Climate Change Robs Family Of Life...
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Finsbury Park Killing, Terrorist Attack, Hate Killing, Or Revenge Killing?
56 Answers
This killing and attack on Muslims has been classed as a terrorist attack, is this to somehow equalise it with the real world wide terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Islam, so as to appease the Muslims in this country?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
AOG
The word ‘potential’ is problematic here.
Potential means that someone has the capability of committing an act.
This means that all Muslims are potential terrorists, all men are potential rapists. All women are potential ***, all adults are potential paedophiles etc.
When you consider how woolly the introduction of ‘potential’ is to any debate, you realise how redundant it is.
Perhaps we need to counter ‘potential’ with ‘propensity’? Whilst someone may have the potential to commit an act, we shouldn’t allow our relationship with that demographic to be governed by the potential.
As an example, whilst all men are potential rapists, women shouldn’t treat men as if they are all likely rapists.
The word ‘potential’ is problematic here.
Potential means that someone has the capability of committing an act.
This means that all Muslims are potential terrorists, all men are potential rapists. All women are potential ***, all adults are potential paedophiles etc.
When you consider how woolly the introduction of ‘potential’ is to any debate, you realise how redundant it is.
Perhaps we need to counter ‘potential’ with ‘propensity’? Whilst someone may have the potential to commit an act, we shouldn’t allow our relationship with that demographic to be governed by the potential.
As an example, whilst all men are potential rapists, women shouldn’t treat men as if they are all likely rapists.
From the 2000 Terrorism Act,
"1 Terrorism: interpretation.
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
(4)In this section—
(a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,
(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
(c)a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
(d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation."
Does the attack not satisfy the Act's definition of terrorism?
"1 Terrorism: interpretation.
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
(4)In this section—
(a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,
(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
(c)a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
(d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation."
Does the attack not satisfy the Act's definition of terrorism?
'I actually dropped Geography for History in the Fourth Year, but from my dim and distant memory, Northern Ireland was, and still is, part of the United Kingdom, and Belfast, where most of the terrorism took place, is slap bang in the middle of it.'
Lol, never mind, Andy. I'm sure you're very good at history.
Lol, never mind, Andy. I'm sure you're very good at history.
emmie
//emmie i personally think it was a revenge attack for all the attacks we have suffered in the not too distant past.//
Unfortunately, this is the argument put forward by Islamic terrorists. The murderers of Lee Rigby said pretty much exactly that.
It is no excuse.
If we accept this as a reason, then we have to accept this justification from all other terrorists, “I’m doing this because of...blah blah”
//emmie i personally think it was a revenge attack for all the attacks we have suffered in the not too distant past.//
Unfortunately, this is the argument put forward by Islamic terrorists. The murderers of Lee Rigby said pretty much exactly that.
It is no excuse.
If we accept this as a reason, then we have to accept this justification from all other terrorists, “I’m doing this because of...blah blah”
Spicerack - // 'I actually dropped Geography for History in the Fourth Year, but from my dim and distant memory, Northern Ireland was, and still is, part of the United Kingdom, and Belfast, where most of the terrorism took place, is slap bang in the middle of it.'
Lol, never mind, Andy. I'm sure you're very good at history. //
No not really - but Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom, even though it is part of a separate land mass, as AOG pointed out before his usual trick of simply ignoring a post that finds him in error.
BTW AOG - Hawaii is an American state, but it's not part of the American mainland either - since your geography is as seriously skewed as your reason today.
Lol, never mind, Andy. I'm sure you're very good at history. //
No not really - but Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom, even though it is part of a separate land mass, as AOG pointed out before his usual trick of simply ignoring a post that finds him in error.
BTW AOG - Hawaii is an American state, but it's not part of the American mainland either - since your geography is as seriously skewed as your reason today.
sp - // AOG
The word ‘potential’ is problematic here.
Potential means that someone has the capability of committing an act.
This means that all Muslims are potential terrorists, all men are potential rapists. All women are potential ***, all adults are potential paedophiles etc.
When you consider how woolly the introduction of ‘potential’ is to any debate, you realise how redundant it is.
Perhaps we need to counter ‘potential’ with ‘propensity’? Whilst someone may have the potential to commit an act, we shouldn’t allow our relationship with that demographic to be governed by the potential.
As an example, whilst all men are potential rapists, women shouldn’t treat men as if they are all likely rapists. //
A reasoned and basic point about the use of language.
But don't hold your breath for a reply - AOG tends to fall silent when found to be factually inaccurate.
The word ‘potential’ is problematic here.
Potential means that someone has the capability of committing an act.
This means that all Muslims are potential terrorists, all men are potential rapists. All women are potential ***, all adults are potential paedophiles etc.
When you consider how woolly the introduction of ‘potential’ is to any debate, you realise how redundant it is.
Perhaps we need to counter ‘potential’ with ‘propensity’? Whilst someone may have the potential to commit an act, we shouldn’t allow our relationship with that demographic to be governed by the potential.
As an example, whilst all men are potential rapists, women shouldn’t treat men as if they are all likely rapists. //
A reasoned and basic point about the use of language.
But don't hold your breath for a reply - AOG tends to fall silent when found to be factually inaccurate.
Latest Posts
Crosswords5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
Are Labour Preparing To Dump The P M ?
News33 mins ago
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.