Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    It's a rather unfortunate state of affairs when people think that, in order to demonstrate that an incident is one of terrorism, all you have to do is point out that the perpetrator is a Muslim, as though that settles the matter.

    On the other hand, where it has been clearly established that violence and threats are being used in an attempt to achieve political aims (e.g. the recent killings of police officers in the US and the stabbing of a politician in the street in the UK), because the perpetrators are not of Muslim origin, we cannot go so far as to describe it as terrorism, even if it fits the definition.


    It appears that "terrorism" has now just become a code word meaning "A Muslim did it, and that alone makes it worse than if anyone else did it".
    He shouted "Allah Akbar" before killing people. So definitely a Muslim terror attack.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    No it's not. It fits an known modus operandi.
    The problem with that is that it creates a situation in which, as long as the perpetrator is Muslim, any use of violence will be described as terrorism, regardless of (whether we know) what the actual motivation was.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    "Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt."


    "Great results, can be achieved with small forces."


    "So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak."


    "You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended."


    -Sun Tzu-


    It seems to me the French government failed again. The French leader knows nothing about the art of war? If so, he will fail again. And more innocent people will surely die.


    Name:  1468571010145.jpg
Views: 95
Size:  17.1 KB


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    The problem with that is that it creates a situation in which, as long as the perpetrator is Muslim, any use of violence will be described as terrorism, regardless of (whether we know) what the actual motivation was.
    Not true

    a Muslim attacking person in the street would not be terrorism.

    A muslim running down men women and children while shouting allah ackbar while armed would be considered as terrorism.

    Do you agree this attack was a case of Islamic terrorism.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    He shouted "Allah Akbar" before killing people. So definitely a Muslim terror attack.
    How exactly does that make it a terrorist attack?

    It confirms that the person is (most likely) a Muslim, sure. But how do you know that it is a Muslim terrorist attack, as opposed to just an attack committed by a Muslim?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skunkboy)
    "Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt."


    "Great results, can be achieved with small forces."


    "So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak."


    "You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended."


    -Sun Tzu-


    It seems to me the French government failed again. The French leader knows nothing about the art of war? If so, he will fail again. And more innocent people will surely die.


    Name:  1468571010145.jpg
Views: 95
Size:  17.1 KB


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The failure is for the west to accept who is the enemy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skunkboy)
    "Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt."


    "Great results, can be achieved with small forces."


    "So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak."


    "You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended."


    -Sun Tzu-


    It seems to me the French government failed again. The French leader knows nothing about the art of war? If so, he will fail again. And more innocent people will surely die.


    Name:  1468571010145.jpg
Views: 95
Size:  17.1 KB


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The failure is for the west to accept who is the enemy.


    “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
    Sun Tzu, The Art of War
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    a Muslim attacking person in the street would not be terrorism.

    A muslim running down men women and children while shouting allah ackbar while armed would be considered as terrorism.
    That's not the definition of terrorism though.


    The first scenario could quite easily be terrorism. For example, the killing of Lee Rigby was "a Muslim attacking a person in the street", and that certainly was terrorism.

    The second scenario could quite easily not be terrorism. As an example, a person could potentially do that if they simply had a mental illness. Plenty of armed massacres of civilians in history have been the result of factors other than terrorism.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    The failure is for the west to accept who is the enemy.
    "Islamic" extremists like ISIS are the enemy, normal muslims like Sadiq Khan and Jamala are our friends.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    How exactly does that make it a terrorist attack?

    It confirms that the person is (most likely) a Muslim, sure. But how do you know that it is a Muslim terrorist attack, as opposed to just an attack committed by a Muslim?
    We know because he shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he was running people over and shooting them.

    Are you a Muslim out of interest? Is that the root cause of your absurd denial of something which is obvious to everyone else?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    That's not the definition of terrorism though.


    The first scenario could quite easily be terrorism. For example, the killing of Lee Rigby was "a Muslim attacking a person in the street", and that certainly was terrorism.

    The second scenario could quite easily not be terrorism. As an example, a person could potentially do that if they simply had a mental illness. Plenty of armed massacres of civilians in history have been the result of factors other than terrorism.
    But you said any Muslim using violence

    this is not the case

    also you didn't answer my question.

    But why are you trying to down play this?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig1998)
    "Islamic" extremists like ISIS are the enemy, normal muslims like Sadiq Khan and Jamala are our friends.
    all are followers of the same ideology and all of them can change their interpretation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    all are followers of the same ideology and all of them can change their interpretation.
    They can change their interpretation, but whether they are evil enough to have the desire to is another matter.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    We know because he shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he was running people over and shooting them.
    What does "Allahu Akbar" mean?
    I was under the impression that all Muslims say this as a matter of course, terrorist or not.*

    ***
    Are you a Muslim out of interest? Is that the root cause of your absurd denial of something which is obvious to everyone else?
    I am not "denying" anything. I just want the logic to be clearly spelled out i.e. what exactly constitutes a terrorist attack (as opposed to any other kind of attack), and how do we know this was one?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig1998)
    They can change their interpretation, but whether they are evil enough to have the desire to is another matter.
    and as we know anything can be a trigger and this is the problem as it results in us living on fear of causing offence should someone find allah and get stabby or now we see then same as we see the palestinians doing to the Israeli's using vehicles to cause mass slaughter.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    What does "Allahu Akbar" mean?
    I was under the impression that all Muslims say this as a matter of course, terrorist or not.*

    ***


    I am not "denying" anything. I just want the logic to be clearly spelled out i.e. what exactly constitutes a terrorist attack (as opposed to any other kind of attack), and how do we know this was one?
    I see you ask a lot of questions but don't answer them
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    But you said any Muslim using violence

    this is not the case
    So then can you spell it out clearly and unambiguously to me, what kind of violence is terrorism and what kind of violence is not terrorism?*

    also you didn't answer my question.
    Your question was: "Do you agree this attack was a case of Islamic terrorism."

    So far, the only evidence I've been given indicates that the man was most likely to be a Muslim (i.e. of part Tunisian nationality, and using the phrase "Allahu Akbar", which is typical of Muslims).

    So I agree that this attack was done by a Muslim. I'm now just waiting to hear specifically what about it makes it a Muslim terrorist attack, as opposed to any other kind of attack committed by a Muslim.

    I thought this was already implicitly clear from my previous post, but perhaps not.
    **
    But why are you trying to down play this?
    I'm not downplaying it, I'm just asking questions about what you think constitutes terrorism.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    I see you ask a lot of questions but don't answer them
    I've answered your question.

    I agree that the person was Muslim. But since you've said that Muslims can commit both terrorist and non-terrorist attacks, I'm waiting to hear the explanation as to why this has been classified as a terrorist attack.

    (i.e. what is the political agenda behind it?)*
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I've answered your question.*
    Answer his then
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    How exactly does that make it a terrorist attack?

    It confirms that the person is (most likely) a Muslim, sure. But how do you know that it is a Muslim terrorist attack, as opposed to just an attack committed by a Muslim?
    It would be a terrorist attack if it was intended to (a) make ordinary people afraid of going about their normal lives, (b) disrupt normal business and events and (c) is part of an overall policy to carry out that disruption.

    In this instance we await evidence that the perpetrator was inspired by the views and actions of a terrorist organisation.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.