PDA

View Full Version : Funny Old Forum


KelvinD
2nd Feb 2018, 17:20
JB, that is. We often have well-suscribed posts when a thread is started showing how the outrage factor increases when terrorists. Usually, the hysteria grows exponentially.
Today, a terrorist was sent down for a minimum of 43 years and not a peep on JB!
I think I have an idea why this has come about though. And I bet quite a few others do too!

andytug
2nd Feb 2018, 17:24
Not unusual, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. In the Middle East they can be both during the course of a week.....

Heathrow Harry
2nd Feb 2018, 17:28
He was neither - just a criminal with a record as long as your arm who could never control his desire to hurt people................

galaxy flyer
2nd Feb 2018, 17:30
If they act without uniform including insignia, are not subject to a command structure, intentionally and recklessly target civilians; they are always and everywhere—terrorists.

GF

Krystal n chips
2nd Feb 2018, 17:48
JB, that is. We often have well-suscribed posts when a thread is started showing how the outrage factor increases when terrorists. Usually, the hysteria grows exponentially.
Today, a terrorist was sent down for a minimum of 43 years and not a peep on JB!
I think I have an idea why this has come about though. And I bet quite a few others do too!

Yes it's strange that, given the outrage that generally ensues but, in this case the terrorist act was committed by, erm, a white British male therefore the usual stereotyping couldn't actually be instigated.

And it was interesting to read about how, and from whom, his radicalisation developed. One name on the list was recently mentioned on here as being subjected to unwarranted harassment, said name being such an outstanding pillar of society as we know. But I'm sure the mentioning of said name will be classed as yet more harassment of the poor soul.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/01/finsbury-park-london-mosque-van-attack-darren-osborne-makram-ali

" If they act without uniform including insignia, are not subject to a command structure, intentionally and recklessly target civilians; they are always and everywhere—terrorists

That's a pretty accurate summary and nobody would disagree with it......however, that's not entirely the case with terrorists.

PDR1
2nd Feb 2018, 18:06
If they act without uniform including insignia, are not subject to a command structure, intentionally and recklessly target civilians; they are always and everywhere—terrorists.

I assume you're refering to Fox News?

PDR

Gertrude the Wombat
2nd Feb 2018, 18:20
Today, a terrorist was sent down for a minimum of 43 years and not a peep on JB!
That'll be because everyone agrees that this was a reasonable sentence, given that the court didn't have the option of a death penalty, so there's nothing to discuss.

VP959
2nd Feb 2018, 18:21
This particular piece of scum had no ideology at all. He was man with around 100 previous criminal convictions whose latest obsession was apparently against Muslims. From reported comments he made in court he also seems to have been a bit of a fantasist.

Although he was charged and convicted under terrorism-influenced legislation, I'm near-certain that was predicated in large part by a desire to put him away for the rest of his life, as he has clearly been a major thorn in the side of the police and justice system for his entire adult life. Charging him as a terrorist presumably gave the court significantly more influence when it came to specifying a minimum sentence, which looks to be around 3 times that which a murderer would normally get, I think.

Tankertrashnav
2nd Feb 2018, 22:27
K & C - just to be absolutely clear. Are you saying that there are people on this forum who have one iota of sympathy for Osborne or his actions? If so that is a pretty outrageous accusation. Osborne was scum, and white scum at that. Just as the perpetrators of previous terrorist outrages in London were brown scum. I don't think you will get anybody on here to disagree with that statement

surely not
2nd Feb 2018, 22:39
VP959 I don't think it can be claimed that he didn't have any ideology. Clearly his ideology was violently anti Muslim and anti Socialists. It might not be religiously motivated but it is an ideology of illogical hatred and lack of tolerance.
He is every bit the same as the nut jobs from any faith who believe killing anyone who disagrees with their views is justifiable.
Just because he didn't shout 'Jesus is great' or something similar when he crashed his vehicle doesn't make him a lone wolf. He aligns himself with the vile racist far right groups. In his mind he was trying to be a Martyr to the far right neanderthugs.

KelvinD
2nd Feb 2018, 23:54
The trial judge said he was a terrorist. The Home Office described him as a terrorist. Ergo, he is a terrorist.
And K&C wins the coconut for the first line of his response!

