Jump to content

Why isn't this classed as a terrorist attack?


Recommended Posts

Whilst I agree with you it should have been classed as a terrorist attack.

 

Why? Do you know more than the rest of us about some political, racial, religious or ideological cause the person had?

 

Why have the police got it wrong with the charge of arson with intent to endanger life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By Muslim looking I mean showing signs of being a Muslim for eg beard, clothing etc.

 

---------- Post added 19-12-2015 at 21:52 ----------

 

Interesting article I just came across making a similar point as mine and worth a read to maybe understand where I'm coming from= http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alnatour/muslims-are-not-terrorist_b_8718000.html

 

You and Omar are under the impression that everyone thinks that Muslims are terrorists.

 

Seriously, we don't, get over yourselves and get to the next part of the big picture where we've recognised that the terrorists we're worried about ARE Muslims. Almost every single one of them is a really really seriously devout Muslim.

 

Most of us don't care if YOU (you, the "Muslim Community" or whatever) are a Muslim, we care that THEY are. You seem more worried about being offended by the association than maybe being in a better position than most to do something about it. It's fine if you don't want to get involved but give it a rest about those who do and at least acknowledge that the UK's terrorism problem is with Muslim terrorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and Omar are under the impression that everyone thinks that Muslims are terrorists.

 

Seriously, we don't, get over yourselves and get to the next part of the big picture where we've recognised that the terrorists we're worried about ARE Muslims. Almost every single one of them is a really really seriously devout Muslim.

 

Most of us don't care if YOU (you, the "Muslim Community" or whatever) are a Muslim, we care that THEY are. You seem more worried about being offended by the association than maybe being in a better position than most to do something about it. It's fine if you don't want to get involved but give it a rest about those who do and at least acknowledge that the UK's terrorism problem is with Muslim terrorists.

 

Have to agree with this. There seem to have been 2 issues in your post mafya and you dont answer or discuss either of them.

 

1. Were the police correct in charging it as arson with intent to danger life or should it have been a terrorist offence? All arsonists are not terrorists, if they didnt have the extra evidence required for a terrorism offence then they wouldnt charge them with one. they might discover evidence at a later date, but for now it seemed perfectly reasonable. ultimately its not down to the police but the specialist part of the CPS on what charges to apply based on a review of the evidence.

 

2. Why did the press downplay or not up-play it could be a possible terrorist attack? There wasnt any obvious evidence as to motive. What Eric says is true, though. Of the terrorist attacks in this country that have sought to kill or killed, then a very high proportion of them involve people who are from the middle east. The ones that have killed the most people have been carried out by self professed muslims. I agree with Eric that its not unfair to have an assumption that when we hear about a bomb plot a killing or attempted killing that if the perpetrator is ethnically from the middle east or a muslim, we then think terrorism. Thats not to say all muslims are terrorists, just where serious terror plots are involved a large number of them involve muslims.

 

It would happen the same if it was any other ethnic group.

 

As for the FBI report you linked, its the USA, which is a lot different from the UK.

Heres a list of incidents related to the Terrorism legislation for the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain#2010.E2.80.93present

They arent all muslims nor are they all of middle easter origin, but a lot are.

 

 

Who would come next in the UK after terrorists inspired by AQ/IS?

 

The IRA dont appear to be threatening the mainland, so i can only think of maybe animal rights, abortion rights and I think someone in the BNP was caught for possession.

 

The two knifings that happened recently neither were charged under terrorism legislation, although i cna understand the media questioning whether they were terrorist acts.

Edited by 999tigger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The issue here is the Police never made comments such as " We are not ruling out terrorism " at the early stages of the investigation while at the same time said they said the device had "the potential to cause serious injury if he had exploded "

 

 

Despite what the Police claimed please name one thing in that improvised device that could have exploded?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the OP. Why try to score points ?

 

Tensions are high enough.

 

Because the press are not interested in the truth dude

 

Just in causing division

 

It would help if you could acknowledge that

 

The media is manipulating a frenzy of unfounded fear

 

---------- Post added 19-12-2015 at 22:56 ----------

 

at least acknowledge that the UK's terrorism problem is with Muslim terrorists.

 

The UK's problem is with Daesh

 

NOT MUSLIMS

 

And NOT ISLAM

 

It would be helpful to everyone if you could get on board with this Eric

Edited by Solomon1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That train left years ago Solomon1. The single common defining feature of the terrorists that we're worried about here is that they are Muslims committing terrorism on behalf of Islam. Go try telling them that they are wrong, not me. Tell us how you get on.:|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

[/color]

 

The UK's problem is with Daesh

 

NOT MUSLIMS

 

And NOT ISLAM

 

It would be helpful to everyone if you could get on board with this Eric

 

 

Not quite right. The UKs problems is with terrorists and terrorist organisations, its not just IS. They have some common characteristics and extremist religious views.

 

Its quite easy to differentiate them from law abiding Muslims though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Islamically inspired terrorism is the principle terrorist threat at the moment. Denying that is just ludicrous. The OP seems to think the solution is to wildly exaggerate anything non muslims do as terrorism which is just unhelpful.

 

The important thing is to destroy the terrorists and those who support them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've just stated the obvious because most UK terrorism is commited by Muslims, brown ones at that. Profiling isn't the same as stereotyping. Profiling has kept Israeli airline passengers safe from being blown up since Munich 72.

 

It an uncomfortable truth that it is a reasonably safe bet that UK terrorism involves brown Muslims. The police and press act accordingly but I don't see them habitually accusing all brown Muslims of being terrorists though. If anything they go to great lengths to avoid upsetting some overly sensitive souls.

 

I agree with most of your comments . You are correct profiling isn't the same as stereotyping and I assume your reasoning is the incident wasn't treated as terrorism because the suspect did not fit into the current predictive profiling of a potential terrorist . My reasoning is because of stereotyping , this incident wasn't considered a possible terrorist incident while the same incident would be considered a terrorist act if the suspect fitted a different stereotype .

 

I agree profiling is effective at preventing terrorism , while stereotyping can lead to people jumping to the wrong conclusions .

 

---------- Post added 19-12-2015 at 23:25 ----------

 

Despite what the Police claimed please name one thing in that improvised device that could have exploded?

 

My comments were based on what the Police said .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of your comments . You are correct profiling isn't the same as stereotyping and I assume your reasoning is the incident wasn't treated as terrorism because the suspect did not fit into the current predictive profiling of a potential terrorist . My reasoning is because of stereotyping , this incident wasn't considered a possible terrorist incident while the same incident would be considered a terrorist act if the suspect fitted a different stereotype .

 

From what little I've read the incident doesn't sound like terrorism at all. My guess would be that no profiling is neccessary once the shrink has been called.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.