Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Leytonstone tube station "terrorist incident"?

frogwoman said:
Maybe people are reluctant to label it terrorism because it just seems to be a guy with a knife rather than any wider plot if you see what I mean? I still think we should wait for it to be confirmed one way or another tbh.
Click to expand...

It's such a meaningless label that it is probably not worth using in serious discourse. Why for example is it not used for mass killings in the USA that don't involve Muslims? Why is ariel bombing and drone attacks not terrorism? How do you "Shock and Awe " people without terrorising them.
 
frogwoman said:
Why does everyone have to be mentally ill ffs?

Why can't they just be a cunt?
Click to expand...

I think that some people have a hard time grasping that people can arrive at doing horrific and murderous things through rational choice. Such people need to believe that people have to be mentally-ill to be murderous, whereas reality tells us that the majority of murderous acts are committed by rational people.
 
tim said:
It's such a meaningless label that it is probably not worth using in serious discourse. Why for example is it not used for mass killings in the USA that don't involve Muslims? Why is ariel bombing and drone attacks not terrorism? How do you "Shock and Awe " people without terrorising them.
Click to expand...

I'd certainly say Dylan Roof and the planned parenthood guy (and possibly elliot Roger) should be labelled a terrorist but terrorism to me signifies a political motivation rather than some guy shooting at random people because he feels like it.
 
frogwoman said:
What reason could you have for trying to slit a random guy's throat in a tube station?
Click to expand...

What reason could you give for the Omagh bombing or the Warrington Bombings; or the Miami Showband massacre or Bloody Sunday?
 
The omagh bombing was a terrorist attack, the bloody Sunday massacre was a massacre/state terrorism by the British State. Not sure why you wouldn't call any of the above terrorism tbh.
 
frogwoman said:
The omagh bombing was a terrorist attack, the bloody Sunday massacre was a massacre/state terrorism by the British State. Not sure why you wouldn't call any of the above terrorism tbh.
Click to expand...

Both attempts to send a political message to a perceived opponent.
 
tim said:
Both attempts to send a political message to a perceived opponent.
Click to expand...

Well yeah but everyone knows they were terrorist attacks and nobody is suggesting that you have to be a Muslim to become a terrorist so not sure what your point is.
 
Batboy said:
Most suicide bombers are either 1) on drugs 2) suffering a mental condition 3) In a disenfranchised angry state or combination of all three?
'Genuinely' radicalised is a bit of a silly statement in my opinion and just glorifies cunts, its a lot easier to manipulate someone to go and kill others and themselves when suffering from conditions 1/2/3 above.
Click to expand...

Most suicide bombers are neither 1) or 2), but may be 3).
Not my opinion, but rather the conclusion Robert A. Pape arrived at after several years of academic research which included interviewing over 170 failed/apprehended suicide bombers. His book "Dying to Win" is a pretty good non-academicky elucidation of his research.
 
Let's see if I can find the Paxman clip where he asks IDS if he's thick to his face*.

*via satellite link.
 
Favelado said:
Even his Tory colleagues think so don't they? Osborne and Cameron are what they are, but I don't think they're dense. Hunt and IDS, madre mia they are just dunces.
Click to expand...

Yep. Scary that such utter cuntwits can "get on", while better people who don't have similar volumes of social capital go hungry.
 
frogwoman said:
Well yeah but everyone knows they were terrorist attacks and nobody is suggesting that you have to be a Muslim to become a terrorist so not sure what your point is.
Click to expand...

My point is that I think that the terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" should be avoided in serious discussion, because they're too vague and too partisan. When was the last time you heard anyone describing the groups they support as terrorists? Or themselves as supporters of terrorism?
 
But everything you mentioned in that post are regarded as acts of terrorism and recognised as such. There's no serious controversy that the omagh bombing or say david copeland's nail bombings were terrorism.
 
tim said:
My point is that I think that the terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" should be avoided in serious discussion, because they're too vague and too partisan. When was the last time you heard anyone describing the groups they support as terrorists? Or themselves as supporters of terrorism?
Click to expand...

