When is terrorist attack not a terrorist attack?

LordSutch

Is it me or is the mainstream media in Britain getting carried with sensationalist "terrorist" related stories!

Now I don't deny that there have been several terrorist attacks carried out in recent times, the last being the London bridge attack, but is today's attack also a terrorist attack (against Muslims)?

Obviously Muslims were targeted by this fella, but was it a Terrorist attack? That's my question....

Prayers & thoughts for the victims.

The apparent intention was to create terror within the Muslim community. Therefore it is a terrorist attack.

From the Oxford dictionary

"Terrorism noun

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

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

If it was a Muslim person driving a van at people outside a church on a Sunday morning then it would definitely be a terrorist attack - the attacker knows that by attacking a church on a Sunday morning there will definitely be people there, and they will definitely be Christians.

This is the same. The attacker knew that in Ramadan that there would be Muslims congregated outside the Mosque most nights of the month of Ramadan - a very targetted attack, designed to cause terror.

It will be harder to link the attacker to any ideology or group like ISIS though.

biko

It's by no means a definition - but a terrorist attack (in my mind) is orchestrated and coordinated and designed to cause fear in the general populous.

Zebra3

Muslim goes mad and kills people = terrorism.

White person does same = lone wolf.

LordSutch

Thank you for your thoughts so far.

suicide_circus

Arrah shur this lad had mental health issues

ScouseMouse

Zebra3 wrote: »

Muslim goes mad and kills people = terrorism.

White person does same = lone wolf.

But the muslim isn't going mad, the muslim has been coached and radicalised to kill everyone who is not muslim. Thats not going mad.

White person doing it in response, maybe that's going mad.

biko

Anders Breivik killed 70 people by shooting them on an island in 2011.
He was alone and did not conspire with anyone to do this.
Was this a terrorist attack?

Tim McVeigh killed 168 people in the Oklahoma City bombing 1995.
He was alone (he claims).
Was this a terrorist attack?

LordSutch

biko wrote: »

Anders Breivik killed 70 people by shooting them on an island in 2011.
He was alone and did not conspire with anyone to do this.
Was this a terrorist attack?

Tim McVeigh killed 168 people in the Oklahoma City bombing 1995.
He was alone (he claims).
Was this a terrorist attack?

You're getting to the nub of my question now.

I suspect at the time those crimes were comitted they weren't referred to as "Terrorist" attacks, but now in the current climate they certainly would be.

biko

biko wrote: »

Anders Breivik killed 70 people by shooting them on an island in 2011.
He was alone and did not conspire with anyone to do this.
Was this a terrorist attack?

Yes.

Tim McVeigh killed 168 people in the Oklahoma City bombing 1995.
He was alone (he claims).
Was this a terrorist attack?

Yes.

osarusan

Any attacks, even if isolated, certainly terrify the people caught up in them.

But there is more likely to be an element of continuing fear to it - Londoners in general will be fearful that another attack could happen anywhere, any time.

Muslims will be fearful that another mosque could be attacked at any time.

I think it's when this fear of attacks actually causes those who are fearful to change their behaviour (won't go shopping/go to events with big crowds/won't visit their mosque) that terrorism is most effective.

Tom Mann Centuria

ScouseMouse wrote: »

But the muslim isn't going mad, the muslim has been coached and radicalised to kill everyone who is not muslim. Thats not going mad.

White person doing it in response, maybe that's going mad.

Katie Hopkins tells white men to "rise up" and seeking the "final solution" Tommy Robinson talks of "defending the the country from Islam" and "clean out this Islamic problem" that's coaching and that encourages radical thought and action.

wylo

That word should stop being used by government and media. It's pointless and by not using it you are in a better place to undermine the perpetrators, not to mention add to the fear of the whole thing.

So many different terms , murder , hate crime , terrorist , etc. seems pretty pointless. By calling ISIS attacks terrorist attacks but calling the murder of that girl in Wigan just a murder you're adding weight to the ISIS campaign and helping with radicalisation.

kunst nugget

LordSutch wrote: »

You're getting to the nub of my question now.

I suspect at the time those crimes were comitted they weren't referred to as "Terrorist" attacks, but now in the current climate they certainly would be.

