The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

why isn't he labelled a terrorist?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by the north
thats what i said mate, i just wanted to say that even not planning an attack doesn't stop you from being a terroist


I missed your point. However Mr McGee had no links to terrorism. The pair who were convicted had direct links to terrorist groups.
Original post by the north
im saying that not planning attacks doesn't stop you from a being a terrorist. they were charged with attending a terrorist camp under terrorism act 2006 even though they never intended to commit terrorist acts


They intended to commit terrorist acts abroad. Why else would you go to a terrorist training camp?
Reply 62
Avatar for the north
the north
OP
12
Original post by DiddyDec
They intended to commit terrorist acts abroad. Why else would you go to a terrorist training camp?

intention never played a part in there conviction that fact that they were in "Attendance at a place used for terrorist training" ​under terrorism act 2006 makes it an offence mate
Reply 63
Avatar for HAnwar
HAnwar
17
Original post by Aj12
Do you have examples or evidence or is this just how you think it would be? If you could give an example of a Muslim being arrested with a bomb an utterly no intention to use it?


Someone already posted a link below. I have known people in real life who have been jailed under the terrorist act when there was only 'suspicion' and no evidence whatsoever.

Original post by Aj12

If you could show where I said it was ok to possess bombs? Yes it was wrong to build a bomb, that goes without saying.


I didn't say you did, I was just asking a question.

Original post by DiddyDec
Actually he has been sentenced to 2 years in prison.

Come on at least do some basic research before making such ridiculous claims.


Just 2 years because he was created the bomb 'out of boredom'? Is this some kind of joke?
Original post by HAnwar
Just 2 years because he was created the bomb 'out of boredom'? Is this some kind of joke?


I think 2 years is a perfect amount of time. He has not harmed anyone in creating the bomb. It was a silly thing to do and now he is paying the price.
Reply 65
Avatar for HAnwar
HAnwar
17
Original post by G8D
Funnily enough the 'emotionally immature' or similar argument is often used to the benefit of muslim sex offenders. The argument usually goes that their culture didn't teach them to respect woman or the like. We all know it.


Lol if it was my choice they'd receive the death penalty. Sadly it isn't.
Original post by HAnwar
Someone already posted a link below. I have known people in real life who have been jailed under the terrorist act when there was only 'suspicion' and no evidence whatsoever.


Sure you do

Just 2 years because he was created the bomb 'out of boredom'? Is this some kind of joke?


2 years rehabilitation for creating a nail bomb but not harming anyone, what's the problem?
Reply 67
Avatar for HAnwar
HAnwar
17
Original post by G8D
I fixed that for you.


So you prefer Muslim sex offenders walking the streets freely? Cool.
Reply 68
Avatar for HAnwar
HAnwar
17
Original post by h3isenberg
Sure you do


Yes I do. Not my problem if you don't believe me.

Original post by h3isenberg
2 years rehabilitation for creating a nail bomb but not harming anyone, what's the problem?


How do you know he wasn't going to?
Reply 69
Avatar for HAnwar
HAnwar
17
Original post by G8D
Why are there only two options? Death penalty or free? :s-smilie:


Because the others clearly aren't working.

Original post by G8D
Is this a real question? What we 'know' is irrelevant. There was insufficient evidence to even bring a case for terrorism never mind prove one.

Any assumption otherwise is pure speculation and can't be used to prove or support any point you're trying to make.


Like I said, we know why he was let off lightly.
Reply 70
Avatar for HAnwar
HAnwar
17
Original post by G8D
You can make say what you like but you don't speak for 'we'. And I'd suggest that from our brief exchange you actually know very little about the criminal justice system, to assert you know a sentence was light is laughable.


I'm sure I speak for most Muslims. 2 year sentence is quite a laugh.

Original post by G8D
You have a real habit of ignoring my posts and replying with bare assertions. You know repeating yourself doesn't make truth, right?


Lol what posts?
terrorism is a label defined by the media/government. They essentially get to decide who/what is terrorism/criminal behaviour, which then justifies any response we may or may not take in light of that.

For example, there is a thread just below this one about Mexican criminals skinning civilizians. They are criminals. Chop someones head off in Iraq and you're a terrorist. One requires intervention, the other gets put on the back burner.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Shueb95
Don't think a white Cristian has ever been labelled a terrorist, correct me if I'm wrong.


You're wrong.

I give you mr Timothy McVeigh.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

Terrorism in generally defined as


the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Original post by MatureStudent36
You're wrong.

I give you mr Timothy McVeigh.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

Terrorism in generally defined as


the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.


And I encourage everyone to reflect on what 'authorisation' really means.
Original post by FrostyLemon
And I encourage everyone to reflect on what 'authorisation' really means.


Authorisation is sanctioned by a governing body.
There isn't sufficient info to say much, but the article suggests that the reason is there's no indication that this guy intended to use these items to carry out acts of terror. It seems from what little info we were given that he is obsessed with weaponry for its own sake, rather than as a means to an end.
Original post by Shueb95
Don't think a white Cristian has ever been labelled a terrorist, correct me if I'm wrong.


Have you heard of the IRA?
He is a (potential) terrorist, but not an Islamist, much like Anders Breivik. (Although he is a fascist, and there isn't much difference.)

The "war on terror" should have been called the war on Islamism, and then we wouldn't have this confusion.
Original post by felamaslen
He is a (potential) terrorist, but not an Islamist, much like Anders Breivik. (Although he is a fascist, and there isn't much difference.)

The "war on terror" should have been called the war on Islamism, and then we wouldn't have this confusion.


I guess they should've just called it the war on a group if nutters who are using terror to promote a backward viewpoint on Islam.
Original post by MatureStudent36
I guess they should've just called it the war on a group if nutters who are using terror to promote a backward viewpoint on Islam.


Or in shortened form, the "war on Islamism".

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you