When is terrorist attack not a terrorist attack?

LordSutch · 19-06-2017 10:24AM #1

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.

19-06-2017 10:26AM

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 · 19-06-2017 10:28AM

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 · 19-06-2017 10:32AM

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 · 19-06-2017 10:34AM

Muslim goes mad and kills people = terrorism.

White person does same = lone wolf.

LordSutch · 19-06-2017 10:34AM

Thank you for your thoughts so far.

suicide_circus · 19-06-2017 10:35AM

Arrah shur this lad had mental health issues

ScouseMouse · 19-06-2017 10:38AM

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 · 19-06-2017 10:42AM

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 · 19-06-2017 10:46AM

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.

19-06-2017 10:49AM

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 · 19-06-2017 10:50AM

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 · 19-06-2017 10:54AM

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 · 19-06-2017 10:54AM

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 · 19-06-2017 11:02AM

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 · 19-06-2017 11:07AM

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 · 19-06-2017 11:07AM

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 · 19-06-2017 11:10AM

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 · 19-06-2017 11:12AM

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 · 19-06-2017 11:16AM

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 · 19-06-2017 11:17AM

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 · 19-06-2017 11:33AM

Pretty straight forward far right terror.

wakka12 · 19-06-2017 12:03PM

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 · 19-06-2017 12:09PM

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 · 19-06-2017 12:20PM

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 · 19-06-2017 12:27PM

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 · 19-06-2017 12:34PM

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 · 19-06-2017 01:25PM

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 · 19-06-2017 02:03PM

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 · 19-06-2017 02:42PM

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 · 19-06-2017 02:44PM

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'.

When is terrorist attack not a terrorist attack?

Comments