Krystal n chips
3rd Feb 2018, 04:03
K & C - just to be absolutely clear. Are you saying that there are people on this forum who have one iota of sympathy for Osborne or his actions? If so that is a pretty outrageous accusation. Osborne was scum, and white scum at that. Just as the perpetrators of previous terrorist outrages in London were brown scum. I don't think you will get anybody on here to disagree with that statement

TTN.

I did not say, or imply or infer that anybody on here would be supportive of Osborne.

What I did say, was, there was one poster who was quite adamant that a certain Mr Robinson was being victimised and harassed for no reason.

The sentiments and ideologies of Robinson were cited in court as to being a significant contributory influence regarding Osborne becoming radicalised.

Highway1
3rd Feb 2018, 22:46
The sentiments and ideologies of Robinson were cited in court as to being a significant contributory influence regarding Osborne becoming radicalised.

Well so was the BBC. Perhaps some guys are just nut-jobs?

galaxy flyer
3rd Feb 2018, 23:39
I assume you're refering to Fox News?

PDR


If they act without uniform including insignia, do not carry arms openly,are not subject to a command structure, intentionally and recklessly target civilians; they are always and everywhere—terrorists.

I corrected for you who are lacking in understanding what makes a legal combatant in war.

GF

Dutystude
4th Feb 2018, 09:35
JB, that is. We often have well-suscribed posts when a thread is started showing how the outrage factor increases when terrorists. Usually, the hysteria grows exponentially.
Today, a terrorist was sent down for a minimum of 43 years and not a peep on JB!
I think I have an idea why this has come about though. And I bet quite a few others do too!

JB is certainly a ‘funny old forum’ that’s its USP.

But the point of this thread is very clear. This was not an invite to discuss a terrorist outrage (and I’m happy to accept that this event was a terrorist outrage); no, this was a blatant act of trolling in order to start a fight so that those, so minded, can have a platform to insult and deamonise any who do not entirely share their world view.

KelvinD
4th Feb 2018, 09:55
Dutystude: Let me disabuse you of the notion that this thread was started as "a blatant act of trolling in order to start a fight so that those, so minded, can have a platform to insult and deamonise any who do not entirely share their world view."
I started it as what I see as a view on the hypocritical approach taken by many on this forum.
I don't care much about the "world view" of anyone else on here but I do care when one can see people going OTT when a person of one religion, colour or nationality being hammered relentlessly (and frequently deservedly) while others of a colour, religion or race similar to some posters go unremarked.
And while the word "daemonise" may exist in Unix etc, it doesn't belong in your sentence. (Don't take offence at that; none intended).

Dutystude
4th Feb 2018, 10:08
KD

Non taken!

Krystal n chips
4th Feb 2018, 10:17
JB is certainly a ‘funny old forum’ that’s its USP.

But the point of this thread is very clear. This was not an invite to discuss a terrorist outrage (and I’m happy to accept that this event was a terrorist outrage); no, this was a blatant act of trolling in order to start a fight so that those, so minded, can have a platform to insult and deamonise any who do not entirely share their world view.

Was it really ?

Lets just cast our memories back shall we.

Whenever a terrorist attack has occurred, carried out by radical extremists and currently a significant proportion of these attacks have been instigated by those whose faith is Muslim, posts appear on here with amazing alacrity and propagate thereafter, most of which stereotype all and every Muslims as being, by default, jihadist terrorists.

Nothing could be further from the truth of course, the term radical extremists being somewhat definitive in this respect.

In this case however, the attack was not carried out by radical Muslim extremists but by a white British male. This inconvenient fact thus negated any condemnation of the terrorist act that happened.

Hence the deafening silence on here despite the fact this was a high profile case. He was also radicalised in the same way as many Muslim radicals are, by social media.

The epithet "troll" is becoming the now standard denunciation of any poster who dares to offer alternative views, let alone humour, which doesn't conform with the expected status quo here on JB....saves some people a lot of time and effort in offering reasoned debate and responses after all.

Andy_S
4th Feb 2018, 11:23
That'll be because everyone agrees that this was a reasonable sentence, given that the court didn't have the option of a death penalty, so there's nothing to discuss.

