London Bridge and Borough terrorist incident

[Grays_1890]

If the aim was to terrorise Muslims in general, is it then Terrorism?

Im not sure? genuinely I am not sure?

I would have put it in revenge or hate but its all speculation without knowing motive, in this case though we will probably find out the motives

 

[r-u-s-x]

IF the attack was religious or politically aimed is that Terrorist? Thats the definition right?

I think the Mosque is a hate crime because the guy did it through hate, or thats I see it, if he did it as an act of Christianity versus Islam I would def say Terrorism

I think this is just as much a terrorist act as previous attacks.

I just googled Terrorism and the Oxford dictionaries definition is:

The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Other definitions have religious aims but also ideological or philosophical.

"Terrorism is a term used in its broadest sense to describe the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim."

and the UN:

Since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them

 

[Grays_1890]

Ok if his attack was political I will accept that

From the early profile I reckon its mentally unstable guy acting against his perceived enemy. Be interesting to see how close that is

 

[r-u-s-x]

Ok if his attack was political I will accept that

From the early profile I reckon its mentally unstable guy acting against his perceived enemy. Be interesting to see how close that is

I think my objection would be if he was brown, unstable and did this (perceived enemy against islam) it would be judged a terrorist act.

I am guessing for this guy its perceived enemy against the UK (nationalism) rather than himself?

 

[scaramanga]

I think my objection would be if he was brown, unstable and did this (perceived enemy against islam) it would be judged a terrorist act.

I am guessing for this guy its perceived enemy against the UK (nationalism) rather than himself?

I think we do have to be quite careful in the use of the term "terrorism" as it does (at least to me) have specific meaning. For me, there has to be an intent to create a background of fear (terror) and change people's actions/attitudes, or to further a political cause through the use of violence against civilians.

I'm not sure yet that this person's actions were intending to do anything other than kill some brown people because he's incapable of distinguishing them from those who take an active role in doing society harm (we'll leave the passive role all religious people play for another time). For me, that wouldn't qualify as terrorism unless there's some intent to further a cause or cause fear/disrupt behaviour.

From what we currently know (albeit very little) I think that is overestimating this person's ability to think.

 

[scaramanga]

The Daily Fail headline on the terrorist attack in Finsbury Park mentions a van driving into people 'where hate cleric Abu Hamza once preached'. At least they're consistent.

If, as it currently appears, the attacker has travelled a long way to execute this attack, don't you think the history of that mosque might have had some relevance in his choice of target?

 

[Parklaner81]

Last night was a terrorist attack but the media were loathe to call it as such.

I first heard of this incident at just after 7am this morning. I'm pretty sure both the BBC and Sky were calling it a terrorist attack by that point. So I'm not quite sure I see an issue here?

Conversely, for both Manchester and London Bridge I unfortunately watched the events unfold through the night. For Manchester certainly at least, there was a several hour delay in openly calling it a terror attack. So again, I'm not picking up a major difference in treatment.

 

[AuroRaman]

If, as it currently appears, the attacker has travelled a long way to execute this attack, don't you think the history of that mosque might have had some relevance in his choice of target?

Absolutely. But let's not pretend what the agenda was in this particular instance.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk

 

[Grays_1890]

If, as it currently appears, the attacker has travelled a long way to execute this attack, don't you think the history of that mosque might have had some relevance in his choice of target?

This is a good point.

Anyone seen Cracker where Robert Carlyle goes on a rampage because he snaps, thats how I see this now, one man vigilante act, slight loony and a loner

 

[the dza]

This is a good point.

Anyone seen Cracker where Robert Carlyle goes on a rampage because he snaps, thats how I see this now, one man vigilante act, slight loony and a loner

How on earth is he a vigilante? A vigilante is someone who takes the law into their own hands and goes after people who have actually done something wrong. This guy got in a van and tried to kill a bunch of Muslims outside a Mosque, there is no vigilantism about it because the people he attacked have done nothing wrong.

 

[AuroRaman]

This is a good point.

Anyone seen Cracker where Robert Carlyle goes on a rampage because he snaps, thats how I see this now, one man vigilante act, slight loony and a loner

Matey, can you see what my problem is with this train of thought. I know it's easy to band the race card around like a Premier League ref against any other team against the Sky 4, but there is an inherent problem with how things are reported in the media in these cases.

