Multiple Choice

With respect to understanding the massacre in Nice, choose the most relevant of the following two texts:

a) "Truck terrorist Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel was an 'unlikely jihadist' who flouted every rule of Islam, his cousin told MailOnline today. The 31-year-old... drank alcohol, ate pork and took drugs. He never prayed or attended a mosque, and hit his wife... and was in the process of getting a divorce. Bouhlel, who had been known to the French police since January, had been on the radar for six months for petty criminality. It is understood he lost his job as a delivery driver when he fell asleep at the wheel and crashed into four cars and had also been involved in a bar brawl. Walid Hamou, a cousin of Bouhlel's wife Hajer Khalfallah, told MailOnline: 'Bouhlel was not religious. He did not go to the mosque, he did not pray, he did not observe Ramadan. 'He drank alcohol, ate pork and took drugs. This is all forbidden under Islam. 'He was not a Muslim, he was a s***. 'He beat his wife, my cousin, he was a nasty piece of work'." (MailOnline, 16/7/16)

b) "When will the West ever learn? Islamists are at war with the non-Muslim world. All Islamist terrorist attacks invoke Islam, notably by reciting words from the Koran. All Muslims declare nothing deserves worship except God and Mohammed is the messenger of God. And the Koran is revered as the word of God. To fail to obey its word is defined as apostasy punishable by death. Unless this is clearly understood we cannot win the war. Why does, for instance, China have few Islamist terror attacks? Because they deal summarily with terrorists and sympathisers." (Letter in The Australian from Peter Troy, Kingston, Tas., 16/7/16)