[QUOTE=srobins;52376632]You're getting really worked up and don't seem to even be reading my posts, maybe you should wipe the hot steam off your glasses and try to get your shit together before you start going off on me for things I'm neither saying nor implying lol[/QUOTE]
You are trying really hard to convince everybody that this guy isn't a terrorist without there even any infomation of this incident at all except that it was intentional. Then you keep ranting on how muslims commit more terror attacks so that means this incident, that no infomation has been released yet, cannot possiblely be a terror attack if it turns out to be a racist white guy.
I think his argument is that "since this subject is not brought up often in attacks and is not a recurring pattern, it isnt terrorism"
however, this point is moot simply by the official definition of terrorism
definition from merriam-webster
[QUOTE]the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion[/QUOTE]
definition from dictionary . com
[QUOTE]the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.[/QUOTE]
and oxford
[QUOTE]The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.[/QUOTE]
notice how none of these definitions specify how many people or times it has to happen. It doesnt matter what you [I]feel[/I] the definition of terrorism is, the word "terrorism" already has an agreed meaning.
if you want an example: Ecoterrorism, defined by webster as
[QUOTE]sabotage intended to hinder activities that are considered damaging to the environment[/QUOTE]
im sure you have heard of this term before, despite it not being that common. Yet we still call it terrorism, because it uses "terror" to further some political agenda.
Islamist terrorism is terrorism because those attacks are done to change public perception (and by extension, public policy) regarding muslims.
If this event in the OP happened because the driver wanted muslims out of the country or something like that, it would be terrorism because "terror" was used to push forth a political goal
[QUOTE=da space core;52376733]If this event in the OP happened because the driver wanted muslims out of the country or something like that, it would be terrorism because "terror" was used to push forth a political goal[/QUOTE]
Assuming this was an intentional attack on Muslims, the relevant question would be whether this was intended to push some political ideal or whether he just wanted to hurt Muslims because he hates them.
it feels like these attacks are daily now :/
also, i feel like considering the events that are occurring around the world right now we should be above who can define terrorism/who can't and instead be coming together to actually provide support by the people affected by these attacks.
[QUOTE=Sky King;52376697]You are trying really hard to convince everybody that this guy isn't a terrorist without there even any infomation of this incident at all except that it was intentional. Then you keep ranting on how muslims commit more terror attacks so that means this incident, that no infomation has been released yet, cannot possiblely be a terror attack if it turns out to be a racist white guy.[/QUOTE]
Like, are you honest to God really reading my posts and that's your straightforward interpretation? Or are you maybe adding your own little spin to my posts, because my argument here has nothing to do with Muslims specifically and I've repeatedly explained that there definitely are non-Muslim terrorists and what I would consider the criteria to be. You're acting like a total dick and don't even have the courtesy to address what I'm saying instead of just attacking me for saying something that sounds like it contradicts your world view.
Sad day, no matter what your faith. These kinds of acts are never okay. Whether or not they will rule it terrorism, they will probably rule it a hate crime at least.
[QUOTE=da space core;52376733]im sure you have heard of this term before, despite it not being that common. Yet we still call it terrorism, because it uses "terror" to further some political agenda.
Islamist terrorism is terrorism because those attacks are done to change public perception (and by extension, public policy) regarding muslims.
If this event in the OP happened because the driver wanted muslims out of the country or something like that, it would be terrorism because "terror" was used to push forth a political goal[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree with what you're saying, like I said previously I agree that (if our assumptions about the attacker's motives are correct) this attack technically falls under the definition of terrorism. I'm pointing out that the word "terrorism" has taken on a colloquial meaning to refer to more consistent or organized campaigns of terror rather than lone wolves who commit horrible crimes for a variety of reasons, and because of that I think it's stupid to feign shock and disgust at the news media for not labeling a single angry racist driving into people as terrorism.
[QUOTE=srobins;52376830]I don't disagree with what you're saying, like I said previously I agree that (if our assumptions about the attacker's motives are correct) this attack technically falls under the definition of terrorism. I'm pointing out that the word "terrorism" has taken on a colloquial meaning to refer to more consistent or organized campaigns of terror rather than lone wolves who commit horrible crimes for a variety of reasons, and because of that I think it's stupid to feign shock and disgust at the news media for not labeling a single angry racist driving into people as terrorism.[/QUOTE]
You presented your argument badly and I may have mis-understood.
