of a deadly knife attack at the police headquarters in Paris was in contact with conservative Islamic Salafists, the lead prosecutor has said. The suspect had worked for the Paris police since 2003.
The assailant, a 45-year-old civilian computer expert who converted to Islam about 10 years ago, was in contact with members of the Salafist Islamist movement, Ricard told reporters.
Tags
Who is online
67 visitors
'Extreme violence'
Ricard said the autopsies "attest to a scene of extreme violence" in an attack that lasted seven minutes, adding that the two knives used in the attack had been purchased by the killer.
The man "agreed with certain atrocities committed in the name of [Islam]" and defended the Charlie Hebdo attacks in 2015, Ricard said.
Opposition parties call for parliamentary inquiry
Prime Minister Edouard Philippe told weekly newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche he had ordered inspectors to review the procedures in place in the intelligence department of the police headquarters and anti-terror intelligence unit to detect signs of radicalization among civil servants.
France suffered Islamist terrorist attacks in 2015 and 2016 that killed 237 people.
Be careful, Krishna. There are a number of members here on NT who will call you an ISLAMOPHOBE for posting such stories, and SPLC might add you to their "Hate List".
European governments including Great Britain are passing laws that it is a criminal offence to criticize radical Islamism. Being critical of any other religion's fundamentalism is okay, but God help you if you are critical of radical Islamism.
Just TRY to say something bad about honour killing, FGM, throwing gays off roofs, submission of women and beating of wives, raping and enslaving women and girls who are not Muslim, forced marriage of preteen girls to old men, Islamic terrorism, death to apostates and those who dare criticize Islam, and you will be despised.
No hate list. Your last paragraph is accurate. Religion can become oppressive and dangerous.
I've never seen anyone here be critical of those who call out radical Islamic terrorism for what it is, a vile hate-filled extremist ideology. What I do see often are attacks on anyone who dares point out that most Muslims are not radical extremists or that other religions have their radical extremists too. Some will get labeled anti-Semites if they are the least bit critical of how the State of Israel acts towards their neighbors. Just saying you support a two state solution can get you that label from some nowadays.
Radical Islam is evil, as is radical Christianity, violent Buddhist extremists, hell, any religion can be taken into the darkness of a hateful human heart and perverted, used to justify the demonization of others who either don't look or worship the same way. Any religion is much like a gun, which can be owned and used responsibly, but it can also be taken down to a Walmart, a clinic or a night club and used as a justification to murder dozens of innocents. So while the gun fans try and make sure the guns get none of the blame, we rarely hear them defending non-violent Muslims when we are attacked by the radical Islamic terrorists. There's always someone reminding us that guns don't kill people, people do, but almost none pointing out that average Muslims and Christians don't kill people, radical extremists of any religion do.
As for the mistreatment in many Muslim countries of gays, women, honor killings, that is all despicable and those who use their religion to justify such acts are deplorable, no matter where they are. Throwing a gay person off a roof in Syria is just as horrible as hanging a gay person on a barbed wire fence in Wyoming. So lets call out radical Islam, Christian extremism, anti-Semitism and the mistreatment of anyone that is being justified by any faith or extremist ideology. No one should be picking sides by deflecting or defending their more familiar brand of faith when it gets radicalized and acting like it's the other brands of radicalized faith who are the real threat, because the simple fact is, any radicalized faith is the real threat.
I am in absolute agreement with you.
However, this particular article indicated that the terrorist was a radicalized Muslim, not a Buddhist, a Zoroastrian,a Baha'i, a Christian, a Jew, a Wiccan, a Satanist, a Shinto, a Scientologist, a Hindu, a Jain, a Confucian or an atheist (and I'm sure the world contains many other religions). There is no need to be apologetic about the vast majority of peaceful civilized Muslims, nor to make a speech about EVERY religion having its radicals.
There is also no need to make pejorative and untrue assumptions about others' reactions to FGM, honor killings, etc., when nobody here has ever, to my knowledge, defended any of that.
Yes, but you chose to make the claim that those who condemn radical Islam are "despised" when that's clearly not true, at least not here on NT. You brought up the other faiths when you said " Being critical of any other religion's fundamentalism is okay, but God help you if you are critical of radical Islamism.". I merely pointed out that is not true, we should all be critical of fundamentalism no matter where it rears its ugly head and that is what I see here, those on both sides of the aisle condemning violent extremism.
No, they haven't defended it, they have simply implied that I am an Islamophobe for being critical of radical Islam. I have never been critical of non-Islamist peaceful Muslims, and in fact I have praised devout Muslims who are critical of them, ones like Dr. Jasser.
Then there was no need for this:
because it was untrue, then, by your own admission.
Very clever attempt, however, DEFENDING those things, and implying that I'm an Islamophobe are TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT things. You've really been on my case lately, haven't you.
I've barely interacted with you, so no, I haven't.
You made a claim about other people's reactions that just isn't true, Buzz.
Okay, I'll spend some time searching back to find some examples for you. Unfortunately that will mean I will not have the time to police the IMDb spammer who has been screwing up the site - today I was able to prevent him from messing it up.
Thanks for that. I just deleted one account myself.
He uses 2 accounts at a time and is very clever in going off line and on again and alternating trying to fool me. He also continuously uses new i/p addresses and names. I have been watching him today and deleted his articles every time he tried to post them because that saves Perrie a lot of work cleaning up the site. However, Perrie had told me NOT to delete the profiles because she needs them to ban that particular user or to do something that will get rid of him. When I saw that one of the two I was following and deleting articles from was deleted I thought Perrie must have done it. I am in the best situation to police him because he usually starts about 1:30 am to 3 am EST which is my afternoon where I am. Last week Perrie had asked me not to do anything, not to delete anything, but now she wants me to just delete the articles he posts (but not his profile), which is what I did today. She also said to leave the weird groups he posted because TiG was doing something about that. So for the time being, don't delete his profiles.
In the meantime, apparently I can only go back a year or so of articles that I said I would search, and so far the only one I found was one where the comments were deleted as CoC violations, but I'll keep looking.
Ah, I didn't know Perrie wanted the profiles left alone. I'd been deleting them. I'm also finding occasional articles that have no account listed as having seeded them.
Great post and well said. You are right in all that you said above.