I had to catch my breath when I heard the sentence (which I agree was appropriate). My immediate reaction was to wonder whether an Islamic terrorist would have got a similar stretch inside.

This particular piece of scum had no ideology at all. He was man with around 100 previous criminal convictions whose latest obsession was apparently against Muslims.

That's how I read it. To me, this was a hate crime rather than terrorism.

Sallyann1234
4th Feb 2018, 11:33
If they act without uniform including insignia, do not carry arms openly,are not subject to a command structure, intentionally and recklessly target civilians; they are always and everywhere—terrorists.

May I suggest that one further factor should be considered in defining terrorism - the environment in which the act occurs.

In the UK at present, a free democratic country, any violent act aimed at changing society may certainly be called terrorism. Because there are ways of changing things without violence.

In WW2 occupied France, we might reasonably say that the resistance were not terrorists.

Between these two extremes, there is a multitude of cases where the definition is less clear. It is all about environment.

yellowtriumph
4th Feb 2018, 11:39
May I suggest that one further factor should be considered in defining terrorism - the environment in which the act occurs.

In the UK at present, a free democratic country, any violent act aimed at changing society may certainly be called terrorism. Because there are ways of changing things without violence.

In WW2 occupied France, we might reasonably say that the resistance were not terrorists.

Between these two extremes, there is a multitude of cases where the definition is less clear. It is all about environment.

Yes to all of that.

Tankertrashnav
4th Feb 2018, 12:26
K & C - apologies if I misunderstood your point. Yes Robinson is a nasty piece of work, and I thoroughly approve of him being "harassed"

Gertrude the Wombat
4th Feb 2018, 13:54
Yes to all of that.
Jolly good, here's something we can agree on.

Andy_S
4th Feb 2018, 14:16
I had to catch my breath when I heard the sentence (which I agree was appropriate). My immediate reaction was to wonder whether an Islamic terrorist would have got a similar stretch inside.

To answer my own question........

Out of curiosity, I checked the sentences given to the killers of Lee Rigby. One received a full life sentence with no parole, and the other received a minimum of 45 years.

So it does appear consistent.

Trossie
5th Feb 2018, 11:23
I'm just trying to think of any other thread that was started as a response to any other criminal (terrorist?) that was found guilty and sentenced, unless the sentence had been particularly lenient.

So I'm trying to work out the purpose of this Thread.

KelvinD
5th Feb 2018, 13:38
Suggested reading for Trossie: Post #16.

Highway1
5th Feb 2018, 14:02
I'm just trying to think of any other thread that was started as a response to any other criminal (terrorist?) that was found guilty and sentenced, unless the sentence had been particularly lenient.

So I'm trying to work out the purpose of this Thread.

I'm glad you said that and it is not only me. The perp got a sentence that looks to be in line with the crime and nobody seems to be complaining otherwise.

As he was radicalized by watching the BBC perhaps the OP wants them shut down - its all rather opaque.

Trossie
5th Feb 2018, 14:23
Suggested reading for Trossie: Post #16.

Yes, I did see what I thought was an attempt to bring racism into it.

He was a baddie. He has been sent to jail for a l o n g time. Good! Anything else?

hiflymk3
5th Feb 2018, 14:28
Good riddance I say.

Have they caught Dave yet?

Training Risky
5th Feb 2018, 16:10
This idiot was not a terrorist. He was a murderer inspired by religious hatred. Not the same thing.

Just because our useless courts system (read the news lately?) and Amber 'Chocolate Teapot' Rudd say it was terrorism - doesn't make it true!

Terrorists try to achieve political change through violence. Fusilier Rigby's murderers were terrorist scum who saw themselves as brave warriors trying to turn the UK into an Islamic Caliphate.

Osborne (and 'Dave') wanted to kill Muslims - which is not a political aim in itself. He was in the same league as Steven Port, the serial killer who targeted homosexuals in London between 2014-15. I don't recall that one labelled as a terrorist...

To bandy the terrorist label around willy-nilly cheapens the term and does a disservice to the real victims of terrorism, similar to when a man pinches a woman's behind and is labelled a rapist.

Many snowflakes and the new breed of culture-war 'virtue-signallers' on here will dispute these facts, but it's the truth.

