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

Vehicle collides with pedestrians in London Finsbury Park Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SMEGGGY)
    Amber Rudd Home Secretary says it's NOT a terror attack.

    Why? :facepalm:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    She is a younger version of Theresa May. Has as much common sense or compassion as a turd.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SMEGGGY)
    I wrote that

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Why the hell is your profile pic of a semi-naked guy? I mean, it's a pretty decent body to be fair to the person (or you?) but still, why?
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Omg,some of the white supremacists on this thread justifying the attack make me feel so :puke:
    (You know who you are)

    Go **** yourselfs.

    As for the The attack. Something needs to be done against the rise of anti Muslim hatred. They are the largest victims of terrorism. Much love <3
    Muslims are the largest victims of terrorism in the UK?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SMEGGGY)
    Amber Rudd Home Secretary says it's NOT a terror attack.

    Why? :facepalm:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I thought she initially said it was.

    Well to be a terror attack, it usually has to be politically, religiously or ideologically motivated. This attack as horrific as it is, probably didn't fall into this category, and more in the category of hate/revenge.

    I usually dislike the DailyMail, but it is reporting more details than others at the moment (due to pretty much quoting witness statements): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...de-mosque.html

    Some interesting reports:

    Today, Toufik Kacimi, chief executive of the Muslim Welfare House, said the suspect had shouted 'I did my bit' after carrying out the attack.

    Another witness, who wanted to be identified as Abdulrahman, which is not his real name, said he was one of the people who helped to remove the driver from the van.'He wanted to run away and was saying, "I want to kill Muslims",' he said.'So he came back to the main road and I managed to get him to the ground and me and some other guys managed to hold him until the police arrived, for about 20 minutes I think, until the police arrived.'Abdulrahman claimed the driver said "kill me" as he was held on the ground.

    He said: 'The driver jumped out and then he was pinned down to the floor and people were punching him and beating him, which was reasonable because of what he's done.'And then the imam of the mosque actually came out and said "Don't hit him, hand him over to the police, pin him down".'
    'Our imam went there and saved the life of the attacker. There is a wild video which you can see filmed by one of our worshippers and you can see clearly our imam saving the life of this guy and the guy at this time was saying “I did my bit”.'
    Good on the Imam, in these situations, it would have been very easy for people to have killed him.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NickLCFC)
    The person who did this was a WHITE MAN. This was an Islamophobic terrorist attack.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: Islamophobia is a much bigger problem in the UK than so-called "Islamic terrorism".
    I would think this was sarcasm but you got 27 reps so idk.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    PM May very well managed speech, words were well thought out. Good on her. Let the haters not divide British communities.

    :yy:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed2010)
    She is a younger version of Theresa May. Has as much common sense or compassion as a turd.
    No, TM is a decent, intelligent lady.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    When this is the UK's fourth terror attack in only four months, it makes me think that there's more that can be done to stop this, because the problem runs pretty deep.

    Sure, we can arrest this guy and put him in prison so that he can't "kill all Muslims" now, but this is just dealing with a symptom of the problem. Something needs to change, or else attacks like this will keep happening again and again.


    Personally I believe that:

    - Punishments are not harsh enough. People commit these attacks knowing perfectly well they will get arrested or shot by police, but they still do it. We need to issue extreme penalties so that there is genuine fear of the consequences.

    - People who have been identified as radicalised terror threats or extreme mental health cases should not just be allowed to walk free, as an accident waiting to happen. I'm specifically thinking of the London Bridge attack where one perpetrator was already known to the authorities as a risk, and I don't see why he was allowed to walk the streets and hire vans as he pleased.

    - We need to look at why this "Islam vs. the rest of the world" subtext is taking hold in some people's minds. Why do people perceive Muslims and non-Muslims to be enemies of each other? I think that from all sides, we need to seriously consider things like our foreign policy, inclusiveness and integration into society and media reporting, and how they might be impacting our long term safety and security.


    These three areas should be addressed to that people are no longer inclined to commit such attacks in the first place, physically restricted in their ability to commit them even if they are inclined to, and made to think twice and thrice about the repercussions upon themselves if they commit an attack even after that.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The left is going crazy over this JK Rowling etc but if it was the right we would be 'exploiting a tragedy'
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SMEGGGY)
    No, TM is a decent, intelligent lady.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    There's nothing decent or intelligent about refusing to meet victims of preventable man-made disaster. Until you're mocked into doing it after several days.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mashbbk)
    I thought she initially said it was.

    Well to be a terror attack, it usually has to be politically, religiously or ideologically motivated. This attack as horrific as it is, probably didn't fall into this category, and more in the category of hate/revenge.