[QUOTE=da space core;52376733]I think his argument is that "since this subject is not brought up often in attacks and is not a recurring pattern, it isnt terrorism"
however, this point is moot simply by the official definition of terrorism
definition from merriam-webster[/QUOTE]
I think [I]this particular[/I] definition actually supports what srobins is saying and doesn't support your argument here. For the most part there don't appear to be, from my understanding, systematic attacks on the Muslim community in the UK. There are a lot of noisy bigots shouting at them, but for the most part people aren't systematically attacking them, as far as I can tell.
On the contrary, there does appear to currently be a systematic campaign of attacks against the British population perpetrated by Muslim extremists. You could argue that the term 'systematic' might not apply so well here because the attacks are likely uncoordinated in and of themselves, originating from separate, lone pockets of extremists. However, these lone cells are very likely being fuelled by the rhetoric of ISIS, a group who damn well knows the effect their rhetoric will have, making it systematic on their behalf.
Terrorists win I guess? That's exactly what they wanted no? What a frigging dumbass, I wonder if he knows he's doing exactly what the people he hates wanted him to do. That's assuming he was targeting muslims for political reasons. And if he was I'd definetly call him a terrorist.
Also on Polish news radio they said when he came out of the car angry mob wanted to beat him up but an imam saved him. That's awesome if true.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52377015]Terrorists win I guess? That's exactly what they wanted no? What a frigging dumbass, I wonder if he knows he's doing exactly what the people he hates wanted him to do. That's assuming he was targeting muslims for political reasons. And if he was I'd definetly call him a terrorist.
Also on Polish news radio they said when he came out of the car angry mob wanted to beat him up but an imam saved him. That's awesome if true.[/QUOTE]
How ironic would it be to get saved by an iman after killing a bunch of muslims.
Confirmed, this is being treated as a potential terrorist attack
[media]https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/876648747429756928[/media]
[media]https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/876685249006231552[/media]
[media]https://twitter.com/SadiqKhan/status/876661763617566720[/media]
[editline]19th June 2017[/editline]
According to [URL=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40322960]the latest reports[/URL], the driver got out of the van shouting "I want to kill all Muslims" and was then grabbed by multiple people who held him until the police arrived
I remember the days when this kind of thing was just labelled as an accident, and that's what it was
today everything has to be treated like a terrorist attack because it may just be, it's disheartening
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;52377117]I remember the days when this kind of thing was just labelled as an accident, and that's what it was
today everything has to be treated like a terrorist attack because it may just be, it's disheartening[/QUOTE]
This is actually a terror attack though
The more I see these attacks, the less words I have, honestly.
And the problem is, that you can't actually win against these retarded pricks. Anyone can snap any day, just get his car and ram himself into a crowd.
It's surprising that this terror tactic didn't happen sooner, but once someone set the trend - it's widespread. Meh.
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52377049]Confirmed, this is being treated as a potential terrorist attack
[editline]19th June 2017[/editline]
According to [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40322960"]the latest reports[/URL], the driver got out of the van shouting "I want to kill all Muslims" and was then grabbed by multiple people who held him until the police arrived[/QUOTE]
wow
what the hell is wrong with him, what causes someone to do this
[QUOTE=jordguitar;52376103]Or just make everyone use self driving cars when it gets around to actually being useful.[/QUOTE]
All cars don't need to be self driving, but I don't see why specifically lender cars shouldn't be, soon.
[editline]19th June 2017[/editline]
And you don't need a full self driving package to prevent this either - collision prevention systems have been a separate deal for a quite a while and they look very well. Again, lender cars specifically could be required to be fitted with that.
A cheaper and simpler half-solution would be to use the GPS all lender cars already have so the owner can track them and putting an automatic speed limiter that would kick in in high population density areas - you can still easily kill a person going just 50km/h but at least it's a bit easier to dodge.