Trossie
5th Feb 2018, 16:27
If a kid with a screw loose or a grudge of some sort goes into a school in the US with a gun and kills a couple of people and injures several, is he a terrorist? He's killed twice as many as this nutter. No, neither are terrorists, just thugs. (Oh, and I couldn't care two hoots what 'race' either of these thugs might be!)


About the 'radicalised by watching the BBC' bit. Don't you just love it: media reporting stirs something up, that leads to an incident that the media can then report on, which stirs something up, that ... And round and round we go!!

KelvinD
5th Feb 2018, 17:28
Can I recommend the Terrorism Act 2000, Section 2(a): involves serious violence against a person, (b) endangers a person's life other than of the person committing the action and (c) creates a serious risk to the health ...
He was a terrorist. The difference in this forum is that he was white and non-muslim. In other cases which have involved non-white and muslim, the reactions on here have been radically different.

Krystal n chips
5th Feb 2018, 17:51
This idiot was not a terrorist. He was a murderer inspired by religious hatred. Not the same thing.

Just because our useless courts system (read the news lately?) and Amber 'Chocolate Teapot' Rudd say it was terrorism - doesn't make it true!

Terrorists try to achieve political change through violence. Fusilier Rigby's murderers were terrorist scum who saw themselves as brave warriors trying to turn the UK into an Islamic Caliphate.

Osborne (and 'Dave') wanted to kill Muslims - which is not a political aim in itself. He was in the same league as Steven Port, the serial killer who targeted homosexuals in London between 2014-15. I don't recall that one labelled as a terrorist...

To bandy the terrorist label around willy-nilly cheapens the term and does a disservice to the real victims of terrorism, similar to when a man pinches a woman's behind and is labelled a rapist.

Many snowflakes and the new breed of culture-war 'virtue-signallers' on here will dispute these facts, but it's the truth.

That's an interesting introduction.

Murder is usually committed as a "one off " event, serial killers excepted of course, and also usually involves one, or a relatively small number, of people.

When an individual sets out to kill or maim large numbers of people murder is the result, but terrorism is the objective.

The BBC.

The BBC, to its credit, has, over the years, never shied away from broadcasting programmes ( of any description ) on controversial issues. The programme in question was just one of many therefore in this respect.

It was his choice, and sources, of viewing thereafter which contributed to his radicalisation, not the BBC.

Highway1
5th Feb 2018, 18:34
About the 'radicalised by watching the BBC' bit. Don't you just love it: media reporting stirs something up, that leads to an incident that the media can then report on, which stirs something up, that ... And round and round we go!!

It will be interesting to see what the BBC does, having ignored the subject for years the first time they tackle it they radicalise some nut-job who then goes out to commit terrorism. I wouldn't be surprised if they went back to ignoring the subject.

747 jock
5th Feb 2018, 19:41
Can I recommend the Terrorism Act 2000, Section 2(a): involves serious violence against a person, (b) endangers a person's life other than of the person committing the action and (c) creates a serious risk to the health ...
He was a terrorist. The difference in this forum is that he was white and non-muslim. In other cases which have involved non-white and muslim, the reactions on here have been radically different.

The way I read it (all of it, not just the partial bit you posted) is that for it to class as terrorism, the act must also be designed to influence the government or other people and also that it must be in an attempt to advance a cause.

1 Terrorism: interpretation.

(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 [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause

(2)

Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a) involves serious violence against a person,

(b) involves serious damage to property,

(c) 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.


If all that was required for it to class as terrorism was for the act to involve violence, endanger life and create a serious risk to the health of others, there are many crimes such as armed robberies, car jackings, fights at football matches etc that would be classed as terrorist crimes.

419
6th Feb 2018, 10:26
Can I recommend the Terrorism Act 2000, Section 2(a): involves serious violence against a person, (b) endangers a person's life other than of the person committing the action and (c) creates a serious risk to the health ...
If all that is needed to be classed as a terrorist is to have met the items above, why aren't all of the "moped muggers" in London charged under the terrorism act?

Trossie
6th Feb 2018, 11:46
The clear attempt of this Thread has been to stir up racism. Post #16 points very clearly to that. I am glad that it has failed and that the Thread has gone off in other directions. (KelvinD, while I often - usually? - disagree with you, some of your posts can be quite good. What went wrong here?)

