Turn on thread page Beta

The media has portrayed a killer of 17 innocent people as a victim! watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by APPLICANT2016)
    1. It is beyond any doubt that suicide bombing is totally forbidden in Islam and people who do this are brainwashed or crazy or evil or all three.


    2. How can we ignore foreign policy? Are we denying that bombing muslim countries and our forces parking there does not create terrorists?
    It does not make it acceptable but to deny it being a root cause is hiding from the truth.
    I don't know the supposed justifications, but it's indisputable that there are people who identify as Muslims consider suicide bombing justified. To simply deny that they are Muslims is very much heading down the 'no true Scotsman' route.

    I haven't suggested ignoring foreign policy, but no, it didn't create the terrorist problem. It can certainly be argued that some elements of foreign policy have exacerbated problems, but organisations such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda seek the destruction of western civilisation, not the removal of foreign troops.
    Online

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustACoincidence)
    This is why gun laws need to changed. If people can access weapons so easily is it's to see why so many killings occur. They need to stop making so stupidly easy for people to build up an arsenal of guns. It makes them a danger to everybody no matter other factors.

    Sure, sometimes other thins come into play but without such easy access to guns they wouldn't be able to actually do anything like that as easily. There needs to be restrictions on who can actually buy guns and how many.

    Action needs to be taken to prevent things like this from happening again. And no - the solution isn't to give everyone a gun so they can fire back. It needs to be to remove the availability of such weapons. Gun shootings are seemingly happening so frequently in American schools but the right action never seems to taken.

    Also, I get that sometimes things can set people in a volatile way and they cause damage. But that boy should never be presented as a victim form his actions. He had a choice and choose to murder his fellow students. If he never had access to a gun, would he have been able to carry out the attack? Almost certainly not. People need to start taking action to prevent future attacks instead of just picking up the pieces when it happens.

    Gun law needs to change; how many dead children will it take before those in charge realise this.
    The pro-gun lobby in the States is too strong. Trump didn’t even mention guns and focused on mental health alone.

    I agree with you. Without gun control, things will sadly get worse. America produces more then its fair share of violent minded mentally unstable people who will keep killing innocent people aided by the lack of gun control.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    You're trying to twist the definition so it encompasses people you don't like. If a Britain First march were to be considered terrorism then virtually any protest would also have to be considered terrorism. In what way is that helpful?
    No, I'm not "twisting" the definition.

    Terrorism :"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

    Not every protest would be considered terrorism, it would do depend what the protest was about and why it is being carried out.

    For example if the Fawcett Society did a peaceful march on equality in the workplace, that would not be considered terrorism. They are not against anyone or imposing hate on a community, but trying to gain fair treatment for everyone in the workplace. Their words are not violent but are simply a cry for help, stating that the workplace is unequal and should change. They're not hurting anyone, physically or mentally, and are not are not aiming the protest at one community, they are aiming the protest at the unfairness of the workplace.

    Britain First directly aims hate at ethnic minorities and Islam. They constantly shout things such as: "get out! get out!" How must the immigrants feel? They've come to make Britain a better place, help our economy and this is how they get repaid? Do you not think it hurts them and causes them pain that certain people believe that they are not welcome in this country? Despite the fact they've done nothing wrong except try to create a better life for themselves? A Muslim man confronted the deputy leader of Britain First, she barely let him speak, raising her voice over him despite the fact he was patient with her and let her speak when it was her turn. He said to her: "show me where in the Qur'an it says kill innocent people." She couldn't do it. Then she accused him of being the enemy. How do you think Muslims feel thinking some people view them that way, just because of what they believe? In the past, the deputy leader has also accused Muslim men of being barbarians. How do you think, good Muslim men feel, doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers and so on feel that they certain people view them this way? They've worked hard to get to their position, and because of their beliefs they are barbaric? Isn't it damaging to the mind knowing these things?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cod3tte)
    No, I'm not "twisting" the definition.

    Terrorism :"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

    Not every protest would be considered terrorism, it would do depend what the protest was about and why it is being carried out.

    For example if the Fawcett Society did a peaceful march on equality in the workplace, that would not be considered terrorism. They are not against anyone or imposing hate on a community, but trying to gain fair treatment for everyone in the workplace. Their words are not violent but are simply a cry for help, stating that the workplace is unequal and should change. They're not hurting anyone, physically or mentally, and are not are not aiming the protest at one community, they are aiming the protest at the unfairness of the workplace.

    Britain First directly aims hate at ethnic minorities and Islam. They constantly shout things such as: "get out! get out!" How must the immigrants feel? They've come to make Britain a better place, help our economy and this is how they get repaid? Do you not think it hurts them and causes them pain that certain people believe that they are not welcome in this country? Despite the fact they've done nothing wrong except try to create a better life for themselves? A Muslim man confronted the deputy leader of Britain First, she barely let him speak, raising her voice over him despite the fact he was patient with her and let her speak when it was her turn. He said to her: "show me where in the Qur'an it says kill innocent people." She couldn't do it. Then she accused him of being the enemy. How do you think Muslims feel thinking some people view them that way, just because of what they believe? In the past, the deputy leader has also accused Muslim men of being barbarians. How do you think, good Muslim men feel, doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers and so on feel that they certain people view them this way? They've worked hard to get to their position, and because of their beliefs they are barbaric? Isn't it damaging to the mind knowing these things?
    The actions of Britain First are appalling imo, at best it’s hateful ignorance. I disagree with their views and their methods, but it isn’t terrorism. Being verbally aggressive isn’t an act of terrorism, spreading hate online isn’t on the same level as killing hundreds of people.

    It’s appalling what they do, but it isn’t illegal. It isn’t “unlawful violence and intimidation.” They have a political agenda, but aren’t pursuing it through unlawful violence. It isn’t terrorism.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cod3tte)
    White privilege.
    Pretty much.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cat_mac)
    The actions of Britain First are appalling imo, at best it’s hateful ignorance. I disagree with their views and their methods, but it isn’t terrorism. Being verbally aggressive isn’t an act of terrorism, spreading hate online isn’t on the same level as killing hundreds of people.

    It’s appalling what they do, but it isn’t illegal. It isn’t “unlawful violence and intimidation.” They have a political agenda, but aren’t pursuing it through unlawful violence. It isn’t terrorism.
    Hi,

    I appreciate that you've approached in such a way, rather than just accusing me of "twisting" the definition.

    There is such a thing as verbal terrorism:
    https://verbalterrorism.wordpress.co...bal-terrorism/

    I believe that is what they are.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Cod3tte)
    No, I'm not "twisting" the definition.

    Terrorism :"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

    Not every protest would be considered terrorism, it would do depend what the protest was about and why it is being carried out.

    For example if the Fawcett Society did a peaceful march on equality in the workplace, that would not be considered terrorism. They are not against anyone or imposing hate on a community, but trying to gain fair treatment for everyone in the workplace. Their words are not violent but are simply a cry for help, stating that the workplace is unequal and should change. They're not hurting anyone, physically or mentally, and are not are not aiming the protest at one community, they are aiming the protest at the unfairness of the workplace.

    Britain First directly aims hate at ethnic minorities and Islam. They constantly shout things such as: "get out! get out!" How must the immigrants feel? They've come to make Britain a better place, help our economy and this is how they get repaid? Do you not think it hurts them and causes them pain that certain people believe that they are not welcome in this country? Despite the fact they've done nothing wrong except try to create a better life for themselves? A Muslim man confronted the deputy leader of Britain First, she barely let him speak, raising her voice over him despite the fact he was patient with her and let her speak when it was her turn. He said to her: "show me where in the Qur'an it says kill innocent people." She couldn't do it. Then she accused him of being the enemy. How do you think Muslims feel thinking some people view them that way, just because of what they believe? In the past, the deputy leader has also accused Muslim men of being barbarians. How do you think, good Muslim men feel, doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers and so on feel that they certain people view them this way? They've worked hard to get to their position, and because of their beliefs they are barbaric? Isn't it damaging to the mind knowing these things?
    Look I don’t think many people like how Britain first organises themselves but what you’re basically suggesting is there is a moral equivalency between someone like Paul Golding and a Islamist like Salman Abedi. You can in no way say British First is committing violence with the intent of political agenda. They do have a political agenda, and I might even agree with small bits of their concerns but it doesn’t mean they’re terrorists. Now look at Antifa, these goons have a political agenda, that is they all are roughly anarchists (or just communists in general), and use violence to justify their political views and hatred for supposedly fascists. And yet, people are sympathetic for the scoundrels, and mainstream media seems to give them praise/ provide platforms for them. If any sort of domestic group deserves to be called terrorists... it is Antifa

