Newcastle mass murder plot - no terrorism ere mate

Its interesting to see how people read things naively:

Terrorism presents a serious and sustained threat to the United Kingdom and UK interests abroad. Terrorist groups seek to cause widespread disruption, fear and intimidation. They use violence or the threat of violence as a means of publicising their causes, motivating those who might be sympathetic to them and intimidating those who do not sympathise. They often aim to influence government policies and they often reject existing democratic processes, or even democracy itself, as a means of achieving their objectives. Although there is no generally agreed definition of terrorism internationally, in 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
Click to expand...

This statement in itself is very broad if you can comprehend the english language and its play of words. There's clear reasons why the government is being petitioned to narrow it down and make it more specific as technically you could get arrested under this act for holding demonstrations/protests like they had some years ago across the country to bring the roads to a halt due to high fuel prices for example.


What percentage of terror attacks in the United States and Europe are committed by Muslims? Guess. Nope. Guess again. And again...
Click to expand...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html

Less Than 2 Percent Of Terrorist Attacks In The E.U. Are Religiously Motivated
Click to expand...
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/08/3609796/islamist-terrorism-europe/

I guess the UK population and most of the peeps posting here just get the link between terrorism and muslims out of thin air? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...t-associated-with-terrorism-poll-reveals.html

Nothing to do with the media and its over exposure to 'muslamic' attacks yeah?

Anyways - done educating pork, good article here for the blinkered loonies ;)
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/
 
You don't even read what you post

made for the purposes of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause
Click to expand...

The fuel price thingy you mentioned doesn't tick any of those boxes so thats irrelevant for starters.

Find some real links not just conspiracy theory websites eh

e: lol one of your links doesn't even have data for the last 10 YEARS..

If you can't be bothered to even find 1) correct information 2)relevant information and 3) cant be bothered to even read your own links you should probably just jog on.
 
Last edited:
And Zoomee can't read yet again.

Must be bad for him when his fellow connoisseur of explosive rucksacks, the wonderful Craterloads, has not jumped to his defence.
 
zoomee said:
I havn't disputed that, but it does also state on the MI5 website that it doesn't have to be a political case but that they MAINLY are.
Click to expand...

lol my quote on the first page was from that mi5 website you are talking about.

It clearly explains the criteria for terrorism none of which fit this guys planned crime.

A london tube strike on the other hand probably comes close
 
scorza said:
If our government is so bad for persecuting Muslims in this country - why are there so many Muslims camped in Calais trying desperately to get into the UK?
Click to expand...

They feel persecution is a better option than staying with the French?

zoomee said:
Its interesting to see how people read things naively:

This statement in itself is very broad if you can comprehend the english language and its play of words. There's clear reasons why the government is being petitioned to narrow it down and make it more specific as technically you could get arrested under this act for holding demonstrations/protests like they had some years ago across the country to bring the roads to a halt due to high fuel prices for example.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html


http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/08/3609796/islamist-terrorism-europe/

I guess the UK population and most of the peeps posting here just get the link between terrorism and muslims out of thin air? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...t-associated-with-terrorism-poll-reveals.html

Nothing to do with the media and its over exposure to 'muslamic' attacks yeah?

Anyways - done educating pork, good article here for the blinkered loonies ;)
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/
Click to expand...

To be fair the kid in the story wasn't a terrorist under the current definition (in the UK) and there's no real need for the media to report it in that way.
 
The word terrorist has been associated with fundamentalism. This guy wasn't one.

It's butchery of the English language in some regards. He meant to inflict terror after all.

Unless they aren't shouting Jesus, Flying Spaghetti Monster etc he will never be dubbed a terrorist. That is the difference.

There was a white ginger bloke dubbed a terrorist not long ago. He had changed his name to a Muslim name, so people just assumed he was Asian.
 
Its unfair to pick on followers of islam, we make room for the mentally handicapped all the time, why not for those who are caught up in islam?
 
Thekwango said:
Not a very enlightened or intelligent post dude.
Click to expand...

Actually it is a very intelligent post. If one accepts that fact and recognises that the acceptance of religion involves the acceptance and belief in actual irrational thought then we can quite easily classify religious expression as a mental health illness highly associated with schizophrenic delusions. That means we can quite easily then argue it is a causative agent of disease and therefore ban religion in the same way we would ban anything else that is shown to have such a causative link. We could add it to the new drug's bill.
 
Xordium said:
That means we can quite easily then argue it is a causative agent of disease and therefore ban religion in the same way we would ban anything else that is shown to have such a causative link. We could add it to the new drug's bill.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be causal it would be symptomatic. Underlying the delusion would be found the causal factor.

Religious belief demonstrates a complete suspension of critical thinking and this in it's self is a causal factor for delusional beliefs.
 
If something causes a disease it is causative - if something happens because of a disease it is a symptom of that disease. If religion is causing the disease it is causative the delusion would a symptom.
 
Religion isn't a disease. It's a fallacy, an error in thinking. Symptomatic. The causal factor is the fallacy, not the religious belief.
 
Whatever you say Sliver - I think you really need to consider the context that was said in. I know context is hard for you as definition and reading are for Zoomee but do try at the very least to make an attempt ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom