Religious/Extremist Terrorism: Non-Muslim edition

[Remius]

Not blaming anyone here, whatever you meant by that. I don't care what they write or perceive, didn't even read most of it. Do whatever you want. Think whatever you want. I'll do likewise. Nobody says you have to listen to me or even agree. As far as what I should or shouldn't do, you don't get to decide any of that. Again, unless there's new info, the police said they were TREATING as a terrorist attack, not that it was a terrorist act, for the reasons I already stated. As far as I know, they haven't come out and made that point definite yet. It's an easily missed point but a valid one and it's not picking flyshit out of pepper. The police are usually very picky and particular about the way they word things for the public. Journalists, not so much. You'll have to live with this answer as I'm not discussing my POV until I have better info. You can do as you wish. Just because I may not agree with you or someone else, doesn't mean I'm wrong or my perceptions are skewed. It means I can think for myself and not worry what anyone else thinks or says, unless I wish to.
You should try it. 
eaceut

Hey fill your boots.  I haven't made any claims lol.  You admitted to not reading anything about it so I get that you thought the narrative was started by the media and not the police.  I'll let your last swipe at me there pass as it just proves what I was saying.

 

[Remius]

The Brits have a similar threshold for charging criminal offences as us- in our case we quite literlaly use the term 'reasonable and probable grounds'. In this case the attacker has been charged with at least one terrorism offense. So it appears that yes, actually, there ARE reasonable and probable grounds to form the opinion that a terrorism act took place - at least in the mind of British police and crown prosecutors. I don't know what weight you give to their opinion in this matter, but in my mind it ought to be a lot. You don't just slap terrorism charges willy nilly on top of already very solid criminal cases.

The guy attacked Muslims, stated his desire to kill Muslims, and claimed to have 'done his bit'. He was attacking a whole people based on their religious views in an apparent tit for tat. If this doesn't fit your concept of 'terrorism', you need to revise. I am saddened but not surprised at the contortions some people are going to to call this something other than what it appears to be, who otherwise if the attacker were Muslim would be very quickly on that particular train.

:goodpost:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The Brits have a similar threshold for charging criminal offences as us- in our case we quite literlaly use the term 'reasonable and probable grounds'. In this case the attacker has been charged with at least one terrorism offense. So it appears that yes, actually, there ARE reasonable and probable grounds to form the opinion that a terrorism act took place - at least in the mind of British police and crown prosecutors. I don't know what weight you give to their opinion in this matter, but in my mind it ought to be a lot. You don't just slap terrorism charges willy nilly on top of already very solid criminal cases.

The guy attacked Muslims, stated his desire to kill Muslims, and claimed to have 'done his bit'. He was attacking a whole people based on their religious views in an apparent tit for tat. If this doesn't fit your concept of 'terrorism', you need to revise. I am saddened but not surprised at the contortions some people are going to to call this something other than what it appears to be, who otherwise if the attacker were Muslim would be very quickly on that particular train.

I resent the fact that you imply that I'm going through contortions to excuse the guy for what he did. That's asinine and idiotic and well beneath you. You spoke directly to me in your post, for all of your post, so I have to believe your last comment was also made to me. I want you to show me where I defended his actions. All I said was to wait for the police and trial for the real facts and not believe everything you hear or read from the news. Nice prejudging though, which is my whole point and has been all along. Thanks much for proving it for me.

I also don't spend all day going through newspaper and newscast to stay intimate in my timing with released facts. I'm more than aware of what reasonable and probable grounds are. I was investigating for them, before you became a Queen's Cowboy.

I simply wasn't aware they'd laid a charge on him for terrorism. Like I say, I'm not glued to the story like others are. So, if that's what they did, I'm OK with that, so I'm not the one getting twisted around the axle over this. If it turns out he's judged a terrorist, I'm fine with that too and if he gets a maximum sentence, I'm also ok with that. I'm just saying, we've got a live one finally, let's make sure he's given his chance at reasonable doubt and that all his rights are afforded. All the bases need covering on this one. Can't afford a mistrial on a stupid, forgotten rule of some sort. Or because a press leak compromises something. He doesn't need to be tried by journalistic perception. No different than any other of the bombers or truck attacks. The only difference is the others always die before we can get to them. This one didn't and it can't be fucked up with rumours, innuendo or leaks. It needs to be air tight. What is the fault in that?