    I usually dislike the DailyMail, but it is reporting more details than others at the moment (due to pretty much quoting witness statements): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...de-mosque.html

    Some interesting reports:









    Good on the Imam, in these situations, it would have been very easy for people to have killed him.
    There is no legal or academic consensus on what is terrorism. However, what there is agreement on is this. All acts of terror are hate crimes not all hate crimes are act of terror. However, if you dislike a group of people and then that hate motivates you to violently attack them to support a cause (political and or religious) it is usually agreed by legal and academic experts that is terrorism.

    This person hates Muslims (hate crime) and according to authorities and witnesses did it to further a cause (taking revenge for Islamic terrorist). Which crosses the line from a hate crime to an act of terror. Hence why the police are treating it as a suspected terrorist attack.

    It was political motivated violence. Also known as, you guessed it. Terrorism.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed2010)
    There is no legal or academic consensus on what is terrorism. However, what there is agreement on is this. All acts of terror are hate crimes not all hate crimes are act of terror. However, if you dislike a group of people and then that hate motivates you to violently attack them to support a cause (political and or religious) it is usually agreed by legal and academic experts that is terrorism.

    This person hates Muslims (hate crime) and according to authorities and witnesses did it to further a cause (taking revenge for Islamic terrorist). Which crosses the line from a hate crime to an act of terror. Hence why the police are treating it as a suspected terrorist attack.

    It was political motivated violence. Also known as, you guessed it. Terrorism.
    Believe me, I am not going to be against people calling this terrorism, but was this actually politically motivated violence, or simply a hate crime? Also, I don't think taking revenge for Islamic terrorism is to further a cause, but again, merely hate crime.

    Would your interpretation mean, that black people hating and subsequently killing white people on the back of a cop killing black people, also be defined as a terror attack?

    Again, I have no problem if they both were classified as terror attacks, I just felt there was a distinction.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It's very interesting how when this happens the politicans are quick to jump around saying "there can be no islamophobia!", but when the other attacks happened which were perpetrated by Muslims themselves, there was almost no mention of Islam amongst politicians.

    It really is pathetic how sympathetic they are being to these people when it is their ideology which is driving the terrorist attacks and also the hatred/'islamophobia' against them.

    But sure god forbid we offend the muslims who won't accept responsibility and enjoy pointing the finger elsewhere.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by glad-he-ate-her)
    Did I say we shouldn't condemn them?
    All I said is the white people who say this was revenge are sympathising with acts of terror.
    You completely ignored the post you were replying to.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    When this is the UK's fourth terror attack in only four months, it makes me think that there's more that can be done to stop this, because the problem runs pretty deep.

    Sure, we can arrest this guy and put him in prison so that he can't "kill all Muslims" now, but this is just dealing with a symptom of the problem. Something needs to change, or else attacks like this will keep happening again and again.


    Personally I believe that:

    - Punishments are not harsh enough. People commit these attacks knowing perfectly well they will get arrested or shot by police, but they still do it. We need to issue extreme penalties so that there is genuine fear of the consequences.

    - People who have been identified as radicalised terror threats or extreme mental health cases should not just be allowed to walk free, as an accident waiting to happen. I'm specifically thinking of the London Bridge attack where one perpetrator was already known to the authorities as a risk, and I don't see why he was allowed to walk the streets and hire vans as he pleased.

    - We need to look at why this "Islam vs. the rest of the world" subtext is taking hold in some people's minds. Why do people perceive Muslims and non-Muslims to be enemies of each other? I think that from all sides, we need to seriously consider things like our foreign policy, inclusiveness and integration into society and media reporting, and how they might be impacting our long term safety and security.


    These three areas should be addressed to that people are no longer inclined to commit such attacks in the first place, physically restricted in their ability to commit them even if they are inclined to, and made to think twice and thrice about the repercussions upon themselves if they commit an attack even after that.

    If you dont mind dying for your cause and being a martyr, then just what sort of punishment do you have in mind that will make them fearful?

    There are apparently 23,000 possible jihadis, but 3000 who pose some risk and 500 who they think pose the greatest risk. The London bridge person was in the 20,000 and the lowest for of assessed risk. They dont have unlimited resources, so they have to risk manage. there are also many thousands who they will have zero knowledge of.

    I just dont get this idea about making them think twice.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    It's very interesting how when this happens the politicans are quick to jump around saying "there can be no islamophobia!", but when the other attacks happened which were perpetrated by Muslims themselves, there was almost no mention of Islam amongst politicians.

