[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

By no stretch of the imagination is it possible to know that 24 hours after the attack. It may well be, but the full story won't be known for months, by which point the press wont be very interested and the public won't be interested at all.

He was filmed being led away though shouting Allalhu Akbar, of course he may be mentally ill etc etc, but the bottom line is random knife attacks on strangers wasn't that common or common at all before ISIS, and even if he isn't a terrorist per se, it was a terrorist inspired attack

[smudgie]

Hopefully they will all make a good recovery.
So many ruddy nutters out there, terrorists or not.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

He was filmed being led away though shouting Allalhu Akbar, of course he may be mentally ill etc etc, but the bottom line is random knife attacks on strangers wasn't that common or common at all before ISIS, and even if he isn't a terrorist per se, it was a terrorist inspired attack

Yes but making a distinction between an organised terrorist attack, and a random act of personal violence prompted by seeing or "copying" terrorist attacks, is actually quite important on a wider sociological level.

E.g. I believe the first widely publicised act of "vehicle terrorism" (ramming a van into a crowd) was carried out by a Muslim, but has also been done by white supremacists since then. You wouldn't call the white supremacist attacks "Muslim terrorism" because they "got the idea from Muslim terrorism" and this should apply across the board.

Was this attacker actually doing it in the name of his god? Was it an attack planned and prompted by a larger group? Or was it an unplanned violent psychotic outburst and "that's what you shout when you do this stuff"?

In terms of the media, the latter is still dubbed an "act of terrorism" and to be pedantic it obviously is one, but I personally think its vital to make the distinction between true, planned, network-based acts of Islamic terrorism and random lone killers. ISIS will claim anything at all as "theirs" once its done, even if they had no prior knowledge of the individual at all.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Cherie

He was filmed being led away though shouting Allalhu Akbar, of course he may be mentally ill etc etc, but the bottom line is random knife attacks on strangers wasn't that common or common at all before ISIS, and even if he isn't a terrorist per se, it was a terrorist inspired attack

Find myself agreeing with Cherie again. One of the witnesses was a reporter who said he'd covered enough of this kind of thing to know what it was. And it was a terrorist attack carried out by an Islamist. And if he is mentally ill then he's the perfect recruit for IS. So I think he is unquestionably a terrorist; he carried out a terrorist attack in the name of a terrorist group.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

Find myself agreeing with Cherie again. One of the witnesses was a reporter who said he'd covered enough of this kind of thing to know what it was. And it was a terrorist attack carried out by an Islamist. And if he is mentally ill then he's the perfect recruit for IS. So I think he is unquestionably a terrorist; he carried out a terrorist attack in the name of a terrorist group.

Did he do it in the name of a terrorist group or did he do it in the name of "god/Allah", there's a massive difference as TS said if you want to gauge how big and organized IS actually are. Saying Allahu Akbar doesn't make you a member of IS, it just means god is great or something

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Did he do it in the name of a terrorist group or did he do it in the name of "god/Allah", there's a massive difference as TS said if you want to gauge how big and organized IS actually are. Saying Allahu Akbar doesn't make you a member of IS, it just means god is great or something

Does he have to say it?

TS can think what he likes. This was a terrorist attack, whichever way you twist it. Every time there's any kind of terrorist attack there're always people saying yes, but, was it technically a terrorist attack?

I often get castigated on here for using my own experience to form opinions - although I always thought that was the best way to form opinions - but I'm going to say this: I work in international law, for the government, mostly in the middle east. I can confirm... it was a terrorist attack. Obviously, anyone can disagree with that... but experience tells me right.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

Does he have to say it?

TS can think what he likes. This was a terrorist attack, whichever way you twist it. Every time there's any kind of terrorist attack there're always people saying yes, but, was it technically a terrorist attack?

I often get castigated on here for using my own experience to form opinions - although I always thought that was the best way to form opinions - but I'm going to say this: I work in international law, for the government, mostly in the middle east. I can confirm... it was a terrorist attack. Obviously, anyone can disagree with that... but experience tells me right.

Does he have to say Allahu Akbar? Lots of Muslims who aren't blowing things up do everyday when they pray.

I'm not trying twist anything Livia, I mean, when a Christian attacks, they're lone nut jobs etc but it seems like there's no such thing in the Muslim religion for some reason, they're all terrorists and IS members.

Either way, whether he's a lone nutter or a member of IS, the outcome would be the same, I just think distinguishing between the two would be important in seeing how big the organization actually is, don't you?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

Does he have to say it?

TS can think what he likes. This was a terrorist attack, whichever way you twist it. Every time there's any kind of terrorist attack there're always people saying yes, but, was it technically a terrorist attack?