The McVeigh bombing has always been referred to as a terrorist attack and was the deadliest on American Soil pre 9-11. He had links to the militia movement in the US so that might be why it has always been considered an act of domestic terrorism rather than a lone wolf attack.


Descriptions of Breivik seem to alternate between mass murderer and terrorist. I would definitely put him in the terrorist camp.

Dohnjoe

LordSutch wrote: »

You're getting to the nub of my question now.

I suspect at the time those crimes were comitted they weren't referred to as "Terrorist" attacks, but now in the current climate they certainly would be.

They were and are referred to as terrorist attacks

Yeah and we're Irish, we know all about terrorist attacks

ohnonotgmail

kunst nugget wrote: »

The McVeigh bombing has always been referred to as a terrorist attack and was the deadliest on American Soil pre 9-11. He had links to the militia movement in the US so that might be why it has always been considered an act of domestic terrorism rather than a lone wolf attack.


Descriptions of Breivik seem to alternate between mass murderer and terrorist. I would definitely put him in the terrorist camp.

his attack was politically motivated so that puts him definitely in the terrorist camp.

super_furry

ScouseMouse wrote: »

But the muslim isn't going mad, the muslim has been coached and radicalised to kill everyone who is not muslim. Thats not going mad.

White person doing it in response, maybe that's going mad.

The Sun, Tommy Robinson, Katie Hopkins et al, they're all radicalising people.

Grayson

kunst nugget wrote: »

The McVeigh bombing has always been referred to as a terrorist attack and was the deadliest on American Soil pre 9-11. He had links to the militia movement in the US so that might be why it has always been considered an act of domestic terrorism rather than a lone wolf attack.


Descriptions of Breivik seem to alternate between mass murderer and terrorist. I would definitely put him in the terrorist camp.

Let's not argue about this. Let's say he was a mass murdering terrorist.

kunst nugget

Grayson wrote: »

Let's not argue about this. Let's say he was a mass murdering terrorist.

I'll go with that.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Put it this way.

Last nights attack on Muslims is terrorism.

The London Bridge Attack was terrorism.

British Army paratroopers on Bloody Sunday were terrorists.

Real IRA bombing at Omagh were terrorists.

Israel using white phosphorous on Gaza were terrorists.

Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist.

Terrorism/terrorist - Using extreme force for political reasons against people in an indiscriminate, yet deliberate manner.

wes

Pretty straight forward far right terror.

wakka12

There is no debate over whether it was a terrorist attack or not. It most certainly was

Sad to see such division of society occurring in britain in 2017.

RiderOnTheStorm

In my mind, a terrorist attack is done to promote an ideology, not just creating terror. Were the RA terrorists? Yea. Were the Shinners terrorists when they waterboarded that guy that was buying a bike? No.

El_Duderino 09

suicide_circus wrote: »

Arrah shur this lad had mental health issues

Yeah I'd say there was a great chance that he does. Naturally, that wouldn't excuse the act but it would go towards explaining it.

Zebra3

ScouseMouse wrote: »

But the muslim isn't going mad, the muslim has been coached and radicalised to kill everyone who is not muslim. Thats not going mad.

White person doing it in response, maybe that's going mad.

And white people don't get radicalised?

El_Duderino 09

Zebra3 wrote: »

ScouseMouse wrote: »

But the muslim isn't going mad, the muslim has been coached and radicalised to kill everyone who is not muslim. Thats not going mad.

White person doing it in response, maybe that's going mad.

And white people don't get radicalised?

The guy driving the van took a pretty radical action so he's a radical and he must have either been born radical or he was radicalised.

KyussBeeshop

Has it not been obvious to people for well over a decade now, that the word 'terrorist' carries no actual solid definition - and that it's only used to delegitimize attacks from "them" against "us" - with attacks from "us" against "them" being given a more respectable label?

Will I Am Not

A terrorist attack? Yes. An attack by a terrorist organisation or in the name of a terrorist organisation? No.
They are 2 different things and one is far more worrying than the other.

Irish Praetorian

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

Has it not been obvious to people for well over a decade now, that the word 'terrorist' carries no actual solid definition - and that it's only used to delegitimize attacks from "them" against "us" - with attacks from "us" against "them" being given a more respectable label?