    It really is pathetic how sympathetic they are being to these people when it is their ideology which is driving the terrorist attacks and also the hatred/'islamophobia' against them.

    But sure god forbid we offend the muslims who won't accept responsibility and enjoy pointing the finger elsewhere.
    Islam was mentioned many times, Theresa May herself stated “They are bound together by the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism that preaches hatred, sows division and promotes sectarianism.”

    Also, the government, rightfully, doesn't want a backlash to happen on Muslims (a minority in the UK) by demonising Islam. Them however calling for people to not be Islamophobic, protects people from having Muslims who feel the country is against them. Win win for everyone?

    Also, it is disgusting that you think Muslims are somehow responsible for terror attacks and that they enjoy finger pointing.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed2010)
    There's nothing decent or intelligent about refusing to meet victims of preventable man-made disaster. Until you're mocked into doing it after several days.
    She made a mistake. She's rectified it I'd say. We're talking about her managing of the incident today nothing else.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    It's very interesting how when this happens the politicans are quick to jump around saying "there can be no islamophobia!", but when the other attacks happened which were perpetrated by Muslims themselves, there was almost no mention of Islam amongst politicians.

    It really is pathetic how sympathetic they are being to these people when it is their ideology which is driving the terrorist attacks and also the hatred/'islamophobia' against them.

    But sure god forbid we offend the muslims who won't accept responsibility and enjoy pointing the finger elsewhere.
    Repetitive...

    Islam is not behind muslim attacks of terror but a distortion of Islam by the perps. Racial hatred should not be tolerated.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mashbbk)
    What I mean is, the guy you was quoting was making the joke of asking people to go and condemn the attacks, do stuff to stop this from happening etc - which obviously is ludicrous as like you said, default position is condemnation (and there is nothing you could have done to stop the attack).

    Yet, Muslims were criticised (not buy you perhaps, but many others) for not making more of a public hoohaa with the condemnation (though from what I saw, Twitter, Facebook, media interviews etc all had just that!), some even to the point that we are responsible and that we need to do more to stop it (even after having reported said suspects several times to authorities).
    I agree that it is ridiculous to assume support as the default position until modified by unsolicited condemnation.
    However, when lack of condemnation is pointed out and condemnation suggested, a refusal to elicit a condemnatory response must surely raise eyebrows, at least?

    Care to link me to some of these ISOC members (presuming they aren't troll accounts), if so that is quite worrying.
    I can't because
    1. I'm permabanned from the Faith and Spirituality section (for discussing religious issues - yes, I know! I can't understand it either) so I can't tag posts.
    2. One tends to fall foul of certain mods if you point out the extremist views of specific members.
    Suffice to say that if you read through the pages after the Manchester attack (from post #3496) you will see people asking why they should condemn it, refusing to condemn it and also some regular posters who are almost daily condemners of attacks on Sunni Muslims, who make no mention of the attack, despite posting condemnations of incidents against Muslims on those same pages (the mods cleared up some of the more inflammatory posts) There are others who do explicitly condemn them as well.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mashbbk)
    Believe me, I am not going to be against people calling this terrorism, but was this actually politically motivated violence, or simply a hate crime? Also, I don't think taking revenge for Islamic terrorism is to further a cause, but again, merely hate crime.

    Would your interpretation mean, that black people hating and subsequently killing white people on the back of a cop killing black people, also be defined as a terror attack?

    Again, I have no problem if they both were classified as terror attacks, I just felt there was a distinction.
    I am Black British, so just nailing my flag firmly in this debate. Of course, being Black should not add much (if at all) weight to the strength of my argument.

    If a Black American, in response to the unjustified murders of Black Americans by police officers, hates police officers and then resorts to using violence towards Police officers to resolve their anger. They are engaging in a political act of violence. Their cause is politically motivated (racial equality and justice) and they resort to violence (physically attacking Police officers) It is a murky grey area, I grant you that.

    However the trouble I think you are having here is that there is a nuance difference between a White person, arguing with a Black person and in the heat of the moment using the N word and hitting them (hate crime). To a White person spending time planning on how they will inflict fear and pain on Black people, then carrying it out by shooting them while they pray in their Church.

    This person traveled from Wales to London and planned an act of violence against Muslim people in order to take revenge. They did this in order to cause maximum fear and pain on Muslim people and achieve a sense of justice. That's not just hate, that person had a political agenda. To inflict pain and fear on British Muslims.

    This is why some legal and academic experts believe the word terrorism is not useful. It should be called political or religious motivated crime.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 27, 2017
  • 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
    How are your GCSEs going so far?
    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.