Many people look at the recent string of attacks in France as a new normal, but it could be considered a *return* to normal. According to Wikipedia (search "list of terrorist incidents in France") there were 17 terrorist attacks in France from 1971-80 and 29 from 1981-90. But only 4 attacks in the next twenty years, 1991-2010. We are now up to 15 attacks in the present decade and we still have several years to go.

Two things which really are different this time around are the targets and the body count. In the 70s and 80s the targets were primarily government-related such as embassies and ambassadors, although there were also several attacks on civilians at airports, cinemas, and hotels. The attacks averaged about 2 fatalities and 18 injured.

In the present decade the targets have been mainly ordinary people at cafes, nightclubs, sporting events, trains, or civic celebrations. The average result of the attacks (including the attack in Nice) have been 16 people killed and 42 injured.

It looks like the risk of any kind of terror incident has returned to its level in 70s and 80s, but a given incident today is far more lethal.

Keep in mind that we don't even know yet if this was a terrorist attack or just the work of a madman.

I was thinking about other attacks from the past and the ones that stand out in my mind are when some group (sorry it is a bit fuzzy now) was shooting prominent people in Italy in the kneecaps cause then they would be crippled for life. I guess now with knee replacements it isn't a "thing". I wish I could remember more about it which means I have to google it. But I remember how horrified I was about it as a teenager.

Luggage lockers were shut in French stations decades ago and Operation VigiPirate seems to have been in effect forever.

Terrorism is nothing new to France, sadly.

<<Keep in mind that we don't even know yet if this was a terrorist attack or just the work of a madman.>>

Don't be so obtuse. ISIS claimed credit last night.

Oh? Link?

Both Hollande and the Prime Minister talked about terrorism.
http://www.ambafrance-cn.org/Interve...s-attentats-de

I am unaware that they are members of ISIS or that they are investigating the case themselves.

Can anyone confirm that this is an act of extremist Islamic terrorism? I would like to know this about the Orlando case, too, if anybody has any new information on that one, since the last I read it seemed to be a case of unhappy homosexuality.

You might want to read this link, Pvoyageuse: http://www.leparisien.fr/politique/a...16-5970869.php

Kerouac : I've read it. I also have listened to Hollande's speech and I believe what he says. Don't you?

I wonder if this unrelenting series of Islamic attacks are destroying France's popularity as top tourist destination? Although I love France, I have already ruled it out completely as a destination for our trip this Fall, well before this tragedy even happened. Although I would love to be brave and just go, I just wouldn't feel safe there anymore.

I'm furious that the French must now expect random massacres as their new reality. This won't be allowed to go on much longer.

I have been following the news from reliable, responsible sources all day, and thus far no terror group has claimed responsibility or association with the attack and officials have said that the lone assailant has thus far not been connected to any terror groups or extremism. His family says he has a history of mental illness, and neighbors described a troubled, angry loner. He was previously convicted of road rage.

So people who are saying it is terrorism might have reasons for doing it, and evidence that it was terrorism might turn up 5 minutes from now, but might as well hold off concluding it is and setting up whole agendas of how to go forward based on the idea it is terrorism until we know for sure it was. What is particularly worrisome is some people assuming that because someone has a non-French sounding name, they must be associated with terrorism.

As with the Orlando attack, it suits some to peddle the "islamic terrorist" line whereas the truth seems to be closer to the cause of so many american school shootings namely a sad loner with access to deadly weapons, in this case a large and heavy vehicle.

Where I think terrorism is relevant is that it gives some of these extremely vulnerable people ideas that otherwise might never have occurred to them.

The Nice attack was obviously terrorism. It was a horrific act that makes ordinary people more afraid of doing ordinary things -- the essential definition of terrorism. It doesn't matter whether the guy belonged to or was inspired by a terror organization, whether he was motivated by ideology, religious propaganda, or just plain crazy -- the effect is exactly the same: ordinary people are now more afraid of doing ordinary things.

Ann, a sad loner in the USA might be able to amass an arsenal of deadly weapons because of the stupid gun laws there. But that's simply not the case in Europe.

What happened last night in Nice is, one way or another, an act of terrorism.

To defend or deny that terrorism was the cause of the mass murder on Saturday might of 80+ innocents, affecting the lives of thousands of others is rather naive.

I still think the Orlando shooter was mental and looks like this truck killer was also. ISIS will claim anything evil as their own and Donald Trump will agree.

Sharon, that was also Belfast and they now have some of the best knee surgeons in the world.

To defend or deny that terrorism was the cause of the mass murder on Saturday might of 80+ innocents, affecting the lives of thousands of others is rather naive.>>

LL, we are clearly defining terrorism differently, as is obvious if you read what I wrote. I would respectfully suggest that calling me naive because I see "terrorism" as an act linked to a defined political aim rather than a random act of violence by a mentally disturbed individual does nothing to promote reasonable discussion.

To suggest that I was somehow defending it is simply offensive.

The random deadly massacres in France of late have been associated with seemingly radicalized people that have one thing in common. It's a matter of pattern recognition at this point. Whether or not they are officially members of "ISIS" or "Islamists" makes little difference.

To write this off as just another "madman" willfully ignores the underlying issue, and this will just keep happening in France again and again. The question is not if anymore, but when. Sadly, I don't think it's obvious how to fix it.

That said, I do agree that things seem increasingly unstable everywhere of late. America has a "terrorism" problem of its own with the easy access to firearms. It's appalling all around.

does calling it all "terrorism" make it easier to eliminate?

on the contrary, I think that recognising that there are mentally ill and/or disturbed people can be influenced by others who are politically motivated is a step forward. The "lone wolf" who committed that terrible act in Nice last night is light-years away from the terrorists who attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo or the Bataclan and needs a different approach.

Lumping them all together as "terrorists" helps no-one.

cosmiclatte, You'll also want to avoid England and Belgium, and probably Turkey as well given the attempted coup. I'm not sure that much of anywhere is safe these days.