Service man fights off two armed attackers

RaohNS said:
The old deflect argument eh Freakbro.

Was this man armed and engaged in an active warzone?

That's like saying ISIS would be justified attacking a woman in work because her husband is on leave from the Armed forces.
Click to expand...

No it's not :confused:

And I said it was a genuine question...what do you think I am trying to deflect? (The answer is nothing btw)

Either way it looks like an attack by some IS supporters, I just don't think of attacking military forces as 'terrorism' just 'fighting back' in the war they are engaged in. *shrug*
 
Last edited:
Freakbro said:
No it's not :confused:

And I said it was a genuine question...what do you think I am trying to deflect? (The answer is nothing)

Either way it looks like an attack by some IS supporters, I just don't think of attacking military forces as 'terrorism' just 'fighting back' in the war they are engaged in. *shrug*
Click to expand...


Lee Rigby?
 
Freakbro said:
No it's not :confused:

And I said it was a genuine question...what do you think I am trying to deflect? (The answer is nothing btw)

Either way it looks like an attack by some IS supporters, I just don't think of attacking military forces as 'terrorism' just 'fighting back' in the war they are engaged in. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Firstly, there is a difference between military operations and kidnap/terrorism. Terrorism is the act of spreading terror to publicise an agenda. Please explain to me when the RAF have done so?

Secondly, not everyone at Marham has something to do with GR4 or even supports them ...civilian or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
b0redj0rd said:
Lee Rigby?
Click to expand...

I think I said the same thing at the time. He was targeted because he was military personnel.

Not sure why people are getting hot under the collar about it, it was just a genuine question since the definition of terrorism leans towards attacking civilians and it just gets overused nowadays imo, but it's not that important :p

Arctine said:
Terrorism is the act of spreading terror to publicise an agenda. Please explain to me when the RAF have done so?
Click to expand...

Huh, you lost me on that one....?
 
Last edited:
arctine said:
Well it's clear why you're talking **** then. You have no idea what terrorism is.
Click to expand...

Well, I do ... I even linked up a recent definition from the UN (even though I stated there is no universally accepted definition)

I got lost by what you were saying because you seemed to be accusing me of saying the RAF were involved in terrorism? :confused:
 
Arazi said:
And as usual you post and down play it and use every other excuse going except the one that it quite possibly is, Islamic terrorism.

Also, why are we only hearing about it now? This happened at 3pm yesterday, what about local people, how long have they known?

There is potentially two nutters about.
Click to expand...

Where did i down play it?

I even said the chances were someone with political motive. Now don't tell me that the terrorists don't have some sort of political motive. For Islamic extremists, politics and religion is practically the same.
 
Freakbro said:
Well, I do ... I even linked up a recent definition from the UN (even though I stated there is no universally accepted definition)

I got lost by what you were saying because you seemed to be accusing me of saying the RAF were involved in terrorism? :confused:
Click to expand...



No, I'm accusing you of not understanding the difference between military operations and terrorism. You seem to think kidnap/terrorism is a military operation. I'm asking you to look at what the RAF do and understand the clear distinction between that and terrorism.

Also you did not post a definition, you posted someone's description of what it might involve.

Believe me, the loose definition of terrorism is using terror to convey an agenda. You can look in the dictionary for a more comprehensive definition, that's what people usually do.
 
RaohNS said:
Was this man armed and engaged in an active warzone?
Click to expand...

what a stupid stupid question.
when we drop bombs on isis camps do we care if they are armed ?
im not saying these guys were part of isis incase you need to jump elsewhere.

and why would isis care if YOU have marked the uk or france as an active war zone.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
Where did i down play it?

I even said the chances were someone with political motive. Now don't tell me that the terrorists don't have some sort of political motive. For Islamic extremists, politics and religion is practically the same.
Click to expand...

I didn't see Islamic terror in your post for some reason, so don't try to be clever.
 
arctine said:
No, I'm accusing you of not understanding the difference between military operations and terrorism. You seem to think kidnap/terrorism is a military operation. I'm asking you to look at what the RAF do and understand the clear distinction between that and terrorism.
Click to expand...

Actually I think I understand it better than you think you do as the line isn't as clear as you think it is ;) (But for clarification I do not think the RAF are involved in Terrorism LOL - Else I would be a supporter of Terrorism with my work links with the RAF :p)

A state can and does use it military personnel to engage in Terrorism (and Kidnap), in fact that's where the origin of the word came from, the French State Terrorism enacted during the Reign of Terror.

But a more modern definition used does generally mean a non-state individual

Have some reading material

"Terrorism" comes from the French word terrorisme,[5] and originally referred specifically to state terrorism as practiced by the French government during the 1793–1794 Reign of Terror. The French word terrorisme in turn derives from the Latin verb terrere (e, terreo) meaning "to frighten".[6] The terror cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in Rome in response to the approach of warriors of the Cimbri tribe in 105 BCE that the Jacobins cited as a precedent when imposing the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution.[7][8] After the Jacobins lost power, the word "terrorist" became a term of abuse.[9]

Although "terrorism" originally referred to acts committed by a government, currently it usually refers to the killing of innocent people[10] for political purposes in such a way as to create a spectacle. This meaning can be traced back to Sergey Nechayev, who described himself as a "terrorist".[11] Nechayev founded the Russian terrorist group "People's Retribution" (Народная расправа) in 1869.[12]

In November 2004, a Secretary-General of the United Nations report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act"

The definition of terrorism has proven controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged

These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.[17] The international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities
Click to expand...

arctine said:
Also you did not post a definition, you posted someone's description of what it might involve.

Believe me, the loose definition of terrorism is using terror to convey an agenda. You can look in the dictionary for a more comprehensive definition, that's what people usually do.
Click to expand...

I know what the loose definition is and what the one line dictionary definition is.

But like I keep saying, since there is no one legally recognised definition I just raised a simple talking point, nothing for you to get so defensive about that you needed to start swearing :D
 
Last edited:
Freakbro said:
Actually I think I understand it better than you
Click to expand...

I know you do, that is much of the problem.

To make this even easier, stop focusing on the subject of the attack but instead on the attack itself, you're focusing on the least ambiguous aspect and I don't know why.
 
arctine said:
To make this even easier, stop focusing on the subject of the attack but instead on the attack itself, you're focusing on the least ambiguous aspect and I don't know why.
Click to expand...

Well that would be difficult as it's exactly the subject of the attack (military personnel) why I query the use of the word

If you seem to be saying that Kidnap automatically makes it a terror attack and not a military one (are you?) then I would strongly disagree with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom