Another false flag. We don't know about the true identity of the attacker. And from the slogans which he shouted before the attack, I believe that he is also from an Islamic background. And from the article, it is clear that the perpetrator suffered from acute schizophrenia. So it seems that the attack resulted from mental illness, rather than Islamophobia.
I'm sorry but what you are stating here is wrong, As a French and since this case was big, it was impossible to miss any information about it, it was clearly an islamophobic attack. Also According to officiel and several organisation (in France),
Islamophobia cases has skyrocketed after the Terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo I can list some if you want (there was an increase in antisemite act last year as well but that's another story).
The other which I mentioned before is what you are exactly stating above ie
Every attack done on a muslim is related to mental issues, but when it's a muslim doing them it's automatically terrorism which stupid. you don't believe that every cases done against any muslim is related to mental issue and excusable and statically it's impossible.
I can fix this problem for you.
Belief in Islam is a mental illness.
(LOL...)
if only the solution was as simple as that ....
Joking aside, though....
It should be of importance to look at cause and effect.
Let's parse it like this.
Muslims commit atrocities --> various people kill Muslims
No, wait. We can do better than that.
Someone/group draws cartoons of Mohammed
--> Muslim group commits atrocities
--> various people kill Muslims
--> in reaction to the absurdity of those killings, a lady decides to have a draw Mohammed cartoon contest
--> Muslim wanna be commandos try to kill her
Looks like one Muslim terrorist goal is to do things bad enough that they will engender a response, so that the cycles of violence will definitely continue.
Well, the history of use of those tactics pretty much defined Arafat's entire career. Create media events about "the evil Jews" but always leave out the historical chain of events and the atrocities that engendered the response.
So there's nothing new in this, and it's not limited to lone wolf terrorists.
Now, back to the subject of "Islamophobia." As post #1 used the phrase, it was a hijacked term used as an intimidating word, one to shut people up who said anything against Islam.
You wouldn't thing there actually might be some things to be said against islam, would you?
Of course there are some "Muslim" terrorist that want to use the situation to their advantage like you've mentioned, but that's only one side of the story, the other way around is true, there are people that initiate this kind of situation to their own advantages from politics to the weapon lobbies are just some random sect...
As for the Islamophobia term, no this is wrong, You can say whatever you want about Islam I think no muslim will mind you saying you disagree, just keep it civil because people will get offended if you insult and mock them especially when it comes to their strongest believes or things they like being it muslims or not.
I've provided example of Islamophic acts (recognised officially as such) being it on scale or just individual act. Of course this doesn't mean that there aren't people that uses as you mentioned to shut other people down but this in case of Islam is marginal especially when you consider the number of Muslim around the world ie Third of world population ( There are other groups that have better tools and organization that fall more in the definition you are portraying)