lottiecass Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 With respect , you are another poster who is missing the point . The main issue is about the appearance of the suspect more than the correct or incorrect definition of the word terrorism . Mayfa and I believe if the suspect seen on CCTV was of Muslim appearance, then the media would have reported it rightly or wrongly as a potential terrorist act shortly after the incident occurred before the facts were established . It is others who are ignorant/arrogant by being obsessed about the definition of the word terrorism . I don't have any issues or problems that the suspect has not been charged with a terrorist offence even though in the current climate there are fair arguments he should have been charged with a terrorist act . Did you see the title of mafyas post? you have a look and see if you still think you are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Else Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 It's a shame people have to google words when they lack the intellect to make judgements from information and common sense stored in their own minds . Forgive me for playing you at your own game ............ "In its broadest sense, terrorism is any act designed to cause terror" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism QED One again you've nailed it ---------- Post added 21-12-2015 at 21:37 ---------- The intent to cause terror........ Agree 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) Did you see the title of mafyas post? you have a look and see if you still think you are right. I assume it is the word "classed" for your reasoning which is a fair point . What surprises me the most is the failure of the majority of posters to even consider Mafya's sentiments on his thread . Edited December 21, 2015 by Gamston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningman1 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I assume it is the word "classed" for your reasoning which is a fair point . What surprises me the most is the failure of the majority of posters to even consider Mayfa's sentiments on his thread . They have considered then rejected them as the sentiments of someone who is unsure of the definition of terrorism. Multiple times. You just don't seem to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 With respect , you are another poster who is missing the point . The main issue is about the appearance of the suspect more than the correct or incorrect definition of the word terrorism . Mayfa and I believe if the suspect seen on CCTV was of Muslim appearance, then the media would have reported it rightly or wrongly as a potential terrorist act shortly after the incident occurred before the facts were established . It is others who are ignorant/arrogant by being obsessed about the definition of the word terrorism . I don't have any issues or problems that the suspect has not been charged with a terrorist offence even though in the current climate there are fair arguments he should have been charged with a terrorist act . Yes, you keep stating your opinion, you Smiffy'd just haven't or won't give an explanation of what led you to your belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lottiecass Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I assume it is the word "classed" for your reasoning which is a fair point . What surprises me the most is the failure of the majority of posters to even consider Mayfa's sentiments on his thread . My take on the thread is that he was disappointed that it was a white person getting his crime called arson instead of terrorism,which it wasn't,thats why it was arson.Round and round we go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quik Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I assume it is the word "classed" for your reasoning which is a fair point . What surprises me the most is the failure of the majority of posters to even consider Mayfa's sentiments on his thread . His sentiments were why hasn't a bloke setting fire to some bogroll in a Preston khazi been reported/charged as a terrorist. Because he isn't one was the general consensus. Claiming everyone would have been calling it the next 7/7 had the pratt had a beard and a tan is just conjecture. Should such an incident occur in the future and the pratt in question is of 'muslim appearance' then I will cheerfully slap down anyone who claims its a terrorist attack as I am sure will everyone else who did not regard this as a terrorist attack, ie everyone bar you and mafya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningman1 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 His sentiments were why hasn't a bloke setting fire to some bogroll in a Preston khazi been reported/charged as a terrorist. Because he isn't one was the general consensus. Claiming everyone would have been calling it the next 7/7 had the pratt had a beard and a tan is just conjecture. Should such an incident occur in the future and the pratt in question is of 'muslim appearance' then I will cheerfully slap down anyone who claims its a terrorist attack as I am sure will everyone else who did not regard this as a terrorist attack, ie everyone bar you and mafya. He wasn't charged as a terrorist because he wasn't using terror to pursue political or social goals. Please stop asking the same question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) My take on the thread is that he was disappointed that it was a white person getting his crime called arson instead of terrorism,which it wasn't,thats why it was arson.Round and round we go. No he wasn't . There have been quite a few posters who have been unfair towards Mafya over the last few days . Edited December 21, 2015 by Gamston typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quik Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 He wasn't charged as a terrorist because he wasn't using terror to pursue political or social goals. Please stop asking the same question. Huh? Did you mean to respond to another post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now