It's an act of violence that's done for political reasons with the aim to spread terror or influence the policy of the State. So for example someone punching a tory at a barbeque at their house would not be terrorism despite it being violent and politically motivated, someone shooting their next door neighbour over a dispute over the height of a fence is not terrorism, but someone opening fire on a bunch of civilians because they think the uk should establish sharia law or because they think the white race is under attack or something would be.
 
frogwoman said:
It's an act of violence that's done for political reasons with the aim to spread terror or influence the policy of the State. So for example someone punching a tory at a barbeque at their house would not be terrorism despite it being violent and politically motivated, someone shooting their next door neighbour over a dispute over the height of a fence is not terrorism, but someone opening fire on a bunch of civilians because they think the uk should establish sharia law or because they think the white race is under attack or something would be.
Click to expand...

Which leads us with the problem of when it's useful to describe a state's actions as terrorism.

States, of course, will tend to avoid this label, even for their enemies; the notion of statehood being more important than the war at hand.
 
laptop said:
Which leads us with the problem of when it's useful to describe a state's actions as terrorism.

States, of course, will tend to avoid this label, even for their enemies; the notion of statehood being more important than the war at hand.
Click to expand...

Israel's actions in gaza could certainly be described as that for example if you think that one of the aims of their actions was to stop people supporting hamas and undermine their rule.
 
Unoriginal wanker. What happened to people just going postal. Keep it local, keep it artisan. Now every murderass loon has to give it the "god is great shit, , to get mentioned in the news.
 
bimble said:
So does that mean he's not accused of being a terrorist anymore just a bog standard attempted murderer?
Click to expand...
Police need to charge within a set time (24hrs I think but longer for terrorism charges?), that's an easy charge to make so they can keep him locked up and then add/change charges later.
 
tim said:
When was the last time you heard anyone describing the groups they support as terrorists? Or themselves as supporters of terrorism?
Click to expand...
Last time I read Dabiq (the glossy ISIS mag) .

Here's a quote from the cover story of the commemorative collectors edition celebrating the Paris attacks:

'Whoever was shocked and awed must comprehend. The Muslims today have a loud, thundering statement, and possess heavy boots. They have a statement that will cause the world to hear and understand the meaning of terrorism, and boots that will trample the idol of nationalism, destroy the idol of democracy, and uncover its deviant nature” . etc and on.

Screen Shot 2015-12-07 at 05.49.47.png
http://www.clarionproject.org/docs/islamic-state-isis-isil-dabiq-magazine-issue-12-just-terror.pdf
 
Last edited:
ViolentPanda said:
Most suicide bombers are neither 1) or 2), but may be 3).
Not my opinion, but rather the conclusion Robert A. Pape arrived at after several years of academic research which included interviewing over 170 failed/apprehended suicide bombers. His book "Dying to Win" is a pretty good non-academicky elucidation of his research.
Click to expand...

I rather suspect that disenfranchisement leads to the mix of drug use and mental health problems or any other permutation of the three you choose. Most suicide bombers are spent up, screwed up and then exploited by those with the political and religious aims. Suicide bombings mainly take place amongst the poorer area like markets, the rich are hardly ever affected by these events.
 
Batboy said:
Suicide bombings mainly take place amongst the poorer area like markets, the rich are hardly ever affected by these events.
Click to expand...
Not sure about that. Most foreign jihadi recruits are educated and not from particularly poor backgrounds, and the people in Paris restaurants not the most impoverished either ?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PR1Berske
Sheffield school incident 1st May 2024
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Serge Forward
Serge Forward
TopCat
Contacting a police station
Replies
16
Views
1K
TopCat
TopCat
quimcunx
  • Poll Poll
What is your polling station usually?
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
ska invita
ska invita
Nigel
First Sikh Court To Be Established In Britain: London
Replies
15
Views
848
tonysingh
tonysingh
S
How should the non-party political left respond to the rise of the far right?
2 3 4 5
Replies
128
Views
4K
hitmouse
hitmouse
Back
Top Bottom