    Edit;I don’t believe verbal terrorism is enshrined in law, and as such shouldn’t be tackled in this topic. It has terms which means virtually anyone could label political opponents as such
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Pretty much.
    Have you read the whole thread? That proposition you're agreeing to has been disproven numerable times..
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cod3tte)
    Hi,

    I appreciate that you've approached in such a way, rather than just accusing me of "twisting" the definition.

    There is such a thing as verbal terrorism:
    https://verbalterrorism.wordpress.co...bal-terrorism/

    I believe that is what they are.
    Can you put what you understood from the article you linked in your own words? I don't understand what you want us to see, so it'll help if you gave us your own explanation. All it's telling me is that people with poor debating skills are "verbal terrorists"; as it says poor logic and reasoning and manipulation of ideas and definitions are what contributes to it's "primary aim of disrupting discourse". On top of that, "disrupting discourse" can barely be called any type of terrorism - it's just being non-constructive. To imply "disrupting discourse" (i.e not knowing what you're talking about) is akin to something like 9/11, an actual, undisputed terror attack, is logically questionable.

    Also, your source doesn't look too credible. It appears to be an online blog post written by one person that could've made it up. I googled "verbal terrorism" and there are no better sources to cross-check the content you've provided.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cod3tte)
    Hi,

    I appreciate that you've approached in such a way, rather than just accusing me of "twisting" the definition.

    There is such a thing as verbal terrorism:
    https://verbalterrorism.wordpress.co...bal-terrorism/

    I believe that is what they are.
    To be frank, even the term 'verbal terrorism' is laughable to me, and there is no such official word. 'Verbal terrorism' also seems to connote more significant and fatal themes, similar to terrorism, when it is nowhere near as serious - it is simply defined by the blog as using logical fallacies and many forms of misrepresentation, so it should just be mentioned as such in a discussion to avoid confusion.

    Though up to debate for a few, I do agree that Britain First often uses misrepresentations and fallacies on issues to formulate their beliefs and values on them.
    Online

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    I don't know the supposed justifications, but it's indisputable that there are people who identify as Muslims consider suicide bombing justified. To simply deny that they are Muslims is very much heading down the 'no true Scotsman' route.

    I haven't suggested ignoring foreign policy, but no, it didn't create the terrorist problem. It can certainly be argued that some elements of foreign policy have exacerbated problems, but organisations such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda seek the destruction of western civilisation, not the removal of foreign troops.
    Strongly disagree. There is no basis for saying these groups are seeking destruction of western civilization. I'm afraid that is just made up stuff from idiots like Trump, Blair and Bush to try and justify their presence in the gulf. The fact is there was no Isis or Al-Qaeda until we invaded the Gulf in the pretence of looking for weapons of mass destruction - an illegal and unfounded invasion. We have gone there for the oil and we can deny this to our hearts content but I'm afraid it's true. As a result, we have made the world a far more dangerous place. When we go and bomb other countries and kills thousands of innocent people for their oil, some brainwashed/mental/crazy nutter is going to rebel and seek revenge. That is just a plain and simple fact. Let me repeat - Islam categorically states that suicide bombing and killing of innocents is completely unacceptable. So these people are terrorists and should be executed. But please let's not pretend that our foreign policy of bombing other countries is not to blame. We are going into a different debate here but it has to be stated. Can you imagine if Russia invaded us and planted their forces around the country and started to rule us? Imagine if they killed countless children during their bombing raids and explained it by saying it was collateral damage?

