Newcastle mass murder plot - no terrorism ere mate

He is no terrorist, just your local nut job that appears now and again in life. ;)

Lock-up key in bin or at least try to rehabilitate him. Chances are he flew over the coo coo nest along time ago. :p
 
zoomee said:
Surprised this hasn't been posted already - no muslamics to blame I guess.

Like to see the double standards in the media when it comes to reporting terrorism is still biased.
Click to expand...

You seem to have trouble understanding basic concepts/definitions - this isn't terrorism. There is no media conspiracy behind not classifying this as terrorism, it just doesn't fit the definition. That has nothing to do with the person not being a muslim - we've had plenty of terrorist attacks in the UK before muslims started getting more militant.

You're trying to highlight a double standard that doesn't exist, presumably because you get somewhat butt hurt when there are threads on here about Islamic terrorism.
 
Well I must be dumb because I'd class him as a wannabe terrorist. He planned a terrible act, he planned to cause terror and death to as many people as he could. I've not read the exact definition but do find what he planned quite terrifying.

Edit ok just read the definition and because he had no political aim he's not a terrorist. So terrorists are extreme politicians, you learn something new every day.
 
Last edited:
bainbridge said:
Well I must be dumb because I'd class him as a wannabe terrorist. He planned a terrible act, he planned to cause terror and death to as many people as he could. I've not read the exact definition but do find what he planned quite terrifying.

Edit ok just read the definition and because he had no political aim he's not a terrorist. So terrorists are extreme politicians, you learn something new every day.
Click to expand...

Go read again. It doesn't just have to be political motivated to an act of terrorism ;)
 
bainbridge said:
Well I must be dumb because I'd class him as a wannabe terrorist. He planned a terrible act, he planned to cause terror and death to as many people as he could. I've not read the exact definition but do find what he planned quite terrifying.

Edit ok just read the definition and because he had no political aim he's not a terrorist. So terrorists are extreme politicians, you learn something new every day.
Click to expand...

Why on earth would you think that to start with.

And it doesn't only have to be politics.

Terrorism is inducing fear into the public to bring about change to something.
So someone just going out and causing mass killing is in no way a terrorist.
 
Thekwango said:
I might, just might be able to give the OP a scenario that will allow him to understand the differences in terrorist act as opposed to straight murders.....
Click to expand...

I think you can't because I think it must be the case that the OP either already understands and is lying for some reason (trolling or propaganda) or has made themself incapable of understanding. The difference is very simple and has been explained repeatedly. The OP has even quoted a definition of terrorism that explicitly excludes scenarios like this and claimed it didn't.
 
And I'll repeat to the OP in big letters -

Even if the boy in the OP was Muslim it still wouldn't be terrorism because what he planned wasn't terrorism but mass murder because he was pee'd off with the College and t'ing
 
Last edited:
Dimple said:
And I'll repeat to the OP in big letters -

Even if the boy in the OP was Muslim it still wouldn't be terrorism because what he planned wasn't terrorism but mass murder because he was pee'd off with the College and t'ing
Click to expand...

Needs to be louder for those hard of hearing. :p
 
I can see how he misread Arknor's definition though.

the UK the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism as:

"The use or threat of action designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public, or a section of the public; made for the purposes of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause; and it involves or causes:

serious violence against a person;
serious damage to a property;
a threat to a person's life;
a serious risk to the health and safety of the public; or
serious interference with or disruption to an electronic system."

He basically skipped the first bit and homed on the sentences below the first bit without adding the top bit.
So basically the OP thinks that if any of the 5 incidents happen they are all terrorist acts which means that virtually every crime is a terrorist act :D
 
[TW]Fox;28380193 said:
What absolute nonsense. Nobody would disagree that the IRA were not only terrorists but probably the greatest terrorist threat our country has ever faced. Last time I checked, they were white.

Where does all this rubbish come from? Most of the opinions you see on the internet these days are just regurgitated hyperbole and rubbish based on bizarre assumptions. Doesn't anyone bother to at least attempt to find out about something before spouting off these days?
Click to expand...

The Internet and social media is the perfect echo chamber for stupid people and paranoid shut ins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom