No, stop bullshitting. Your point was "it's not terrorism if they use knives". You said you didn't consider the murder of Lee Rugby a terrorist act, because they used knives. You then posted a picture of the Bishopsgate bomb site and declared "this is terrorism" like a proper little Crocodile Dundee.
Yup, I'd classify stabbings as murder, and something that took a concerted planning effort as terrorism. It's a blurry line, certainly, but I think the distinction needs to be made otherwise we could classify all murders as "terrorist acts", with all the connotations that phase implies
There's no circular logic to it. Let me spell my opinion out for you: Terrorism = Carefully planned conspiracy Murder = Hastily planned (if at all) impulsive act Why? Because of the political reverberations each word has.
I agree Yadda, I think the "it's not terrorism if knives were used" is absolute rubbish. The act of terrorism according to the Oxford dictionary is: There is no distinction made as to the choice of weapons to deliver the violence and intimidation, there is no pre-requisite either. These terrorists have idealogical and political aims, they want us to live under their version of Sharia Law or die, to be cowed down and to submit to their ideology. They want us to live in fear in exactly the same way that they are forcing Iraqis and Afghans to in ISIS held areas of those countries or suffer the consequences. Call the scum for what they are....cowardly, oxygen thieving terrorists. To try and claim they are not terrorists simply because they used knives beggars belief!!
(To Viper) So, people with knives can't carefully plan an attack? Ok. One minute it's knives, the next it's planning. ********. I asked you this question last time, but you didn't answer. Funny that. Edit:if anyone wants to see the exchange for themselves, it's in the "Westminster attack" thread, post 125 onwards.
I think you've both put your finger on an important problem: that of proving the intent of the act. In an organised attack that involves blowing up civilians and disrupting infrastructure, committed by a group with clear political aims, it is pretty obvious that we're talking about terrorism. Terrorism is considered to be the organised, disruptive action by a political group. This is trickier when we are talking about a loner running around stabbing people while shouting slogans. Is it just the act of a paranoid schizophrenic? What if they invoke political motives? How seriously do we take those? It is undeniable that the murder of Jo Cox got a different response than the murder of Lee Rigby. Ask yourself why. It is important to think about that, from a legal and criminal justice point of view, but also in terms of how we choose to respond to it politically and societally.
I respectfully disagree, terrorism is something that's intended to create fear in more than the immediate victim, a stabbing is murder but if that stabbing was done with the intention of it reaching a wider audience then it would be classified as terrorism. Using an example you used earlier. Murder = Intentional taking of a life. Terrorism = Intentional taking of a life with the intention of that being seen by an audience.
I agree, but Viper's specific assertion is that "it's not terrorism if they use knives" (read his posts in the thread quoted above).
Who chooses how widely news of a stabbing is distributed? EDIT: The definition of Terrorism opens the door to political opportunism, and it's my firm belief that those in power right now are, quite literally, a greater threat to the health of the UK than a handful of knife wielding maniacs.
So these "men" chose to take a van, drive it into people and then proceed to get out and attack people with knives and fake bomb vests strapped on just for giggles then, not caring whether it made the news or not?? They weren't trying to impose fear and intimidation by using extraordinary violence then??? That is a pathetic argument you've given!
Even if I was denying, rather than appropriately categorising, it certainly has an effect on the NHS/MoD budgets EDIT: And isn't interesting that their bomb vests were fake. It's almost like they're playing terrorist
There's many things that factor into that, however most of those factors are dictated by the person doing the murdering, things like location, number of victims, who the victim is, the amount of violence involved, etc, etc. Not playing but doing what defines a terrorist, carrying out an violent act intended to reach a wider audience and one would assume they considered fake bomb vest would both create fear in the immediate audience and would increase media coverage.
I think that Viper's argument is that naming acts as terrorism changes things. When Thomas Mair killed Jo Cox, there were no dramatic speeches about our war on terrorism and stamping out breeding grounds of nationalist intolerance and extremism everywhere. It was pretty much regarded as an isolated incident by someone with a mental illness, rather than someone with an extremist ideology. With the murder of Lee Rigby the focus was pretty much inverse. As such, acts of certain knife-wielding maniacs gain significance and power by being associated with a bigger movement and political cause, while others are reduced in their societal impact by being discounted as the act of deranged loners. And consider that it is politicians and the media who decide which act is labelled as which, and that this in itself is a political act.
Exactly. And the answer is disturbing: terrorism works. We get terrorised, worked up, we demand that something "be done", laws changed, freedoms curailed, surveilliance, etc.... all for something that , and will piss off Yadda here, is nowhere near more dangerous than traffic. What's the point of terrorism if no one cares about it? On the other hand, the leftist fantasy that these are simply manifestations of mental health issue is pathetic. It's based on ideology, an ideology that glorifies death and martyrdom. Not the first time we see this, but in the Islamic case, martyrdom is really worth something since it really really freaks out the infidels.
Which it did, so they were pretty successful. If I'd have been witness to the atrocities last night, seeing men armed with knives and attacking people whilst having a suicide vest strapped to them, I wouldn't for a minute have thought "ooh, it's a fake one". The people carrying out these attacks want to create panic and fear, so fake or real, the vests help achieve those goals.
Isn't the difference between the killing of Jo Cox and Lee Rigby the specificity of the two, the killing of Jo Cox was target against her specifically and as such wasn't intended to instill fear in a wider audience, the killing of Lee Rigby was an indiscriminate killing intended to target the first person they identified as being a member of the armed forces.
(To Nexxo) Call them what you like. It still happened. I think Viper's general mistrust of governments and all is the root of this. It's just another anti-authoritarian dummy spit.
