The £84000 in Cash. Nice..

Nice attack: Lorry driver killer Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel sent £84,000 to his family days before the massacre

In the days before the horrific attack, relatives said that Bouhlel asked friends to hide the money and take it to his family in Msaken, Tunisia. Where the cash came from is a mystery as Bouhlel has been unemployed for several months, leading to suspicions it could have come from an Islamic terrorist group. The 31-year-old French-Tunisian driver's brother said he received the sum of £84,000 in cash. Jaber, his brother, revealed he had not seen his brother for many years and the money was unexpected.

"Mohamed sent the family 240,000 Tunisian Dinars (£84,000) in the last few days," Bouhlel's brother told MailOnline. "He used to send us small sums of money regularly like most Tunisians working abroad. But then he sent us all that money, it was fortune. "He sent the money illegally. He gave cash to people he knew who were returning to our village and asked them to give it to the family." Bernard Cazeneuve, the French interior minister said the killer "appears to have become radicalised very quickly". while a neighbour of his ex-wife added: "Mohamed only started visiting a mosque in April." The Bastille Day attack was claimed by Isis and investigators say they have found proof that Bouhlel was in contact with known Islamic radicals by checking his phone records.

www.ibtimes.co.uk...

www.mirror.co.uk...

1/ He was given the money to do the killings ( so much for doing gods work )
2/ He was given the money for something else, guns drugs ect and stole it.

Maybe Donald Trump's idea about punishing the families of these killers carries a bit of weight after all?
If you remove that one pillar of reasoning you'd probably reduce the number of people willing to carry out these attacks significantly.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Maybe Donald Trump's idea about punishing the families of these killers carries a bit of weight after all?
If you remove that one pillar of reasoning you'd probably reduce the number of people willing to carry out these attacks significantly.

No no it doesn't at all

You don't massacre people w out trial and you damn sure don't do it to those who could be innocent

The hell is wrong w you people


Besides all those facts, it's well known that families of suicide bombers and those carrying out acts for terrorist groups are given large sums of money to make sure their families are taken care of

This is no secret

a reply to: SprocketUK

It's an idea.

Maybe look into how effective it was for Saddam Hussein.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Donald Trump said "take them out" but he didn't expand on what that meant. Did he mean take them out to dinner, jail them, kill them, only Trump knows for sure.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Sure, killing the extended family is a no no, but making them destitute and homeless would remove one of the reasons to undertake a mission for IS wouldn't it?
I may be wrong, but didn't the Israelis bulldoze the family homes of suicide bombers?

originally posted by: imod02
1/ He was given the money to do the killings ( so much for doing gods work )
2/ He was given the money for something else, guns drugs ect and stole it.

It's no secret ISIS has had access to serious funds, buying people who are desperate doesn't bode well with me as many more people are economically desperate than their is potential terrorists. People already do horrible and awful things for money.

If it was stolen I'd be more inclined to think he would try and run or attack something much more specific than what was clearly the biggest local gathering for a while.

They've basically advertised that terrorism could pay. I can see it raising the bar on potential terrorists.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Sure, killing the extended family is a no no, but making them destitute and homeless would remove one of the reasons to undertake a mission for IS wouldn't it?
I may be wrong, but didn't the Israelis bulldoze the family homes of suicide bombers?

I don't know but if someone came and destroyed the livelihood of me and my family due to a relative I'd be much more inclined to raise a gun for a cause.

originally posted by: RAY1990

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Sure, killing the extended family is a no no, but making them destitute and homeless would remove one of the reasons to undertake a mission for IS wouldn't it?
I may be wrong, but didn't the Israelis bulldoze the family homes of suicide bombers?

I don't know but if someone came and destroyed the livelihood of me and my family due to a relative I'd be much more inclined to raise a gun for a cause.

Yeah, I understand that, though don't you think the threat of it would make you think twice about taking the 80 grand for carrying out the attack in the first place?

a reply to: SprocketUK

Probably not, if anything it would enhance my cause and be proof enough to silence any moderate outlook on the west. When you have nothing you have nothing to lose.

When funders of terrorism are targeted it usually is done to a degree of accuracy. Cut the head off the snake and the body dies, bomb a couple hundred snakes and next thing you know you have snakes hissing and spitting at you.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: SprocketUK

Probably not, if anything it would enhance my cause and be proof enough to silence any moderate outlook on the west. When you have nothing you have nothing to lose.

When funders of terrorism are targeted it usually is done to a degree of accuracy. Cut the head off the snake and the body dies, bomb a couple hundred snakes and next thing you know you have snakes hissing and spitting at you.

I need to clarify. No one has destroyed your family home etc yet.
Some mullah or other comes to you to get you to kill a load of people and as well as your place in paradise, your family will get 80 grand.

Now, you may be inclined to take up the offer.
But what would you do if you knew that your family would never see the money, that they would lose everything as a result of your actions?
Any partially rational person would now think twice, surely?

As for the morality of it all, we have a moral duty to defend our society and all the innocents targeted by such attacks, my personal view is that seen in that light, any moral duty to the world at large re not targeting families of suicide bombers etc. is somewhat less vital.

originally posted by: JAK
a reply to: SprocketUK

It's an idea.

Maybe look into how effective it was for Saddam Hussein.

Yes Iraq is now a paradise now that he is gone isn't it.

originally posted by: BIGPoJo
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Donald Trump said "take them out" but he didn't expand on what that meant. Did he mean take them out to dinner, jail them, kill them, only Trump knows for sure.

Anyone with half a brain knew what he meant by take them out. Keep up with the excuses though you're doing a good job.

a reply to: SprocketUK

If I was radicalized then no, either way it's a win/win, either my family gets paid or a few more sheep will add to the flock.

Bombing families of terrorists is revenge. Then the problem exists that these families live in nations. You can't just go about bombing nations at will.

a reply to: RAY1990

More to war than dropping bombs, fella.

Anyway, the truly radicalised won't be turned from the path, you are right. Though the question then becomes how many of these things are carried out by proper, honest to god radicals? The Nice guy wasn't, was he?

a reply to: SprocketUK

Yes I know a lot more exists to war, it's why Syria and Iraq drag on. The fact that these terrorists are from all over doesn't make it any easier to combat or police terrorism.

The radicals are sold that evil done to the enemy isn't evil at all and they will be rewarded in heaven, radicalists are radical for a reason they believe in their cause.

We can't bomb Tunisia, we'd have to rely on their law system or extradite and fat chance on extradition because of relation by blood. Bombing every nation that has family of a terrorist is unfeasible immediate family or not. If any nation thought to hell with consequence and did it anyway would suffer nasty political backlash.

a reply to: RAY1990

What about the other bit?

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: RAY1990

What about the other bit?

What other bit?

a reply to: RAY1990

Really? Is it gonna be that kind of discussion?

Forget it. It's Sunday and I'm off to town.