It’s factually not true. I mean, anyone saying that is lying, straight-up. Of the terrorists in France in various attacks, I cannot think of a single middle class one. Most of them were actual criminals, known to the police for their criminality, but not for being terrorists.
Having a good job and a home doesn’t make one middle-class, either. Most of them that I’ve come across were not, actually “members of society”.
So this all sounds like bollocks to me.
They are indeed not trained by ISIS for the most part, but the “mental illness” deal is a bit of a cop-out. Mentally unstable, perhaps, depressed in many cases, and religious fanatics, sure, but if we call them all mentally ill, then a lot of people are, including plenty of politicians. There are exceptions, like the Navy Yard guy in the US - he was actually schizophrenic as I understand it, but I think it’s thrown around as an excuse to avoid blaming fanaticism and lack of concern for human life.
This is a bit of a hilariously bananas segue, Zephro - really makes you seem like a very typical politician, actually, attempting to connect actual murderous terrorists to some moron who puts a brick through a window, because the latter is of personal concern to you. Sad. A little shameful even.
Even the first bit isn’t really true. It’s a gross oversimplification. Many of them aren’t really young, unless 35 or 38 is “young”. This guy was 31 or 32, wasn’t he? That’s not “young” in my book. There’s no hormones or lack of worldiness to blame at that age. Similarly, did you actually see the Russian skinheads doing the football stuff? No way half of them weren’t well over 30.
So the whole thing rather falls apart. We’ve actually got entirely different groups with different motivations here, I’d suggest. They’re not even all men, as witnessed with some terrorist events recently.