Shooting outside the House of Commons

[che_don_john]

This is not correct. Rigby's killing was most assuredly terrorism and it was not classified as such merely because his attackers were Muslims. His murder told people at the scene he was killed. They even had a 2 page explanation to give to authorities.

Terrorism is violence used to achieve a political, religious, or idealogical goal. To say it was only terrorism because Muslims were involved is either ignorant (not necessarily you just the statement) or intellectually dishonest.

It would have been classed as terrorism if it were the IRA killing him in the name of revenge against the British Army or for that matter, a Catholic priest killing him because the Church of England is the state church and he wanted revenge against the government for making it so.

Well, there are many examples of how similar murders are not treated as terrorist acts. Take Peter Sutcliffe, for example. He claimed God had told him to murder those women - but was he defined as a Christian terrorist? Or those two Russian Jehovah's Witnesses who went on a killing spree ten years ago on their mission from God - they were reported as deranged nutters, rather than as terrorists.

Those last examples you gave are more easily defined as terrorism because the perpetrators would identify with a defined cause and/or movement; whereas that guy who killed Lee Rigby expressed a more personal vendetta against the British establishment (yes, influenced by AQ and IS propaganda, but not acting on their behalf; they probably claimed responsibility, but then they always do, even when it's news to them!).

I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with you; just pointing out the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the definition of terrorism.

 

[blueonblue]

The Saudis and Iran could solve this whole problem tomorrow. If there was a will to do so.

Unfortunately not the case, Pakistan has become a breeding ground for the extremist elements since the 80s.

 

[better dead than red]

Well, there are many examples of how similar murders are not treated as terrorist acts. Take Peter Sutcliffe, for example. He claimed God had told him to murder those women - but was he defined as a Christian terrorist? Or those two Russian Jehovah's Witnesses who went on a killing spree ten years ago on their mission from God - they were reported as deranged nutters, rather than as terrorists.

Those last examples you gave are more easily defined as terrorism because the perpetrators would identify with a defined cause and/or movement; whereas that guy who killed Lee Rigby expressed a more personal vendetta against the British establishment (yes, influenced by AQ and IS propaganda, but not acting on their behalf; they probably claimed responsibility, but then they always do, even when it's news to them!).

I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with you; just pointing out the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the definition of terrorism.

I see your point. All too often the narrative for events are set by the government and the news media. Are they always honest? I'd say no. They obviously have an agenda. Now please excuse me while I place my metal collander on my head.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Well, there are many examples of how similar murders are not treated as terrorist acts. Take Peter Sutcliffe, for example. He claimed God had told him to murder those women - but was he defined as a Christian terrorist? Or those two Russian Jehovah's Witnesses who went on a killing spree ten years ago on their mission from God - they were reported as deranged nutters, rather than as terrorists.

Those last examples you gave are more easily defined as terrorism because the perpetrators would identify with a defined cause and/or movement; whereas that guy who killed Lee Rigby expressed a more personal vendetta against the British establishment (yes, influenced by AQ and IS propaganda, but not acting on their behalf; they probably claimed responsibility, but then they always do, even when it's news to them!).

I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with you; just pointing out the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the definition of terrorism.

Rubbish. Sutcliffe only said God told him to do it when it got to trial because he wanted to be sentenced under insanity. He initially made no mention of it

 

[Tuearts right boot]

Just seen the footage of May been whisked away, looked very unprofessional to me, they didn't have the car keys, went to the wrong car, if that was POTUS, he'd have bee surrounded and bundled into a car almost carried into it, looking at a May she looked like she'd come out the Trafford centre and forgot where she had parked.

Lol...how ever so British.

 

[Damocles]

Unfortunately not the case, Pakistan has become a breeding ground for the extremist elements since the 80s.

I was thinking of a joint Saudi/Iranian coalition as the leaders of Sunni and Shiite Islam in the area, who were desperate to eradicate this terrorism, would probably solve this problem. They wouldn't get all of them but they'd get enough. And maybe they could agree to let democracy thrive in Syria in this outlandish fantasy world that we're temporarily visiting.

However the interest doesn't seem to be there from the Saudi side and it's more like they're whispering sweet nothings than helping. Although having said that, the intelligence community thinks they're brilliant so maybe they're doing some stuff behind the scenes that the press isn't really aware of?