The term 'terrorist' is very much misused or often, when it is appropriate, avoided. Is the kid who goes into an American school with a gun and shoots lots of people (the example I gave above) a 'terrorist'? It appears that to many posters here that he would be. However, is he creating 'terror' or just a violent crime? (Without a doubt for those on the scene it is terror, but for those hundreds of miles away in the same society surely it is not.) The nutter/thug that this post is about, once the criminal and lonely nature of his crime became evident (if one discounts his 'accomplice' Dave, of course!), has he created terror for those in the society? No, he is just a criminal thug. A true terrorist is one who does not only cause terror for those caught up in his/her immediate crime but creates a fear among others in that society that they may face the same too. Criminal loners cannot do this. There has to be a group element to the crime to give the idea that it could happen again to make it genuinely terrorist.

Now that is where the difference between a 'freedom fighter' and a terrorist comes in. A genuine freedom fighter will be fighting and doing so against the authorities that are oppressing that freedom. They will NOT be deliberately targeting civilians. And they will NOT be doing so in a way that will create a terror among those civilians that the same will happen again elsewhere. Massacring athletes at the Olympic Games, blowing up civilian aeroplanes, placing car bombs in streets at busy commuter times are NOT 'freedom fighting', they are just plain horrible, nasty terrorists. Several on here will have 'saintly' freedom fighters in their minds who in reality are just terrorist thugs who didn't have the minds to attempt to change things through other means. Along those same lines, genuine resistance fighters during WW2 were not terrorists as they were directing their attacks at the 'freedom denying' authorities and not indiscriminately against civilians (however, the occupying authorities defined them as 'terrorists' which should be taken as a warning for authorities who want too loose a definition of 'terrorist'!).

But, back to the start of this Thread. Can anyone tell me of any Thread that has been started about any criminal's sentence unless it has been about the leniency of the sentence? In which case I don't see why this criminal thug should have got that 'special' attention.

Krystal n chips
7th Feb 2018, 06:25
The clear attempt of this Thread has been to stir up racism. Post #16 points very clearly to that. I am glad that it has failed and that the Thread has gone off in other directions. (KelvinD, while I often - usually? - disagree with you, some of your posts can be quite good. What went wrong here?)

The term 'terrorist' is very much misused or often, when it is appropriate, avoided. Is the kid who goes into an American school with a gun and shoots lots of people (the example I gave above) a 'terrorist'? It appears that to many posters here that he would be. However, is he creating 'terror' or just a violent crime? (Without a doubt for those on the scene it is terror, but for those hundreds of miles away in the same society surely it is not.) The nutter/thug that this post is about, once the criminal and lonely nature of his crime became evident (if one discounts his 'accomplice' Dave, of course!), has he created terror for those in the society? No, he is just a criminal thug. A true terrorist is one who does not only cause terror for those caught up in his/her immediate crime but creates a fear among others in that society that they may face the same too. Criminal loners cannot do this. There has to be a group element to the crime to give the idea that it could happen again to make it genuinely terrorist.

Now that is where the difference between a 'freedom fighter' and a terrorist comes in. A genuine freedom fighter will be fighting and doing so against the authorities that are oppressing that freedom. They will NOT be deliberately targeting civilians. And they will NOT be doing so in a way that will create a terror among those civilians that the same will happen again elsewhere. Massacring athletes at the Olympic Games, blowing up civilian aeroplanes, placing car bombs in streets at busy commuter times are NOT 'freedom fighting', they are just plain horrible, nasty terrorists. Several on here will have 'saintly' freedom fighters in their minds who in reality are just terrorist thugs who didn't have the minds to attempt to change things through other means. Along those same lines, genuine resistance fighters during WW2 were not terrorists as they were directing their attacks at the 'freedom denying' authorities and not indiscriminately against civilians (however, the occupying authorities defined them as 'terrorists' which should be taken as a warning for authorities who want too loose a definition of 'terrorist'!).

But, back to the start of this Thread. Can anyone tell me of any Thread that has been started about any criminal's sentence unless it has been about the leniency of the sentence? In which case I don't see why this criminal thug should have got that 'special' attention.

Lets start with your opening paragraph.

