Eric Arthur Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 (edited) If the suspect is mentally ill it's not remotely helpful to either the suspect, the investigators or the wider population to label them as a terrorist, because they aren't a terrorist. By Mafya's definitions the courts would be full of teenagers up on terrorism charges because they set fire to a wheelie bin. This is the definition of terrorism. I have highlighted the important parts which includes Muslims but not people who set fire to bins with asthma inhalers. Section 1. – (1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where- (a) the action falls within subsection (2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation][3] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and © the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious[, racial][4] or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it- (a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, © endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. (3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied. Edited December 19, 2015 by Eric Arthur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 If the suspect is mentally ill it's not remotely helpful to either the suspect, the investigators or the wider population to label them as a terrorist, because they aren't a terrorist. By Mafya's definitions the courts would be full of teenagers up on terrorism charges because they set fire to a wheelie bin. This is the definition of terrorism. I have highlighted the important parts which includes Muslims but not people who set fire to bins with asthma inhalers. I already pointed that out in post #7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 (edited) Gamston is not an expert on the law,the bloke involved has been charged with arson,so the bomb must have been a fire bomb designed to start a fire.If he was a terrorist of any religion the cps would have charged him under the terrorism act,no need with the dim talk mafia,I agree it would have been more widely reported if he was muslim . You don't have to be an expert in the law to practice common sense . This thread in my opinion is more about public perception than whatever the suspect was trying to achieve . ---------- Post added 19-12-2015 at 18:28 ---------- I think the point is this was not a bomb and more a case of a bad attempt at arson using an asthma inhaler, fire-lighter, matches and toilet paper. Whoever was responsible must be a bit mental to do such a thing and no way can it be described as a terrorist act. Blame the stupid social media freaks for promoting this as a dumbing down of a not very news-worthy story. The Police said the device had "the potential to cause serious injury if he had exploded " Arson can and has been used as a weapon by terrorists in the past . Terrorists have used very crude devices in the past such as letter bombs which have murdered individuals and left others with life changing injuries . Edited December 19, 2015 by Gamston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lottiecass Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 But it still wasn't a terrorist attack,he is charged with arson because that is the law he broke,not public perception,thats not a crime yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quik Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 You don't have to be an expert in the law to practice common sense . This thread in my opinion is more about public perception than whatever the suspect was trying to achieve . ---------- Post added 19-12-2015 at 18:28 ---------- The Police said the device had "the potential to cause serious injury if he had exploded " Arson can and has been used as a weapon by terrorists in the past . Terrorists have used very crude devices in the past such as letter bombs which have murdered individuals and left others with life changing injuries . Islamic terrorists have used beheading as an act of terrorism. However the muslim who beheaded the old lady last year in north london was not reported or charged as a terrorist because he wasn't one, he was a nutter. Which rather gives the lie to the op's premise that muslim perps are chalked up as terrorists and non muslims are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 Islamic terrorists have used beheading as an act of terrorism. However the muslim who beheaded the old lady last year in north london was not reported or charged as a terrorist because he wasn't one, he was a nutter. Which rather gives the lie to the op's premise that muslim perps are chalked up as terrorists and non muslims are not. That incident at the time was widely reported as an act of terrorism especially by the American media and it is that reasoning why the OP is making a fair point and I agree with him . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 What Mafya seems to be implying isn't so much Muslim as brown. Then there is the problem of the case of that man who was arrested under terrorism laws after the joke tweet about blowing up Doncaster Airport and I don't think that he was either Muslim, brown, or being serious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 If the suspect is mentally ill it's not remotely helpful to either the suspect, the investigators or the wider population to label them as a terrorist, because they aren't a terrorist. By Mafya's definitions the courts would be full of teenagers up on terrorism charges because they set fire to a wheelie bin. This is the definition of terrorism. I have highlighted the important parts which includes Muslims but not people who set fire to bins with asthma inhalers. Dylaan Roolf fits a few of those categories but wasn't charged under terrorism. Many people think he should have. So OP has a point that no mention of the word terrorism gets brought in when the perpetrators are white- whether it's terrorism or not. A brown colour guy is automatically labelled a terrorist. Similarly a black guy is labelled a thug. White folks..loners with a mental problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quik Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 Dylaan Roolf fits a few of those categories but wasn't charged under terrorism. Many people think he should have. So OP has a point that no mention of the word terrorism gets brought in when the perpetrators are white- whether it's terrorism or not. A brown colour guy is automatically labelled a terrorist. Similarly a black guy is labelled a thug. White folks..loners with a mental problem. Odd, I seem to remember the white as ice cream IRA being constantly described as terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 Odd, I seem to remember the white as ice cream IRA being constantly described as terrorists. It was very common for any white person with an Irish accent to be suspected as a terrorist if they acted suspiciously on the British mainland during the 70's and 80's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts