Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
"not Terror Related", - Of Course?
http:// www.exp ress.co .uk/new s/world /699701 /Switze rland-t rain-kn ife-att ack-bur ns
Why are so many 'maniacs' suddenly starting to stab innocent people on trains then ?
Why are so many 'maniacs' suddenly starting to stab innocent people on trains then ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.It's easy to see how phrases such as “terror related” are confusing. As Jackdaw33 says, anyone going around setting fire to things and stabbing people is going to be pretty damn terrifying to anyone in the vicinity.
However, nowadays, the phrase “terror related” means relating to or as a consequence of an affiliation with a recognised terrorist organisation. Unless the authorities can unequivocally link the actions of an individual or group with a known terrorist organisation, the heinous act is classified (in the media at least) as being “not terror related”. This mangling of the English language will – and already has in my opinion - lead to some individual's acts being labelled as “not terror related” when their actions are quite clearly and obviously inspired by their particular religious belief and by extension, the beliefs of others who are actively trying to drag the western world back to the seventh century.
Just because someone doesn't shout “Alahu Akbar” while committing an atrocity, doesn't mean they aren't ideologically tied to an outdated, murderous, death-cult.
However, nowadays, the phrase “terror related” means relating to or as a consequence of an affiliation with a recognised terrorist organisation. Unless the authorities can unequivocally link the actions of an individual or group with a known terrorist organisation, the heinous act is classified (in the media at least) as being “not terror related”. This mangling of the English language will – and already has in my opinion - lead to some individual's acts being labelled as “not terror related” when their actions are quite clearly and obviously inspired by their particular religious belief and by extension, the beliefs of others who are actively trying to drag the western world back to the seventh century.
Just because someone doesn't shout “Alahu Akbar” while committing an atrocity, doesn't mean they aren't ideologically tied to an outdated, murderous, death-cult.
Jack...definition of Terrorist :::
http:// www.dic tionary .com/br owse/te rrorism
By your definition, Peter Sutcliffe was a terrorist, which he quite plainly wasn't.
http://
By your definition, Peter Sutcliffe was a terrorist, which he quite plainly wasn't.
AOG....you won't have to wait any longer !
As well as there being no evidence that this is terrorist-related, there is a similar lack of evidence about any Muslim input.
http:// www.bbc .co.uk/ news/wo rld-eur ope-370 72847
"Police spokesman Hanspeter Kruesi told AFP news agency the suspected attacker was not of immigrant background"
As well as there being no evidence that this is terrorist-related, there is a similar lack of evidence about any Muslim input.
http://
"Police spokesman Hanspeter Kruesi told AFP news agency the suspected attacker was not of immigrant background"
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.