    REPEAT : Under no circumstances does this condone terrorists. It is simply questioning if our foreign policy of invading and occupying muslim countries is breeding these criminals.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by APPLICANT2016)
    Strongly disagree. There is no basis for saying these groups are seeking destruction of western civilization. I'm afraid that is just made up stuff from idiots like Trump, Blair and Bush to try and justify their presence in the gulf. The fact is there was no Isis or Al-Qaeda until we invaded the Gulf in the pretence of looking for weapons of mass destruction - an illegal and unfounded invasion. We have gone there for the oil and we can deny this to our hearts content but I'm afraid it's true. As a result, we have made the world a far more dangerous place. When we go and bomb other countries and kills thousands of innocent people for their oil, some brainwashed/mental/crazy nutter is going to rebel and seek revenge. That is just a plain and simple fact. Let me repeat - Islam categorically states that suicide bombing and killing of innocents is completely unacceptable. So these people are terrorists and should be punished severely. But please let's not pretend that our foreign policy of bombing other countries is not to blame. We are going into a different debate here but it has to be stated.
    I will admit that the problem escalated because of the Soviet-Afghan war in the 1980’s and the West’s funding of the Afghan rebels there. Our weapons supply contributed to more militarised extremists. But let’s not delude ourselves that is the only and root cause of Islamist extremism. It has been there as far as we can tell for the half century or so, and has been motivated by what appears to be the strong hatred for Israel spurring on Individuals to commit acts of terror. Yes, the US has developed a very interventionist policy, mostly to ensure extreme ideologies do not take government and become a threat to Western democracy. It’s not something I agree with, but it cannot be said it is the West’s fault, though the continuous instability perpetrated by the proxy war with the Soviets did not help
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Whether he had a bad life or not, he's taken lives and traumatised others for life.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Online

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CountBrandenburg)
    I will admit that the problem escalated because of the Soviet-Afghan war in the 1980’s and the West’s funding of the Afghan rebels there. Our weapons supply contributed to more militarised extremists. But let’s not delude ourselves that is the only and root cause of Islamist extremism. It has been there as far as we can tell for the half century or so, and has been motivated by what appears to be the strong hatred for Israel spurring on Individuals to commit acts of terror. Yes, the US has developed a very interventionist policy, mostly to ensure extreme ideologies do not take government and become a threat to Western democracy. It’s not something I agree with, but it cannot be said it is the West’s fault, though the continuous instability perpetrated by the proxy war with the Soviets did not help
    You partially agree so that's a start. I also accept that Islamic Extremism is a problem. However, without the West invading muslim countries, this extremism is only a threat within the muslim countries (examples being the treatment of Shia Muslims and the Talibans extremism which were from the stone ages). The invasions allied to the Israelis despicable treatment of the Palestinians is the root cause of terrorism outside of the muslim countries IN MY OPINION. And once again, I am a pacifist and abhor violence - so let me reitterate that these causes under no circumstances condone acts of terror. The fact is there were no terrorist attacks by muslims until we invaded and starting bombing muslim countries. I agree with you that these are NOT the cause of other forms of ISlamic extremism and Islam does have that issue which has to be fixed by strong leadership. I will leave this debate now.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by starfab)
    Whether he had a bad life or not, he's taken lives and traumatised others for life.
    This. I’ve had conversations with people who think that these killings are justified because he had a band upbringing. It’s absurd. It shouldn’t matter, it doesn’t excuse any behaviour.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphrosyne)
    This. I’ve had conversations with people who think that these killings are justified because he had a band upbringing. It’s absurd. It shouldn’t matter, it doesn’t excuse any behaviour.
    Exactly. Loads of people have bad upbringing s, it's how they react to that which makes them who they are.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    I would draw everybodies attention to the comments of his lawyer 'he is sad, he is remorseful, he is just a broken human being' - for some reason i feel this piss poor show of contrition will be hollow sentiment to the survivors and families of those killed.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

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

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