I often get castigated on here for using my own experience to form opinions - although I always thought that was the best way to form opinions - but I'm going to say this: I work in international law, for the government, mostly in the middle east. I can confirm... it was a terrorist attack. Obviously, anyone can disagree with that... but experience tells me right.

Like I said obviously it is "technically" a terrorist attack, because all attacks designed to cause fear and panic are terrorism by definition, but I don't know why there's such a backlash against the idea that there's a huge - and important - distinction between "lone wolf" impulse-based attacks and larger scale, networked, planned terrorism. You HAVE to assume a knife attack is the former, as a planned attack would source more harmful weaponry? It's not hard to buy a gun or build a basic bomb, as we know.

The reason "careful use" of the word terrorism is important is that "terrorism" has become synonymous with planned attacks, ISIS, etc. and thus as soon as the media starts reporting "terrorism"... the public mindset latches onto the idea of a network of extremists plotting elaborate attacks. When it's far more likely that this individual had no such connections. Does it mean he isn't a religious fundamentalist? Of course not, and personally, I would argue that ALL fundamentalists and dogmatists are mentally unsound, but that's not really particularly relevant because none of this is about excusing the acts of the perpetrator; just keeping the risk perception of the public realistic, reasonable and accurate... instead of furthering the most basic goal of terrorism by spreading media hysteria and fear. It's in the name, for goshness sakes.

[Crimson Dynamo]

allowing large numbers of immigrants to practice their fake imported cult/superstition (that is unreformed) behind closed doors in purpose built buildings and many of them attempting to circumvent UK law is a recipe for disaster

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

allowing large numbers of immigrants to practice their fake imported cult/superstition (that is unreformed) behind closed doors in purpose built buildings and many of them attempting to circumvent UK law is a recipe for disaster

I've often thought that mosques should have moles in them, to ensure they're keeping in order.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Like I said obviously it is "technically" a terrorist attack, because all attacks designed to cause fear and panic are terrorism by definition, but I don't know why there's such a backlash against the idea that there's a huge - and important - distinction between "lone wolf" impulse-based attacks and larger scale, networked, planned terrorism. You HAVE to assume a knife attack is the former, as a planned attack would source more harmful weaponry? It's not hard to buy a gun or build a basic bomb, as we know.

The reason "careful use" of the word terrorism is important is that "terrorism" has become synonymous with planned attacks, ISIS, etc. and thus as soon as the media starts reporting "terrorism"... the public mindset latches onto the idea of a network of extremists plotting elaborate attacks. When it's far more likely that this individual had no such connections. Does it mean he isn't a religious fundamentalist? Of course not, and personally, I would argue that ALL fundamentalists and dogmatists are mentally unsound, but that's not really particularly relevant because none of this is about excusing the acts of the perpetrator; just keeping the risk perception of the public realistic, reasonable and accurate... instead of furthering the most basic goal of terrorism by spreading media hysteria and fear. It's in the name, for goshness sakes.

It's not terrorism then, because if we say it is, it's more scary, right?

I deal with intelligence every day regarding terrorists. But thanks for explaining all that for me. Despite the fact that the police, the security services and the press are all calling it a terrorist attack... let's call it something else on TiBB.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Does he have to say Allahu Akbar? Lots of Muslims who aren't blowing things up do everyday when they pray.

I'm not trying twist anything Livia, I mean, when a Christian attacks, they're lone nut jobs etc but it seems like there's no such thing in the Muslim religion for some reason, they're all terrorists and IS members.

Either way, whether he's a lone nutter or a member of IS, the outcome would be the same, I just think distinguishing between the two would be important in seeing how big the organization actually is, don't you?

This man was no ordinary Muslim, and he was not praying when he shouted Allahu Akbar, he was trying to kill people, so excuse me if I don't open my heart and try to understand him.

We know how big the organisation is, and we know that "lone wolves", which is just a sexy name for some sad sociopath or psychotic, are the perfect patsies IS. They appealed directly to them, to take up arms against the infidel.

Regarding the emboldened bit, I have never - ever - seen on Tibb, someone saying that all Muslims are terrorists and yet it's thrown around regularly. People are terrified of upsetting the Muslim community. But actually, Jewish people are the most attacked minority in the UK, despite the fact we're not stabbing, shooting and blowing anyone up. And the justification for that is, well... Israel. And you know, not all Jews are Israelis any more than all Muslims are terrorists.

[Niamh.]

Open your heart to understand him? Where on earth did I suggest that? What I think is important to understand is how big terrorist groups actually are. Were you actually implying there that I was sympathising with a murderer?