In MOST cases I believe what the police tell me and I'll take it at face value. Journalists, editors and owners of newspaper and electronic news media, not so much. That's a personal preference and one that I'll stick to until I see otherwise. You are free to think what you wish and I won't attempt to dissuade you. Please respect my choice to not believe the media. And really that's what started all this, I said I don't trust the media to get it right. Somehow, it's turned, falsely, into that I'm a cheerleader for the guy. None of us, except for a few, are journalists or reporters or whatever and look how all this turned on its head with this little group. Imagine millions of people getting it wrong because of the way a news outlet reported it. THAT is what I've been saying. Sorry to disappoint. You'll have to find another punching bag.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Hey fill your boots.  I haven't made any claims lol.  You admitted to not reading anything about it so I get that you thought the narrative was started by the media and not the police.  I'll let your last swipe at me there pass as it just proves what I was saying.

Again, you are twisting facts to suit your narrative. I never said I didn't read anything about it. I said I didn't read most of the responses here. Nice try though. See you later.

 

[brihard]

I resent the fact that you imply that I'm going through contortions to excuse the guy for what he did. That's asinine and idiotic and well beneath you. You spoke directly to me in your post, for all of your post, so I have to believe your last comment was also made to me. I want you to show me where I defended his actions. All I said was to wait for the police and trial for the real facts and not believe everything you hear or read from the news. Nice prejudging though, which is my whole point and has been all along. Thanks much for proving it for me.

I also don't spend all day going through newspaper and newscast to stay intimate in my timing with released facts. I'm more than aware of what reasonable and probable grounds are. I was investigating for them, before you became a Queen's Cowboy.

I simply wasn't aware they'd laid a charge on him for terrorism. Like I say, I'm not glued to the story like others are. So, if that's what they did, I'm OK with that, so I'm not the one getting twisted around the axle over this. If it turns out he's judged a terrorist, I'm fine with that too and if he gets a maximum sentence, I'm also ok with that. I'm just saying, we've got a live one finally, let's make sure he's given his chance at reasonable doubt and that all his rights are afforded. All the bases need covering on this one. Can't afford a mistrial on a stupid, forgotten rule of some sort. Or because a press leak compromises something. He doesn't need to be tried by journalistic perception. No different than any other of the bombers or truck attacks. The only difference is the others always die before we can get to them. This one didn't and it can't be ****ed up with rumours, innuendo or leaks. It needs to be air tight. What is the fault in that?

In MOST cases I believe what the police tell me and I'll take it at face value. Journalists, editors and owners of newspaper and electronic news media, not so much. That's a personal preference and one that I'll stick to until I see otherwise. You are free to think what you wish and I won't attempt to dissuade you. Please respect my choice to not believe the media. And really that's what started all this, I said I don't trust the media to get it right. Somehow, it's turned, falsely, into that I'm a cheerleader for the guy. None of us, except for a few, are journalists or reporters or whatever and look how all this turned on its head with this little group. Imagine millions of people getting it wrong because of the way a news outlet reported it. THAT is what I've been saying. Sorry to disappoint. You'll have to find another punching bag.

I didn't spend all day following the story either. I spent about five minutes on Google to catch up with the day's events- less time than it would have taken you to write your last couple posts expressing your vehement non-commital on this one. The stories about him being charged with a terrorism offense appear to have come out this morning.

At no point did I claim you defended his actions. Don't be silly. I would never accuse you or another member of this board of something like that. I also should have made sure my post clearly took a step back from addressing you directly to reference the contortions people are going through to avoid calling this terrorism, and for that I apologize. I have seen that all over the place though, where there isn't simply a marked silence, and I fin that noteworthy- a lot of those who are first in the 'kick 'em all out' crowd are quiet on this one. While I find you surprisingly and uncharacteristically vocal on not committing to a point of view on this one at this stage, I wasn't aiming that part of my post squarely at you. I'm still surprised by the lengths you went to to make sure we all knew that you weren't comfortable seeing this called terrorism yet- I've never seen you push that angle that hard on any prior attacks. It's not an accusation, just an observation.

 

[Remius]

Again, you are twisting facts to suit your narrative. I never said I didn't read anything about it. I said I didn't read most of the responses here. Nice try though. See you later.

I believe you said this in reply 57:  I'm not going to bother in the least, including reading about it until the police investigation is ended and he is charged or freed.

:dunno:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I believe you said this in reply 57:  I'm not going to bother in the least, including reading about it until the police investigation is ended and he is charged or freed.

:dunno:

OK, you win. Game over.

I'm not putting you on ignore but I'm finished conversing with you.

Yup, taking my ball and going home. Better things to do that spar back and forth with someone that wants to parse every sentence looking for ways I`ve slipped up. I am not required to answer every question posed to me on these boards. I`ll enter and exit threads and conversations as I see fit. Right now, my time is too limited to bother explaining my every word to you. Don`t take it personal, you are not the only one in the boat.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I didn't spend all day following the story either. I spent about five minutes on Google to catch up with the day's events- less time than it would have taken you to write your last couple posts expressing your vehement non-commital on this one. The stories about him being charged with a terrorism offense appear to have come out this morning.

At no point did I claim you defended his actions. Don't be silly. I would never accuse you or another member of this board of something like that. I also should have made sure my post clearly took a step back from addressing you directly to reference the contortions people are going through to avoid calling this terrorism, and for that I apologize. I have seen that all over the place though, where there isn't simply a marked silence, and I fin that noteworthy- a lot of those who are first in the 'kick 'em all out' crowd are quiet on this one. While I find you surprisingly and uncharacteristically vocal on not committing to a point of view on this one at this stage, I wasn't aiming that part of my post squarely at you. I'm still surprised by the lengths you went to to make sure we all knew that you weren't comfortable seeing this called terrorism yet- I've never seen you push that angle that hard on any prior attacks. It's not an accusation, just an observation.

Here`s another observation, and why I`m pushing for his rights.

This one is ALIVE. How many times do we get that chance. Who cares about the dead ones, whatever their beliefs and religious convictions. We can say whatever we want about them. This one is alive and it has to be done properly. Flip side, I`m surprised that you are considering him guilty as charged without seeing the evidence and deciding he`s a terrorist based on what you`ve heard. Because he was charged with a terror offence, doesnt mean he`s going to be convicted as one, and you know that. Capture one of the muslim truckers alive and I`ll say the same thing. If he died, too bad, call him whatever you want. As to me pushing my angle I`ve been far less vocal on the threads about muslim terrorists than others have, so Im not putting that mantle on even if you want me to wear it.

I just want the guy to have a fair trial as I would for anyone that goes before the bench. Muslim terrorists included. And all I`m hoping for is that we can learn something thatll serve us down the road. All Im asking for is a clean trial without all the journalistic sensationalism and guessing.

I`m not trying to be an asshole, but I`m done with this. I don`t need to defend my position to anyone here. The MSM is biased and not beyond stretching the truth to further their own agenda. I dont care what Jimmy Olsen thinks. I want him to give me the facts, clinically, and keep his opinion to himself.

And just so everyone is clear, I don`t give a fuck if the guy is a purple skinned worshiper of the sun god Ra. He`s, because alive and charged, entitled to all the fairness we can provide, without the speculation of the media. I wouldn`t be surprised if the Judge puts a blackout on media coverage. I`ve simply decided, that because he`s alive and being brought before justice, I would rather wait and hear what is said at trial, instead of what CNN decides to say. I don`t know how else to put it. Save your breath if you still think I`m wrong, because that is the last I`m speaking of my personal decision. It`s all there, nothing else to say on it.

And if you think I`m being racist because the guy is white and I want him to have a fair trial, I am the moderator that has kicked white supremacists and racially prejudiced people off of this site, when no one else would, so don`t even consider going down that road.

 

[YZT580]

I tend to agree that this is not a terrorist act.  Now before you start flaming, consider this: the purpose of a terrorist act is to terrorise, that is to instil fear in a group or a person in order to either dominate or drive them away.  This chap does not appear to have any such motives.  From what little I have been able to gather from the press, he simply wanted to murder and his murderous rage was targeted at a particular group of people i.e. Muslims which would make this, imho a racist attack motivated by bigotry.  The term terrorist is vastly overused and needs to be reserved for those who are trying to terrorise otherwise its import is lessened significantly and that is perhaps not so good

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Everyone chill out and have a beer,  nobody needs to flame anyone  8)

We especially shouldn't be getting worked up with each other over a whack job 

 

[CEDE NULLIS]

I tend to agree that this is not a terrorist act.  Now before you start flaming, consider this: the purpose of a terrorist act is to terrorise, that is to instil fear in a group or a person in order to either dominate or drive them away. This chap does not appear to have any such motives.

