What if the London attack wasn’t an act of terrorism?

Interesting article on the Conversation by senior History lecturer Steve Hewitt at the University of Birmingham.



Hewitt explains: "With (Westminster attacker) Masood, a step has been skipped. Instead of establishing that the London attack was an act of terrorism by providing evidence as to the perpetrator’s motivation, speculation has focused on why he became a terrorist."

"Despite the lack of clear evidence on his motivation, there was no nuance in classifying Masood’s act. It was quickly, and widely accepted as terrorism. His religious faith seems to be the key factor in explaining such a definitive determination. After all, considering repeated examples of the reluctance to label violence by white men as terrorism even when a relevant motivation has been established, you have to wonder if this case would have been labelled differently had a non-Muslim carried out the attack."

Read the article - what do you think?

The guy mowed down 20 people in a car, and stabbed and killed a police officer in the capital city of the UK, calling him a terrorist wouldn't be that much of an overstretch.

I do agree that jumping to the conclusion because of his religion is wrong, and it should be based more on the factual evidence and motives behind it.

That said, there's definitely been much more willingness to jump to that conclusion this time around. As I recall, when Jo Cox was murdered it was several days before the media started referring to the assailant as a terrorist, despite the fact that he deliberately targeted and murdered an incumbent politician.

Feels like the media didn't have as much to gain in pointing the finger and calling 'terrorist' under those very sad set of circumstances. Are the media interested in sharing/ spinning a story or creating fear? Pushing fear-based headlines and speculating around mass-immigration and multiculturalism feels far more politically lucrative.

This act had a really simple cause.

The guy converted to Islam in prison and became a Jihadist. As such, he believed that if he was killed in battle, fighting for the faith, allah would reward him as a martyr. That's all there is to it.

Why is this so hard for left wing lecturers at provincial universities or some posters on TSR to comprehend?

How do you know that for sure?

white = mentally ill

black = poverty/ anti-government

asian= terrorist

despite the fact that he deliberately targeted and murdered an incumbent politician.

I don't know anything for sure, I don't even know whether you even actually exist "for sure."

But it is a realistic working assumption based on what we know of this case.

How do you know that for sure?

Despite the lack of clear evidence on his motivation, there was no nuance in classifying Masood’s act. It was quickly, and widely accepted as terrorism. His religious faith seems to be the key factor in explaining such a definitive determination. After all, considering repeated examples of the reluctance to label violence by white men as terrorism even when a relevant motivation has been established, you have to wonder if this case would have been labelled differently had a non-Muslim carried out the attack.

That is why the term “terrorist” is guarded so jealously. It’s a restriction on who, and what, is allowed to terrify us.

From what had been reported in this press, this guy had serious issues with violence before converting to Islam. While I'm not convinced there isn't an Islamist motive, I do wonder if his commitment to cause was secondary to the guy simply being an utter c***.

Arguably, any politically motivated attack can be considered terrorism. So it's a reasonable, if not entirely watertight conclusion that an attack on the Houses of Parliament is going to be terror-related.

That said, there's definitely been much more willingness to jump to that conclusion this time around. As I recall, when Jo Cox was murdered it was several days before the media started referring to the assailant as a terrorist, despite the fact that he deliberately targeted and murdered an incumbent politician.

There's already a word for that: assassination. That is the word that has always been used for the killing of leaders and other prominent people. This equivalence is nothing but a stupid reaction to the far-right's stupid reaction to Islamic terror attacks.