That's a bit facile isn't it? Have 'we' been undertaking big attacks against 'them'? I presume this is a segue into international affairs but I'm not buying it, especially for a country like Ireland.

Irish Praetorian

The big distinction as I see it is having an infrastructure behind the immediate attackers which transforms 'an attack' into 'a terrorist attack'.

Take for example the recent attacks in London, they all fit a specific MO (civilian targets using everything from knives to nail bombs), they involve a conception of international fraternity as part of a great Jihad, they all assume an interpretation of Islamic scripture (which we may find paper thin but there we go) and perhaps most importantly, they have a network of apologists, supporters and proponents behind them who would say 'yes this is what you need to do, do this again'.

Try as I might, I would struggle to find any depth to the attack we saw last night, you won't find any white supremacist or anti-Muslim terrorist groups in the UK coming out to support this attack (primarily because none exist with any violent substance behind them), you won't find a network of apologists coming out saying 'of course we don't support violence but this guy had a point' (although you will find quite a bit close to this, the most common reaction I've seen in some quarters has been 'was only a matter of time') and I suspect it will be quite a long time before we see another attack which held this one up as something worthy of imitation.

So that's the long and short of it, we would call it lone wolf because it was. To plagiarise Douglas Murray, we're not going to hear about changing our foreign policy to appease this attacker, were not going to delve into his views to find out 'where he's coming from' nor are we going to talk about 'legitimate grievances'.

The Backwards Man

It's very simple really

Themmuns are terrorists, ussuns aren't

biko

I am sure the victims remember that:

RayM

I wish we'd stop describing and reporting these incidents as 'terrorist attacks'. In almost all cases, the perpetrator is - first and foremost - some angry, obsessive man with a crap life and a desire to lash out and kill people. Calling some twat in a van a 'terrorist' gives him a level of notoriety that maybe he doesn't deserve.

beyondajoke

Definition of terrorism

Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of a political or religious aim.

Tell me where it says it that definition that terrorism has to involve a white or Arab person. Terrorism is terrorism. Whether it's committed by a Muslim or a Christian is irrelevant IMO.

kunst nugget

biko wrote: »

I am sure the victims remember that:

Using the quote like that is twisting what he was saying. He wasn't saying 'Meh, Shít happens', he was talking about it in relation to when he ordered a review of London's strategy for coping with terrorism and the need for Londoners to be vigilant. It's from September 2016 as well - before the current terrorist attacks in London.

Thursday 22 September 2016

Sadiq Khan has ordered a review of London's strategy for coping with multiple terror attacks. Sadiq Khan has said he believes the threat of terror attacks are “part and parcel of living in a big city” and encouraged Londoners to be vigilant to combat dangers.

The Mayor of London revealed he had a “sleepless night” after the recent bombing in New York, and said major cities around the world “have got to be prepared for these sorts of things” to happen when people least expect them.

“That means being vigilant, having a police force that is in touch with communities, it means the security services being ready, but it also means exchanging ideas and best practice”, Mr Khan told the Evening Standard shortly before a meeting with New York mayor Bill de Blasio.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sadiq-khan-london-mayor-terrorism-attacks-part-and-parcel-major-cities-new-york-bombing-a7322846.html

Glenster

biko wrote: »

Anders Breivik killed 70 people by shooting them on an island in 2011.
He was alone and did not conspire with anyone to do this.
Was this a terrorist attack?

Tim McVeigh killed 168 people in the Oklahoma City bombing 1995.
He was alone (he claims).
Was this a terrorist attack?

I'm pretty sure I've only ever heard both those attacks called terrorist attacks.

Now I only became aware of OK city bombing in the post 9/11 world cos I'm a whippersnapper.

Have other people here heard them called non-terrorist attacks?

greencap

super_furry wrote: »

The Sun, Tommy Robinson, Katie Hopkins et al, they're all radicalising people.

I'd like to isolate Katie Hopkins from that group as a special douchebag.


Whereas Tommy Robinson feels his cause is just and speaks from a place that wants to defend his community, rightly or wrongly, Hopkins has used her business sense to put herself forward as 'the controversial one' in various media debates on the issue.

She plays up to these issues, and prior issues, for her two pieces of silver.

Its all preconceived. Basically 'Ill be an outspoken intolerant type who says shocking things and they'll put me on their shows and Ill get some cash out of it and if I stir up resentment and cause real world consequences then fck it, that only helps me get more'.

Actually come think of it thats the Sun too.

Anyhoo - anyone can do a Hopkins if they're willing to sell their soul, no real talent needed, just say slightly extreme things and blame the govt.

greencap

Zebra3 wrote: »

Muslim goes mad and kills people = terrorism.

White person does same = lone wolf.

Anti-White nonsense.

He's being held on suspicion of terrorism charges.

Glenster

biko wrote: »

I am sure the victims remember that:

Do you disagree with that?

Is there no terror in major cities?

Son Of A Vidic

LordSutch wrote: »

When is terrorist attack not a terrorist attack?

Short answer - when America deems it so. Longer answer - the best example I can give, would be the noble and the honourable propagators of global human rights - The United States. Yes they can bomb weddings, village gatherings, Medecins sans Frontieres hospitals and carry out many illegal drone strikes every year, that kill countless civilians. But God forbid if you try to label them 'terrorists', especially here in The West. Although I suspect their thousands of innocent victims around the globe, would have absolutely no difficulty reaching such a damming conclusion. Unfortunately, When it comes to inflicting terror upon the innocent, The United States war machine has been topping the global league table ever since Bush launched his dubious "War on Terra". They murder without any regard for human life, but that's o.k., because here in The West we call it 'collateral damage'. So the net result of American terror seems to only create more terror, to the point where it has now become a perpetual cycle. But it's a very profitable one nonetheless. It's the unwinnable war where the only real winners are the executives at Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumann and the other big military corporations who are milking the profits. President Dwight D. Eisenhower must be turning in his grave, he warned us of the danger America faced back in 1961. Of what it could become and the dangers of the growing military-industrial complex presented to America and democracy. Sadly as events have proven for some time now, his worst fears appear to have been long realised. If society could see the hypocrites who speak of terrorism, yes the very ones who have created and continue to feed it. The hypocrites who do multi-billion dollar deals with the Saudis, who help prop up a regime that exports terror, funds it, a bastion of brutality where women are no more than chattels. I've gone on longer than planned, but the answer to your question is not so simple OP. Particularly when certain nations who are pointing fingers, are the very ones making vast profits of the very terror they helped create.

wakka12

biko wrote: »

I am sure the victims remember that:

That quote is being regularly misused. On its own it sounds apathetic and as if he believes its futile to try to stop it. The context of what he was actually saying clears it up.

gizmo81

The BBC are really playing the Terror card.

I don't believe it's a terror attack because it's not political nor is he aligned with any political organisation.

It's a hate crime and should be treated harshly.

wakka12

gizmo81 wrote: »

The BBC are really playing the Terror card.

I don't believe it's a terror attack because it's not political nor is he aligned with any political organisation.

It's a hate crime and should be treated harshly.

If it wasnt labelled a terrorist attack we would never ever hear the end of it

Irish Praetorian

Son Of A Vidic wrote: »

Short answer - when America deems it so. Longer answer - the best example I can give, would be the noble and the honourable propagators of global human rights - The United States. Yes they can bomb weddings, village gatherings, Medecins sans Frontieres hospitals and carry out many illegal drone strikes every year, that kill countless civilians. But God forbid if you try to label them 'terrorists', especially here in The West. Although I suspect their thousands of innocent victims around the globe, would have absolutely no difficulty reaching such a damming conclusion. Unfortunately, When it comes to inflicting terror upon the innocent, The United States war machine has been topping the global league table ever since Bush launched his dubious "War on Terra". They murder without any regard for human life, but that's o.k., because here in The West we call it 'collateral damage'. So the net result of American terror seems to only create more terror, to the point where it has now become a perpetual cycle. But it's a very profitable one nonetheless. It's the unwinnable war where the only real winners are the executives at Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumann and the other big military corporations who are milking the profits. President Dwight D. Eisenhower must be turning in his grave, he warned us of the danger America faced back in 1961. Of what it could become and the dangers of the growing military-industrial complex presented to America and democracy. Sadly as events have proven for some time now, his worst fears appear to have been long realised. If society could see the hypocrites who speak of terrorism, yes the very ones who have created and continue to feed it. The hypocrites who do multi-billion dollar deals with the Saudis, who help prop up a regime that exports terror, funds it, a bastion of brutality where women are no more than chattels. I've gone on longer than planned, but the answer to your question is not so simple OP. Particularly when certain nations who are pointing fingers, are the very ones making vast profits of the very terror they helped create.

I'm not going to dispute the failures of US foreign policy or the death toll incurred. But did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, one of the reasons people turn to despise Western societies (and attack them violently) is because of the litany of Westerners pontificating about how terrible and guilty their countries are?

jackofalltrades

Well using the UK's legal definition of the word.

Terrorism is defined as an action that endangers or causes serious violence to a person/people; causes serious damage to property; or seriously interferes with or disrupts an electronic system.
The use or threat must be designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public and is made for the purpose of advancing political, religious or ideological cause (Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000).

I don't think this attack is designed to influence the government.
It will intimidate the public, mainly Muslims in this case.
I don't know if the attacker was looking to advance a political, religious or ideological cause.
So it's definitely a hate crime, terrorism I'm not so sure though.

prinzeugen

Zebra3 wrote: »

Muslim goes mad and kills people = terrorism.

White person does same = lone wolf.

Or from my leftie cousin.

Muslin = Has a problem with the way they are being treated in the UK so kill to make a point.

White person = Far right extremist that has been radicalised by the Daily Mail, Sun etc..
Should be shot and those papers banned.

If he was not family I would block him..

He goes on about tolerance when the some sections of the left are the most intolerant of all society.

AllForIt

I thought it a bit rich of a member of the Muslim community in London as interviewed by Sky News to bang out about how they have been persecuted when every terrorist attack in London and Mancs since 2007 has been conducted by ppl of the Muslim community.

How can the Muslim continuity say they are under siege (in the UK) when this event is the first terrorist attack against them that I've heard off when westerns in the uk have been slaughters by ppl of their kind on the streets of London and in Manchester.

I am hearing a lot about Islamophobia but the Muslim population in the UK don't seem to recognize Westerophobia .

It looks to me that this terrorist attack specifically targeted against Muslims is being cynically used to explain away Westerophobia because Islamophobia is what kicked it all off in the first place.

I don't buy that for a second. If there were no Islamist attacks in the Uk then last nights attack would never have happened.

Madagascan

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Put it this way.

Last nights attack on Muslims is terrorism.

The London Bridge Attack was terrorism.

British Army paratroopers on Bloody Sunday were terrorists.

Real IRA bombing at Omagh were terrorists.

Israel using white phosphorous on Gaza were terrorists.

Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist.

Terrorism/terrorist - Using extreme force for political reasons against people in an indiscriminate, yet deliberate manner.

You forgot to add, likely on purpose, for example the attack and Murder of an Israeli Policewoman recently by Palestinian Terrorists.

steddyeddy

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Well using the UK's legal definition of the word.



I don't think this attack is designed to influence the government.
It will intimidate the public, mainly Muslims in this case.
I don't know if the attacker was looking to advance a political, religious or ideological cause.
So it's definitely a hate crime, terrorism I'm not so sure though.

The bit in bold describes war.

AudreyHepburn

LordSutch wrote: »

Is it me or is the mainstream media in Britain getting carried with sensationalist "terrorist" related stories!

Now I don't deny that there have been several terrorist attacks carried out in recent times, the last being the London bridge attack, but is today's attack also a terrorist attack (against Muslims)?

Obviously Muslims were targeted by this fella, but was it a Terrorist attack? That's my question....

Prayers & thoughts for the victims.

Of course it was a terrorist attack - just because the victims were Muslim and the perpetrator white does not mean terror wasn't the aim here.

I don't understand why people are trying to make less of this or excuse it by using revenge or frustration as a motive (not saying you are OP btw but that's the feeling I'm getting from a lot of the reactions I've seen).