 

[che_don_john]

Rubbish. Sutcliffe only said God told him to do it when it got to trial because he wanted to be sentenced under insanity. He initially made no mention of it

But he did still mention it and regardless of his intention (which, yes, we all know) he was never identified as a religious terrorist. Now ask yourself this: had Rigby's killer made no mention of Allah until later in his trial, do you think that the press would have refrained from defining him as a terrorist (saying "Oh he's just saying that to plead insanity") or do you think that they would have seized upon such a declaration?

Yes, it's a hypothetical question, but a very valid one and one which I think we all know the answer to.

Your counterpoint to mine is really a red herring because it says something only of Sutcliffe's feeble defence and not anything about the way in which the press/media report on such declarations. Had the press reported "Sutcliffe claims divine inspiration: was he a terrorist?" then you'd have a point, but they didn't.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I was thinking of a joint Saudi/Iranian coalition as the leaders of Sunni and Shiite Islam in the area, who were desperate to eradicate this terrorism, would probably solve this problem. They wouldn't get all of them but they'd get enough. And maybe they could agree to let democracy thrive in Syria in this outlandish fantasy world that we're temporarily visiting.

However the interest doesn't seem to be there from the Saudi side and it's more like they're whispering sweet nothings than helping. Although having said that, the intelligence community thinks they're brilliant so maybe they're doing some stuff behind the scenes that the press isn't really aware of?

The Saudis and Iranians are actually competing for influence within the region so there's little prospect of them working together. It's a Sunni v Shia conflict at its most simplistic.

In fact the Saudis currently have more in common with Israel than they do with Iran and appear to be working closely with them to halt the spread of Iranian influence. There's even rumours that the Saudis could establish formal diplomatic relations with Israel within the next few years. That would be a game-changer if it happened.

 

[inbetween]

100% this.

You can't beat an idea with bombs.

Not without genocide anyway.

The last form of fascism that we had took the destruction of most of Europe, North Africa, India and Asia to kill and even then we still had fascism in numerous places around the globe. And that was against an actual physical enemy. We can't win this war with guns, we can only win it through good intelligence sharing and diplomacy.

The Saudis and Iran could solve this whole problem tomorrow. If there was a will to do so.

Intelligence, containment and education solves this problem for that is what it is, a war suggests an enemy and there is no direct known enemy bar a handful of lunatics in Syria who call themselves ISIS. What happened this week was no different to a nutcase grabbing a gun and firing it randomly in a shopping centre, it is not a war. It is not a religous war either, it is just a problem of vulnerable or even total lunatics who are turned to reject society and believe the mumbo jumbo they are fed.

In WW2 people were killed everyday both on the front line and at home during the blitz. In this 'war' yes we have seen 4 tragically lose their lives but lets not forget this is the first terror attack on UK soil since 2007. Despite the horrific and tragic circumstances it is not a big problem in the grand scheme of things, a vast amount more UK nationals were killed in cold blood over the last decade for other reasons than by terrorists.

It has nothing to do with religion because Islam has been around for decades and terrorism has never been a problem. Terrorism has risen because there is an increasing number of people being poisoned online by a very small number of equally mentally troubled individuals. It is no different to the online paedophile culture on the dark web albeit at a different level, these people are just nutters and unfortunately it is far too easy for vulnerable individuals to be seduced and swayed to that cause.

Dropping a bomb on an area in the Middle East might make us feel better but it only goes to reinforce for these individuals that what they are doing is right. That after all is how they have been seduced and poisoned against civilized society in the first place.

I really do believe that the reason the Saudi's and so on won't touch this is because it has nothing to do with them. Every terrorist attack committed in Europe, the US and here has been committed by individuals of those countries. If you look at the extended backgrounds of those people, they often once came from poorer Islamic countries in Africa, not the Middle Eastern states.

I have worked in Saudi Arabia and around the Middle East for a couple of years and although their religion is law, they are just very nice and hospitable people, I just don't think you can associate a country with this problem.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

But he did still mention it and regardless of his intention (which, yes, we all know) he was never identified as a religious terrorist. Now ask yourself this: had Rigby's killer made no mention of Allah until later in his trial, do you think that the press would have refrained from defining him as a terrorist (saying "Oh he's just saying that to plead insanity") or do you think that they would have seized upon such a declaration?

Yes, it's a hypothetical question, but a very valid one and one which I think we all know the answer to.

Your counterpoint to mine is really a red herring because it says something only of Sutcliffe's feeble defence and not anything about the way in which the press/media report on such declarations. Had the press reported "Sutcliffe claims divine inspiration: was he a terrorist?" then you'd have a point, but they didn't.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or where you are coming from, sorry.