Not sure I agree here. He went out of his way to rent a vehicle, and drive 150 miles in the middle of the night from Cardiff to London in order to attack one of the most "iconic" mosques in the UK to carry out this crime. See info r.e. Finsbury Park mosque: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/finsbury-park-mosque-terror-attack-latest-abu-hamza-changed-since-won-awards-for-community-relations-a7798171.html

What I think we can all agree on is the use of the term "terrorism" is problematic in many cases - and this applies to attacks carried out by radicals of all stripes. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

was targeted at a particular group of people i.e. Muslims which would make this, imho a racist attack motivated by bigotry.

Muslim (devout followers of Islam) isn't a race.

The term terrorist is vastly overused and needs to be reserved for those who are trying to terrorise otherwise its import is lessened significantly and that is perhaps not so good

Terrorism usually seems to be (or is made out to be?) synonymous with middle eastern/muslim attack when I'm sure we can agree anyone can be a terrorist. In this guys case I too wonder if it would fit the (or a) definition or terrorist. If he wanted to terrorize a specific community then he probably succeeded but was it on behalf of some political/religious/anti-government bigger picture or did he just want to kill people because he was angry.

 

[jmt18325]

Can we all at least agree that it was a hate crime?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I agree with that jmt.  My biggest problem with the use of terrorist/terrorism is that terrorism is a tactic not an actual enemy. 

By calling someone a terrorist we basically dehumanize them and act as if the organizations they represent aren't rational actors.

Some people who carry out these attacks aren't rational but the brainpower behind ISIS/Al Qaeda, etc is.

 

[Infant_Tree]

Can we all at least agree that it was a hate crime?

Definitely. Osborne attempted to kill innocent people just because of their faith.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... If he wanted to terrorize a specific community then he probably succeeded but was it on behalf of some political/religious/anti-government bigger picture or did he just want to kill people because he was angry.

Good point - apart from the fact that being angry doesn't excuse killing  ;D  All the evidence is not in, by any means, but if we look at radicalization for one group of bad guys/actors as a source of anger & momentum, how about with other bad guys/actors?  Don't know what this guy read/was exposed to, but it might be a factor - it appears to have been in at least some non-Muslim attacks.  It helps to know the why to figure out ways to prevent more from sprouting.

Another potential source of anger for idiots going full idiot discussed in other threads is government action.  Could that be seen as "radicalizing"?  Is that any mitigation?  Not to me, but there may be a range of opinion on that.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I agree with that jmt.  My biggest problem with the use of terrorist/terrorism is that terrorism is a tactic not an actual enemy. 

By calling someone a terrorist we basically dehumanize them and act as if the organizations they represent aren't rational actors.

Some people who carry out these attacks aren't rational but the brainpower behind ISIS/Al Qaeda, etc is.

The term and current connotation has been around for awhile. If you were around then, we considered and called Carlos the Jackal, the Red Brigade, the Baader-Meinhof gang and Black September terrorists and terrorist organizations. And yes, there was some pretty smart cookies in those groups also. I'm wondering if there is much difference between a self radicalized guy in his mom's basement with a mid level ISIS fighter. Both are bombing for allah and using terror as their weapon. Both are radicalized to the same end, armed the same and have the same goal. I'm sure we would look at mental capacity if we could get one alive, but until such time, if it walks like a duck............

Ooopps, just about forgot the FLQ.

 

[Old Sweat]

The term and current connotation has been around for awhile. If you were around then, we considered and called Carlos the Jackal, the Red Brigade, the Baader-Meinhof gang and Black September terrorists and terrorist organizations. And yes, there was some pretty smart cookies in those groups also. I'm wondering if there is much difference between a self radicalized guy in his mom's basement with a mid level ISIS fighter. Both are bombing for allah and using terror as their weapon. Both are radicalized to the same end, armed the same and have the same goal. I'm sure we would look at mental capacity if we could get one alive, but until such time, if it walks like a duck............

Ooopps, just about forgot the FLQ.

The terrorists of the sixties, seventies and eighties were motivated more by political beliefs of the far left variety rather than religion. Many had cut their teeth on liberation ideology and had a "radical chic" upper middle class background. While some of the modern genre's western recruits also were from the same social base, their motivation and that of their hosts/sponsors was much more religious than political.

Perhaps that makes it more difficult to deprogram the modern variety. On the other hand, the home grown variety tend towards ideology rather than religion as a motivator. In some cases is is difficult to draw the line between criminal and terrorist.

 

[Brad Sallows]

My loose working definition of "terrorism" has always been "criminal violence to effect political pressure (in service of political ends)".

 

[Infant_Tree]

Terrorism is a term used in its broadest sense to describe the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim.

Source: Wikipedia