Join TSR now and chat with students like youSign up now

Chain reaction attacks Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Seeing the news this morning about the white man who did a Jihad style terrorist attack on muslims during Ramadam when mosques have been most full is a chain reaction attack. I say this because i see this attack as a revenge attack on the Ideology which killed 22 people at the manchester Arena including Children, the London Bridge attack too which killed around 8, if i remember right? As a patriotic English man myself terrorist attacks really wind me up and piss me off because the answer is always as follows " we can not let these people change our way of life" "we need to go on as we have before the attack" which is as good as burying your head in the sand. The total lack of a response from our police and intelligence authorities has impacted the motives of this attack, if wasn't for the previous muslim attacks on British citizens this attack would not of happened. As a nation we are scared to outline the problem, we have confronted far worse in the past we stood up to the Nazi's who with there power in the 1930/1940's could have taken out a group like ISIS domestically within days.

    Then we have the online social justice warrior trolls who post pictures which annoy people just for a reaction, pictures such as the Peter Griffin one with the skintone saying that white people are mentalists whilst brown and black people are terrorists. This annoys me a lot, this attack was described as a terrorist attack after 3 hours it took what seems 3 days to confirm that the Westminster attack was a terrorist attack, it is as if the media is hating on us for being white.


    This is what i mean on both sides they are terrorists, the definition of terrorism is using violence or force to achieve a political aim, whether it is a far right terrorist or a De-ranged scummy Libyan like Salman Abedi who did the Manchester terror attack

    I have also found another article which has wound me up massively on my Facebook news feed being this , ok if he was racially abused or not it does not legitimise running people over on the pavement, the judge then described the attacker as a great family man- the mirror article does not include this assertion but I'm guessing they have cleverly edited that out so it does not wind people up to do more attacks against Muslims. (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...ughed-10615901) Another article confirms the judge said it though (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017...od-family-man/)
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I love how Manchester and London were both initially reported as "incidents" yet because everyone's trying to fight their deep rooted prejudices, this one has immediately been reported as a terrorist attack.

    Great game management by the media.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tubbz)
    I love how Manchester and London were both initially reported as "incidents" yet because everyone's trying to fight their deep rooted prejudices, this one has immediately been reported as a terrorist attack.

    Great game management by the media.
    Black supremacist Diane Abbott described the manchester and two previous attacks as incidents and not terror attacks
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tubbz)
    I love how Manchester and London were both initially reported as "incidents" yet because everyone's trying to fight their deep rooted prejudices, this one has immediately been reported as a terrorist attack.

    Great game management by the media.
    When I was watching the news at around 1-3 am (can't remember exactly), I saw it read as a traffic incident. In the morning, some were still continuing to call it a traffic incident (I recall at least BBC doing so).

    There is a difference between this crime and the others - for example, the attacker in this case was caught alive, while not for the others (so more details needed to be gathered). There were video's of the attacker, what he said (his clear lack of remorse for the attack and other explicits). We got a lot more information about this attack a lot quicker than the other attacks - due to not having to rely more on the police/official investigative information as the Manchester/London attacks. Saying that, the Manchester/London attacks were called a terror incident pretty quickly despite that.

    I feel confirmation bias is clouding your judgement.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    To be fair, the media should only report what is known.
    They shouldn't immediately say "terrorist attack" if a van mows into people, it could have been that the driver had a seizure or some other reason. If he had immediately jumped out with a knife quoting Leviticus, then you could immediatly say it was terrorist.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gerrimouttahere)
    Black supremacist Diane Abbott described the manchester and two previous attacks as incidents and not terror attacks
    Is that not what I said?

    (Original post by mashbbk)
    When I was watching the news at around 1-3 am (can't remember exactly), I saw it read as a traffic incident.

    There is a difference between this crime and the others - for example, the attacker in this case was caught alive, while not for the others (so more details needed to be gathered). There were video's of the attacker, what he said, what was done to him etc. We got a lot more information about this attack a lot quicker than the other attacks - due to not having to rely more on the police/official information as the Manchester/London attacks.
    What has that got to do with the way it is reported? I maintain the papers are only calling this a terror attack to conceal prejudices.

    The first attacks were most certainly terror attacks, they were designed to instil fear. This attack is a hate crime, he's actively targeted a particular demographic, rather than your more traditional terror attack (wow that's a sick statement to have to make) where it's designed to cause chaos and take as many lives as possible, indiscriminately.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tubbz)
    Is that not what I said?

    What has that got to do with the way it is reported? I maintain the papers are only calling this a terror attack to conceal prejudices.
    Subjective.

    The first attacks were most certainly terror attacks, they were designed to instil fear. This attack is a hate crime, he's actively targeted a particular demographic, rather than your more traditional terror attack (wow that's a sick statement to have to make) where it's designed to cause chaos and take as many lives as possible, indiscriminately.
    If you read my posts, I personally classified this as a hate crime, not as a terrorist attack, although some have successfully argued that the terrorism term can be used under some circumstances that pertain to religion or even race. I believe that American guy who killed those two guys for defending the Muslim girls, was also classified as a terrorist by the media, so there seems to be some consistency.

    For example, you say one is a terrorist attack as it's to instill fear, people could argue this attack is there to do just that. When I was trying to justify why this is a hatred attack and not a terrorist attack, I realised I was pretty much overlapping all the things I could have said about the ISIS attacks.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mashbbk)
    Subjective.



    If you read my posts, I personally classified this as a hate crime, not as a terrorist attack, although some have successfully argued that the terrorism term can be used under some circumstances that pertain to religion or even race. I believe that American guy who killed those two guys for defending the Muslim girls, was also classified as a terrorist by the media, so there seems to be some consistency.

    For example, you say one is a terrorist attack as it's to instill fear, people could argue this attack is there to do just that. When I was trying to justify why this is a hatred attack and not a terrorist attack, I realised I was pretty much overlapping all the things I could have said about the ISIS attacks.
    I take your point. I feel like we're arguing the same point but from different directions.

    I think it's wrong that they're describing this attack differently to the others, they're all the same type of attack. The media should just admit that these incidents are all carried out by the same demographic, radicalised nutters.

    The only difference in these attacks is who is being targeted.
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?

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.