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;52377117]I remember the days when this kind of thing was just labelled as an accident, and that's what it was
today everything has to be treated like a terrorist attack because it may just be, it's disheartening[/QUOTE]
It's sad that this terrorist tactic has risen so quickly that we've gotten to the point where we hear about an incident like this and we know it's intentional. I think about the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Glasgow_bin_lorry_crash]Glasgow crash[/url], which was only in 2014, but at the time I don't think there was even a moment's thought given to the idea that this could be a terrorist attack
[QUOTE=millan;52377199]
A cheaper and simpler half-solution would be to use the GPS all lender cars already have so the owner can track them and putting an automatic speed limiter that would kick in in high population density areas - you can still easily kill a person going just 50km/h but at least it's a bit easier to dodge.[/QUOTE]
Most cars used in these types of attacks are stolen, not lent, usually within the same day of the attack too. Unless there was a speed limiter built into all cars that would kick in on pedestrian heavy areas, that wouldn't really work.
The ammount of people I see justifying this on Facebook fucking sickens me to the core
[QUOTE=Crooky14;52377255]The ammount of people I see justifying this on Facebook fucking sickens me to the core[/QUOTE]
What kind of people are you friends with? I'm friends with hundreds of people on the right and haven't seen a single person justifying it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52377268]What kind of people are you friends with? I'm friends with hundreds of people on the right and haven't seen a single person justifying it.[/QUOTE]
No definitely not any of my friends. Just reading though the comments on news stories like the BBC's post about it and seeing how people are saying stuff like "it was about time someone got revenge".
[QUOTE=Crooky14;52377277]No definitely not any of my friends. Just reading though the comments on news stories like the BBC's post about it and seeing how people are saying stuff like "it was about time someone got revenge".[/QUOTE]
This sort of shit makes me angry, and quite honestly, people need to stop behaving this way. This guy was a bigoted piece of shit who somehow got the idea that running over a bunch of Muslims who had nothing to do with terror was somehow going to make him feel better or something. It's come to the point where morons like this just want excuses to lash out thinking they're doing something right, when in reality all it is, is simply a crime, hurting and killing innocents who have nothing to do with this shit.
If he actually had any balls, he'd sign up to fight ISIS to show how courageous he is, but all he is is some sad sack with most likely serious mental issues.
Listening to the radio over the past four months, I've heard them hold a minute's silence for Westminster, a minute's silence for Manchester, a minute's silence for London Bridge, and just a few moments ago there was a minute's silence for Grenfell Tower while they must already be planning a minute's silence for Finsbury Park
[QUOTE=Crooky14;52377255]The ammount of people I see justifying this on Facebook fucking sickens me to the core[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the amount of shit ive seen describing the attack as "Hitting back!" against Muslims actually boils my piss.
Why would you even put something like that on social media? gg on being an apologist for terrorism where everyone can see!.
[QUOTE=fulgrim;52377348]Yeah, the amount of shit ive seen describing the attack as "Hitting back!" against Muslims actually boils my piss.
Why would you even put something like that on social media? gg on being an apologist for terrorism where everyone can see!.[/QUOTE]
They could probably be prosecuted for that if they're promoting or encouraging terrorism. [url=https://www.gov.uk/report-terrorism]There's a site for reporting it[/url]
[media]https://twitter.com/KeeganNYC/status/876621538853781505[/media]
Daily Mail keeping things classy.
[QUOTE=fulgrim;52377348]Yeah, the amount of shit ive seen describing the attack as "Hitting back!" against Muslims actually boils my piss.
Why would you even put something like that on social media? gg on being an apologist for terrorism where everyone can see!.[/QUOTE]
People don't understand that justifying any of these attacks as "hitting back" at "the other side" just justifies further attacks and is the exact same argument islamic terrorists are using
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52377381][media]https://twitter.com/KeeganNYC/status/876621538853781505[/media]
Daily Mail keeping things classy.[/QUOTE]
They aren't exactly wrong, as [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri"]Abu_Hamza_al-Masri[/URL] is serving a life sentence in jail on terrorism charges. Calling Abu Hamza's rhetoric hateful is putting it very, very lightly. Glad the piece of shit is in jail for the rest of the garbage pile that is his life.
They're absolutely correct about the cleric, however it seems fairly irrelevant to the attack.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
