London Terrorist Attack - What was that about London being safe again?

handysr said:

Read my post again. You quoted it, so you'll see I haven't edited it. Nowhere did I apologize for anything, nor did I attempt to downplay the situation. I did say that I was guessing the attack was payback, but nothing to excuse the idiot.

Are you trying to start shit by lying about me? Or can you just not read English?

And I agree about those restraining the idiot without disabling him.

Click to expand...

Early reports indicate the one arrested was a white guy, but I'd say the odds of his religious connections are low. Most likely just a pissed off citizen doing his version of payback. Maybe this will put some pressure on 'moderate' muslims to tell the cops about anyone in their faith that appears to be a radical.

Click to expand...

DeYaKen said:

So according to that, the guy was just an ordinary citizen who got pissed off and it is all the fault of the Muslim population for not doing enough to stop the people committing such acts in their name. The guy was a terrorist and you are trying to say that it was the fault of the people he mowed down. That's being a terrorist apologist in my book. It puts you in the same category as radical clerics who like to stir up hatred in order to get someone else to do the killing.

If you had bothered to follow the stories you are commenting on you would know that the police were informed of the radicalisation of the Manchester bomber at least twice. Both came from the mosque he attended. However, we have a government which thinks it a good idea to reduce police numbers and funding to security services in order to fund tax cuts for rich people.

Likewise, one of the borough market killers was reported to the Italian police who claim they passed it on to the British.

Getting pissed off is not an excuse for attacking innocent people and victims of vionce are not to blame

Click to expand...

DeYaKen said:

So according to that, the guy was just an ordinary citizen who got pissed off and it is all the fault of the Muslim population for not doing enough to stop the people committing such acts in their name. The guy was a terrorist and you are trying to say that it was the fault of the people he mowed down. That's being a terrorist apologist in my book. It puts you in the same category as radical clerics who like to stir up hatred in order to get someone else to do the killing.

If you had bothered to follow the stories you are commenting on you would know that the police were informed of the radicalisation of the Manchester bomber at least twice. Both came from the mosque he attended. However, we have a government which thinks it a good idea to reduce police numbers and funding to security services in order to fund tax cuts for rich people.

Likewise, one of the borough market killers was reported to the Italian police who claim they passed it on to the British.

Getting pissed off is not an excuse for attacking innocent people and victims of vionce are not to blame

Click to expand...

HisArpy said:

Total self justification and pontificating.

The guy was, apparently, just a guy who was retaliating against Muslims for Islamic terrorism. As far as I've heard he, himself, wasn't part of a terror cell or terror organization. To expand upon that to PRESUME that someone said the victims "deserved it" is ridiculous because handysr didn't say that. Nor did he imply it. Nor did anyone else.

One need only read your last sentence (including the misspellings) to realize that you are upset, angry, and need to regain control of yourself. Because at this point you do sound like an Islamic terrorism apologist.

Click to expand...

Maybe this will put some pressure on 'moderate' muslims to tell the cops about anyone in their faith that appears to be a radical.

Click to expand...

Boxlicker101 said:

I think what you mean is that the Mayor could not be bothered. This is described in a different thread.

Click to expand...

HisArpy said:

TThe guy was, apparently, just a guy who was retaliating against Muslims for Islamic terrorism. As far as I've heard he, himself, wasn't part of a terror cell or terror organization.

Click to expand...

about_average said:

What an ignorant premise.
You don't have to be a member of a group to engage in terrorism.

Click to expand...

HisArpy said:

Never said it was a requirement.

OTOH, in this case it seems to be just a white guy upset over the recent terrorism and going off the deep end.

Not all mass killings are automatically terrorism. Terror FILLED but not terrorism.

Click to expand...

HisArpy said:

Never said it was a requirement.

Click to expand...

magicalmoments said:

If the act of violence meets that definition it is terrorism. If it doesn't, it's not terrorism.

The problem arises where different countries have different definitions.

Terrorism is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of law.

Click to expand...

about_average said:

Then why would you include a factoid in your statement, since it has no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not he was trying to incite terror?

Click to expand...

about_average said:

Then why would you include a factoid in your statement, since it has no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not he was trying to incite terror?

I would say yes and no. Legally, of course, but it also depends on people's reactions.

For instance, terror attacks in the US certainly are attempting to create terror, but I'm not terrified because I know the chances of being killed or injured by some everything day I do are exponentially greater than by a terrorist attack. So, for me, their attempts fail utterly.

Click to expand...

magicalmoments said:

I understand the point you are making but reject its validity.

An act of violence that meets the legal definition of terrorism is terrorism whether it creates fear in you or anyone else.

Terrorism is a matter of fact and law.

The impact on an individual or a community is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

handysr said:

This is what people are trying to do with the political leaders, the police authorities, and immigration policies. Maybe not so much in the U.K. since it's fucking illegal to say words that could upset someone's feeling, but in many other civilized nations, people do want to change the policies to keep terrorists away.

In the US, polls have shown that up to 30% of "moderate muslims" approve of the jihadists and want sharia law to be in effect. Which is why I said what I did at the end.

Click to expand...

about_average said:

No doubt you can link to those polls.

Click to expand...

Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”
By contrast, the broader survey found that a 63% majority of those sampled said that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted.”
Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.

Click to expand...

DeYaKen said:

The difference is all in the perceived intention. Mass murder may not be a terrorist act if it was not intended to strike fear into the hearts of a section of the community. A single murder or even unsuccessful attempt can be deemed a terrorist act if it is thought that the intention was to spread fear.

Click to expand...

Chris_Michael said:

So what if no murder happens? Can it still be a terrorist attack?

Because if so, Black Lives Matter has some 'splaining to do.

Click to expand...

Chris_Michael said:

So what if no murder happens? Can it still be a terrorist attack?

Because if so, Black Lives Matter has some 'splaining to do.

Click to expand...

Chris_Michael said:

So what if no murder happens? Can it still be a terrorist attack?

Because if so, Black Lives Matter has some 'splaining to do.

Click to expand...