The fudgetards of London Bridge, the piece of brick in Manchester, they carried out these attacks in 'the name of ISIS/Islam/The Flying Spaghetti Monster, they are considered terrorists, Daesh celebrate it because even though they most likely had no involvement, it's a situation they can take credit for. But in yesterdays scenario the standard ignorant view is 'lone wolf', 'mentalist', 'oh he just snapped'.

You can't equate human life like this.

 

[scaramanga]

Absolutely. But let's not pretend what the agenda was in this particular instance.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk

I agree that the Mail is written by and for a bunch of clams, but they do have the right to bring that up as it's likely to be relevant as to why that mosque was chosen.

 

[Parklaner81]

there is an inherent problem with how things are reported in the media in these cases.

The fudgetards of London Bridge, the piece of brick in Manchester, they carried out these attacks in 'the name of ISIS/Islam/The Flying Spaghetti Monster, they are considered terrorists, Daesh celebrate it because even though they most likely had no involvement, it's a situation they can take credit for. But in yesterdays scenario the standard ignorant view is 'lone wolf', 'mentalist', 'oh he just snapped'.

But the media are widely reporting it as a terrorist attack on innocent muslims?

 

[parklane1]

Its a hate crime and I don't condone it one bit

But I study human behavior and did so at a high level and qualified at university, so my post is a comparison of behavior and whats deemed acceptable and for what reasons.

I think alot of the hate and direction of hate based on the Grenfell tower is misplaced, Lily Allen I use as an example because she thinks she is part of the solution however she is part of the problem. Her actions cause issues and a added pressure to resources, which is ironic considering resources have been called into question alot in the last weeks.

My point is and I say in a provocative way because it raises debate is, if you step back and look at Terrorist Attacks and a domestic fire there is a totally different view to it and the reactions are totally different and I find that very interesting.

Just what we need another body language expert . Of cause there is a bloody different view/reactions to it as they are completely different things.

Some crazy religious idiots killing people is a whole different ball game then folks being burnt to death because some arshole/s MAY have cut corners to save money.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

It is obviuosly sad and I do not agree with driving vans into people but I cant help that if new labour had dealt with that hook hand guy sooner then that mosque would not have had such a bad reputation(whether it has cleaned up its act I do not know)

Funny enough it was May as home secretary that finally got him deported, for years he hid behind the human rights act(enshrined in lovely EU law) why someone who preaches death to innocents should have any human rights is beyond me.

This guy from Wales deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison.

This attack most probably done by someone with mental health issues is a hangover from good old new labour and their obsession with human rights and the EU.

 

[AuroRaman]

But the media are widely reporting it as a terrorist attack on innocent muslims?

They are now, yes. The Mail actually had to re-edit their initial article.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk

 

[AuroRaman]

I agree that the Mail is written by and for a bunch of clams, but they do have the right to bring that up as it's likely to be relevant as to why that mosque was chosen.

I haven't read that, is that the reason he chose that particular mosque for sure?

I mentioned it to Parklaner, it says something that they had to re-edit the initial article. They currently have an article discussing the mental health of the 'alleged terrorist' and in the headline it's pronounced 'terrorist'. They've made up their mind.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk

 

[Parklaner81]

They are now, yes. The Mail actually had to re-edit their initial article.

I'm still struggling a little bit with your point. As I pointed out in an earlier post, both the BBC and Sky were calling this a terrorist attack by around 7am at the latest. This seems broadly consistent with the other recent attacks, where the media were hesitant to use the term in the hours immediately following the incidents, particularly Manchester from memory. I'm not familiar with the specific circumstances of the Mail's reporting, so you may have a point in that particular case but for the wider media in general, I'm not picking up the inconsistency.

You take exception to this guy being labelled a 'lone wolf' and a 'mentalist' however my gut feeling, and indeed greatest hope, is that this is precisely what he is.

 

[scaramanga]

I haven't read that, is that the reason he chose that particular mosque for sure?

Don't know, but he went a long way to go to that mosque in particular.

As a non-godtard I know of very few mosques, but I'd be able to name and picture that one off the top of my head because of its history.

 

[Grays_1890]

Some crazy religious idiots killing people is a whole different ball game then folks being burnt to death because some arshole/s MAY have cut corners to save money.

But its not, you choose to change your POV to meet the subject

Corporate killer, Killer with a gun, whats the difference?