Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Terrorist Attack Or Hatred Attack?
71 Answers
Why are most news outlets saying that last nights attack was a 'terrorist attack'!
Thats not the way I see it, it was some deluded idiot, with his own agenda, who felt the need to attack people who follow Islam, surely thats not a terrorist attack.
Has it been given that title to try and appease muslims?
Thats not the way I see it, it was some deluded idiot, with his own agenda, who felt the need to attack people who follow Islam, surely thats not a terrorist attack.
Has it been given that title to try and appease muslims?
Answers
I don't think it was a terrorist attack, it was a lone nutter. I suppose the authorities are trying to portray this as a terrorist attack because the modus operandi is the same as the the Westminster Bridge attack. But they are entirely different. There is no ideology behind this attack, it is pure and simple hatred and bigotry, not ideologic religous...
23:09 Mon 19th Jun 2017
if you raise health issue in a criminal process
they are allowed to lock you away permo
https:/
they are allowed to lock you away permo
https:/
Of course it's a terrorist attack. It's an attack upon civilians designed to strike terror into the greater populace with a political overtone. I cannot believe the excuses for not labelling it so. Oh wait yes I can it's this:- https:/
// Osborne was arrested on suspicion of commission, preparation or instigation of terrorism including murder and attempted murder. //
I expect the charges will be revised.
The man who died was possibly dead already, we will have to wait to see the medical evidence.
I do not know the legal definition of terrorism, it is almost certainly different from the dictionary definition, but to my eyes he is a (attempted) murderer, and not someone with an ideological agenda. I doubt he will face terrorism charges.
Reports say he being treated for a known medical condition, and he was on medication. And his mental state is repirted to have worsen lately according to people who knew him. He had been binge drinking the day before, and acted drunk on his arrest. So the medical examination on his health will also be a determining factor on what he is charged with.
My guess is attempted murder, and a defence of diminished responsibilty. Then it is up to the jury if they believe that.
I expect the charges will be revised.
The man who died was possibly dead already, we will have to wait to see the medical evidence.
I do not know the legal definition of terrorism, it is almost certainly different from the dictionary definition, but to my eyes he is a (attempted) murderer, and not someone with an ideological agenda. I doubt he will face terrorism charges.
Reports say he being treated for a known medical condition, and he was on medication. And his mental state is repirted to have worsen lately according to people who knew him. He had been binge drinking the day before, and acted drunk on his arrest. So the medical examination on his health will also be a determining factor on what he is charged with.
My guess is attempted murder, and a defence of diminished responsibilty. Then it is up to the jury if they believe that.
kvalidir, I don’t see anyone making excuses to call it something other than terrorism, but simply attempting to define it in the correct terms. The method was identical to recent terror attacks, the result, although not as devastating, comparable. The only thing that doesn’t compare is the all important motive, which in my opinion, was simply one man’s attempt at retribution for what is happening in this country and in the rest of Europe.
Yes, it now appears he had collapsed prior. Difficult to tell if the idiot finally killed him or he was already dead.
So your assessment seems spot on Gromit.
http://
So your assessment seems spot on Gromit.
http://
AOG
You wrote:
The authorities will go all out to get the maximum sentence for this disarranged individual.[i
[i]Anything less will undoubtedly upset our Muslim communities, and we don't want that, now do we?]
Anything less will undoubtedly upset all of us who don't believe in murdering innocent people.
Do you include yourself in that group?
Oh, and 'disarranged'?
You wrote:
The authorities will go all out to get the maximum sentence for this disarranged individual.[i
[i]Anything less will undoubtedly upset our Muslim communities, and we don't want that, now do we?]
Anything less will undoubtedly upset all of us who don't believe in murdering innocent people.
Do you include yourself in that group?
Oh, and 'disarranged'?
naomi24
[i]was simply one man’s attempt at retribution for what is happening in this country and in the rest of Europe.[i]
No.
Just...no.
Retribution would be where someone attempts to kill Michael Adebolajo or Michael Adebowale.
It ain't retribution when you randomly attack innocent people.
If you get mugged by a teenage, then six weeks later drive at a group of kids leaving school, you're not seeking retribution because those kids have nothing to do with the one who mugged you.
[i]was simply one man’s attempt at retribution for what is happening in this country and in the rest of Europe.[i]
No.
Just...no.
Retribution would be where someone attempts to kill Michael Adebolajo or Michael Adebowale.
It ain't retribution when you randomly attack innocent people.
If you get mugged by a teenage, then six weeks later drive at a group of kids leaving school, you're not seeking retribution because those kids have nothing to do with the one who mugged you.
naomi24
I think that Crusades argument has been well and truly superseded.
The reason (excuse) proffered nowadays is that suicide bombers are radicalised by fanatics who point to our actions in supporting one faction against another in various conflicts in the Middle East.
The whole illegal War on Terror, coupled with our frantically nutty support of rebels then governments in Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan etc completely wipe out any idea that the Crusades are a determining factor here.
All fanatics have to do is show burned out villages and say, "This is what western governments are doing in order", and boom - you've got radicalised youths.
That works better than abstracts in history books.
I think that Crusades argument has been well and truly superseded.
The reason (excuse) proffered nowadays is that suicide bombers are radicalised by fanatics who point to our actions in supporting one faction against another in various conflicts in the Middle East.
The whole illegal War on Terror, coupled with our frantically nutty support of rebels then governments in Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan etc completely wipe out any idea that the Crusades are a determining factor here.
All fanatics have to do is show burned out villages and say, "This is what western governments are doing in order", and boom - you've got radicalised youths.
That works better than abstracts in history books.
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.