altus Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 I wouldn't consider those terrorists though. They're just nutters.. From one of the links: 'When Detective Sergeant Terry Boland asked why he had planted the devices in Brixton, Brick Lane, and Soho, he replied: "Terrorism, fear, to terrorise people."'. Sounds like a terrorist to me. Being a terrorist and being a nutter are not mutually exclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streamline Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 You talking rubbish again, where have I justified murder? Also I never made the comparisons, you did. You obviously think Mandela was justified in his actions is that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetwo07 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 I don't read any right wing forums though, all I'm doing is watching you justify murder and in your mind Mandela was an OK guy. So, are you claiming that there is a simple moral universalism here, i.e. each person using violence in defence of/pursuit of their convictions is always indisputably and completely in the wrong? Because I would argue that violence is an acceptable response in certain situations and for certain reasons - so such equivalence is rubbish. To my mind I see no equanimity between (for example) fighting for the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War (in defence of a democratic, elected government), as compared to the killing of civilians on 9/11. Both of these groups used violence and I am more than happy to see one as largely noble and justified, and the other as completely reprehensible. You apparently do not believe in any such distinctions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 From one of the links: 'When Detective Sergeant Terry Boland asked why he had planted the devices in Brixton, Brick Lane, and Soho, he replied: "Terrorism, fear, to terrorise people."'. Sounds like a terrorist to me. Being a terrorist and being a nutter are not mutually exclusive. He liked the idea as being seen as a terrorist. He was just a bit thick really. Wanted the fame... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetwo07 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 He was just a bit thick really. Not the only one, seemingly, judging by your worthwhile contributions to an interesting discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 He liked the idea as being seen as a terrorist. He was just a bit thick really. Wanted the fame... That's like saying a suicide bomber isn't really a terrorist - they just like the idea of being seen as a martyr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 You're doing yourself no favours. Which is great, just shows up what a loon he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 So, are you claiming that there is a simple moral universalism here, i.e. each person using violence in defence of/pursuit of their convictions is always indisputably and completely in the wrong? Because I would argue that violence is an acceptable response in certain situations and for certain reasons - so such equivalence is rubbish. To my mind I see no equanimity between (for example) fighting for the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War (in defence of a democratic, elected government), as compared to the killing of civilians on 9/11. Both of these groups used violence and I am more than happy to see one as largely noble and justified, and the other as completely reprehensible. You apparently do not believe in any such distinctions? There is a further distinction that you have not made. The people fighting for the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, were fighting against an army. Mandela's ANC in the 60s were slaughtering unarmed civilians, as were the IRA in the 70s and 80s, and as Al-Qa'eda have done more recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Someone will no doubt correct me but I can't think of any terrorists who have perpetrated acts of terrorism against their own people. Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber would be a couple that spring to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Of course you can. The purpose of terrorism is to cause terror, and frighten some person or group of people into doing what you want. This attack does not seem to have had any such objective. The purpose was merely to kill people. Equally by one or more persons for religious, political or some other cause. All three seem highly probable. If the purpose was merely to kill then why target a government party building and also a political demonstration? It was planned, it had purpose, if not, then why not a totally random killing spree if the purpose was merely to kill? Terrorism isn't only perceived by the perpetrator it's also the result of the crime as seen by the victim/s. His intention could also have been terror through a media spectacle. If that was his intention then he succeed because he had many on here with a noose around the heads of others while some in the water were still swimming for their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.