The OP clearly stated his reasons for posting, notably the complete lack of commentary on here regarding the terrorist attack, because, as has been said before, this attacker was not a Muslim religious extremist.

The silence was deafening thus how you interpret the thread as being racist defies logic and rational analysis. Can we expect an equally condemnatory response when, inevitably, the next terrorist attack from radicalised extremists, almost certainly to be of the Muslim faith, occurs ?.

Then there's your complete misunderstanding of terrorists and terrorism.

Whilst for fairly obvious reasons, the methodology used tends to be similar in many cases, after all, there's a few hundred years of terrorist history across the globe to offer them numerous examples, thereafter, it gets a bit complicated.

Because there is no such entity as a "standard format " terrorist, their ideologies or their strategy and tactics for committing acts of terrorism.

Flexibility and adaptability are key components of terrorism thus whatever means suits their need, can, and is, used when required hence the "hearts and minds" option can often run concurrently with indiscriminate carnage

Neither does a terrorist have to be directly associated with any defined terrorist group. They simply align themselves to any sources which can offer, to their way of thinking, substantiation of their beliefs.

It would be far from unreasonable to propose that, a lot of terrorist "foot soldiers" in organised groups suffer from varying mental health and socially dysfunctional conditions, which is why they are so useful. They are expendable and aren't going to think too long and hard about the acts they are going to commit.

The lone individual tends to have similar traits....no surprise there and, hopefully as scarce as they maybe, again it's far from unreasonable to suggest there are others in the UK ( in this case ) from the same or similar demographic who will commit another terrorist act in the future.

In contrast to which, those running terrorist groups tend to be well, or very highly educated, articulate and very capable of pursuing their objectives.

How these lone individuals are influenced however, becomes more pertinent and even more so in this case, because one name occurs repeatedly across a variety of media reports.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/feb/06/police-assess-contempt-claims-over-tommy-robinson-videos

KelvinD
7th Feb 2018, 07:21
Trossie: Thank you for the back handed compliment. I am genuinely puzzled by your comment though. Post #16 states quite clearly the reason for my starting this thread and K&C has summed it up quite well in his latest post.
Let me be 100% clear: I have no time for racists or racism and do my best to counter it whenever I come across it.
And the same sentiment applies when dealing with hypocrisy. And that is what this thread is all about.
Let's be fair for a minute. In one case, a man drives a vehicle at a group of people walking along Westminster Bridge and is roundly (and rightly) condemned as a terrorist. Then, another man drives a van at a group of people in another part of London and he is classified by some as a "mere murderer".
They both were clearly guilty of the same thing in their intent yet are treated quite differently in this forum. Doesn't that smack of hypocrisy?

Training Risky
7th Feb 2018, 10:52
Trossie: Thank you for the back handed compliment. I am genuinely puzzled by your comment though. Post #16 states quite clearly the reason for my starting this thread and K&C has summed it up quite well in his latest post.
Let me be 100% clear: I have no time for racists or racism and do my best to counter it whenever I come across it.
And the same sentiment applies when dealing with hypocrisy. And that is what this thread is all about.
Let's be fair for a minute. In one case, a man drives a vehicle at a group of people walking along Westminster Bridge and is roundly (and rightly) condemned as a terrorist. Then, another man drives a van at a group of people in another part of London and he is classified by some as a "mere murderer".
They both were clearly guilty of the same thing in their intent yet are treated quite differently in this forum. Doesn't that smack of hypocrisy?

Well, not quite. To answer another of your 'selected snippets'...

The Westminster Bridge attacker, on completing the murders on the bridge, then proceeded to run to the Houses of Parliament (hint: the seat of our Democracy) to mount another attack. He was aiming to kill as many MPs or members of Government as he could. Sadly, an unarmed police officer took the full force of the attack. I remember an MP leaning over the copper trying to save his life with battlefield first aid.

I don't remember Osborne mounting the same type of attack with the same MO or political motives. Hope this helps...

Wikipedia: On 22 March 2017 a terrorist attack took place in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster in London, seat of the British Parliament. The attacker, 52-year-old Briton Khalid Masood, drove a car into pedestrians on the pavement along the south side of Westminster Bridge and Bridge Street, injuring more than 50 people, five of them fatally. After the car was crashed into the perimeter fence of the Palace grounds, Masood abandoned it and ran into New Palace Yard where he fatally stabbed an unarmed police officer. He was then shot by an armed police officer and died at the scene.

Police treated the attack as "Islamist-related terrorism". Masood reportedly said in a final text message that he was waging jihad in revenge for Western military action in Muslim countries in the Middle East. Amaq News Agency, which is linked to Islamic State, said the attacker answered the group's calls to target citizens of states that are fighting against it, though the claim was questioned by the UK police and government. Police have found no link with any terrorist organisation

Krystal n chips
7th Feb 2018, 12:29
Well, not quite. To answer another of your 'selected snippets'...

The Westminster Bridge attacker, on completing the murders on the bridge, then proceeded to run to the Houses of Parliament (hint: the seat of our Democracy) to mount another attack. He was aiming to kill as many MPs or members of Government as he could. Sadly, an unarmed police officer took the full force of the attack. I remember an MP leaning over the copper trying to save his life with battlefield first aid.

I don't remember Osborne mounting the same type of attack with the same MO or political motives. Hope this helps...

Wikipedia: On 22 March 2017 a terrorist attack took place in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster in London, seat of the British Parliament. The attacker, 52-year-old Briton Khalid Masood, drove a car into pedestrians on the pavement along the south side of Westminster Bridge and Bridge Street, injuring more than 50 people, five of them fatally. After the car was crashed into the perimeter fence of the Palace grounds, Masood abandoned it and ran into New Palace Yard where he fatally stabbed an unarmed police officer. He was then shot by an armed police officer and died at the scene.

Police treated the attack as "Islamist-related terrorism". Masood reportedly said in a final text message that he was waging jihad in revenge for Western military action in Muslim countries in the Middle East. Amaq News Agency, which is linked to Islamic State, said the attacker answered the group's calls to target citizens of states that are fighting against it, though the claim was questioned by the UK police and government. Police have found no link with any terrorist organisation

Here's a list of terrorist attacks.

You may notices they tend to vary, but, are still classed as terrorist attacks......funnily enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain

All you have to do now, please, is, explain why a racial extremist attack on a specific demographic doesn't warrant being classed as an act of terror.

Training Risky
7th Feb 2018, 13:13
Here's a list of terrorist attacks.

You may notices they tend to vary, but, are still classed as terrorist attacks......funnily enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain

All you have to do now, please, is, explain why a racial extremist attack on a specific demographic doesn't warrant being classed as an act of terror.

Don't just take my explanation, take the OED definition: The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Osborne attacked 'Muslims', but not for a political aim. Bad people do bad things. Serial killers are bad people, but not terrorists. Again, you cheapen the victims of real terrorism by abusing the term.

Oh and by the way, you said "racial extremist attack on a specific demographic", but 'Muslim' is not a race...

Trossie
8th Feb 2018, 12:26
I have trawled this Thread for references to race and these are the only ones that I have found:

... a white British male ...

... when a person of one religion, colour or nationality being hammered relentlessly (and frequently deservedly) while others of a colour, religion or race similar to some posters go unremarked. [My 'bold']

... by a white British male.

The difference in this forum is that he was white and non-muslim.

...a racial extremist attack...

To me the finger of racism is pointed in two very clear directions. This has been a very clear attempt to stir up racism that has clearly failed when you look at all other Posters' responses. Well done everyone for not 'biting'.

Training Risky's final comments here'Muslim' is not a race...puts this perfectly into place.

I would hardly see Wikipedia as being definitive in deciding what is 'terrorism' as KnC has done (post #41), but if he wants to use that as a reference then Training Risky's reference (post #40) is equally valid.

The subject of this Thread was apparently an oft convicted criminal. He carried out a 'copy-cat' murder that can be likened to gangland tit-for-tat murder rather than attempting to change any regime. He was a thug, but does not deserve to be called a 'terrorists', unless it is a useful way to overcome the more lenient sentencing rules that there could be for a common murderer.

Evidence here has shown that 'the left' are the racists. Please stop it?

Now could anyone provide me with evidence of any Thread that has been started about any conviction or sentence other than possibly to complain about the leniency of that sentence?