Calis Beach and Fethiye Turkey Discussion Forum
General Topics => All things that have nothing to do with Turkey => Topic started by: davybill on June 19, 2017, 07:11:13 AM
-
According to the news, a vehicle drove into a crowd of muslims
Leaving a mosque last night, killing one person and injuring
several others.
-
It is not clear whether the dead man was killed by the white van as he was already receiving first aid when the attack happened. Ten other people were treated at the scene or taken to hospital. The driver is reported as shouting "I want to kill Muslims" and he was then protected from the anger of the crowd by the imam.
-
This has been described as "an act of terrorism" by various bodies.
I'm not sure (although I am fairly confident) that this "act of terrorism" nonsense is designed to appease those who have heard for some time that "all Muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims" i.e. we, the government, are going to categorise all perpetrators the same for seemingly similar acts.
What a crock.
This appears to be a lone nut job, on no list of known agitators nor a member of any organisation.
I may be wrong but I don't think so.
I see no reason to call this an act of terrorism.
-
"Terrorism is a term used in its broadest sense to describe the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim. It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence against civilians or non-combatants." (Wikipedia).
The attacker said he wanted to kill all Muslims. To me, that seems to fit the definition well enough. As far as I can tell the violence was intentional; it was used against unknown individuals indiscriminately; and its aim was not concerned with robbery, personal revenge, seeking advantage or for any other reason except a hatred of a religious group.
-
As you say Colwyn, "in its broadest sense".
In the same sentence it says "indiscriminate" violence. This was entirely discriminating. They were leaving a mosque.
Again, I concede that he was unlikely to be seeking to kill known individuals.
Wikipedia's opening statement is "there is no universal agreement on the definition of terrorism".
There are many other Wikipedia definitions that would not describe the actions of this nutcase as an act of terrorism (Terrorism Act 2000).
I still do not feel that the actions of this unaffiliated, single person can be seen as an act of terrorism.
The authorities are playing word games again.
-
Perhaps "an act of terror" would be a better description ?
-
I concur. A terrifying incident.
Mohammed Kozbar, the mosque's chairman, wants it to be described as a "terrorist attack".
Darren Osborne, a nut job from Cardiff with no known associates, acted seemingly alone.
The Met have said that it is "too early" to say if it is "terror related".
Not too early for me.
I'm sure he'd be delighted to be tagged as a terrorist (or freedom fighter) instead of a complete freaking nutcase acting entirely alone.
-
So it isn't an act of terrorism because this welsh guy acted alone. But when a Muslim acts alone it is an act of terrorism?
-
Semantics, Scunner.
My view is pretty much determined by what I understand to be a *terrorist attack".
What incident, in recent times, has been committed by a Muslim "acting alone"? None that I know of.
This Welshman doesn't appear to be part of any terrorist organisation.
However, in its "broadest" sense I am sure you have a rational argument.
I don't see this man as a terrorist - merely a nutcase making a name for himself.
-
What incident, in recent times, has been committed by a Muslim "acting alone"? None that I know of.
Several
For starters
"The Manchester suicide bomber mostly acted alone in the days before the attack, police have said.
Salman Abedi is thought to have purchased the main components for the bomb and assembled it himself before blowing himself up and killing 22 others at the Manchester Arena last week"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/31/manchester-suicide-bomber-mostly-acting-alone-police-say/
And that's just using 15 seconds research
-
Part of a network that included his brother who was arrested after planning an attack in Tripoli.
Father also arrested.
For a long time on the radar of US intelligence services.
Police still trying to identify the bomb maker.
"it is very clear that this is a network we are investigating" Manchester Police Chief
-
I suppose it depends on one's definition of "acting alone".
I concede that wasn't a good example but there have been attacks by Muslims with no apparent links to known terrorist organisations.
-
So it isn't an act of terrorism because this welsh guy acted alone. But when a Muslim acts alone it is an act of terrorism?
I agree. There is no evidence that Khalid Masood, the Westminster Bridge killer, was attached to or assisted by any Muslim terror group although, as is their policy, ISIS claimed him as an "Islamic soldier" afterwards. This did not prevent him being, in view rightly, being labelled a "terrorist". What is common on phone-in programmes following a terrorist attack is that a number of people say that the "Muslim community" should have done more to stop this - even though it often turns out that the perpetrator was known to the police because he had been reported by his Muslim neighbours. It would not be surprising if members of the Muslim community felt unfairly burdened by the actions of isolated individuals.
Yesterday I heard no-one asking why the Cardiff community hadn't done more to stop this - his friends, his neighbours, his family. Instead what we have is the claim that he is not a terrorist; just a nutcase. Is there any evidence that he is insane? At least any more insane than anyone else who deliberately drives a vehicle into a crowd of people? I guess if I was a discontented trouble-maker in the Muslim community I would telling everyone "See! Double standards in this country! Their deaths are terrorism - Our deaths are the result an unfortunate mental problem!"
-
Thus far there is nothing to link Osborne to any terrorist organisation - and there probably won't be. It seems that he "acted alone".
A racist attack it most certainly was but not a terrorist attack, surely. Not as I understand a terrorist attack, anyway.
You are quite correct in saying that there is no clear proof that Khalid Masood was linked to a terrorist group (despite ISIL's claims that he was one of their soldiers).
However, following his name change after conversion to Islam and his radicalisation (probably whilst in prison) he lived and worked in Saudi Arabia far a few years. He then moved back to the UK and lived in Luton (Anjem Choudary's popular stomping ground).
He was investigated by MI5 as a "peripheral" figure in a terrorist organisation.
No proof, this I concede but enough to at least suggest an association.
-
So we are going to disagree Stuart. But I'll tell you who aren't terrorists: spectators at an Istanbul tennis championship who booed an AKP minister - even though RTE said they were.
-
Aye, old bean. Nothing new there!
Re: Tennis
Brave, if a little unwise, spectators.
By RTE's definitions there must be a world full of terrorists out there.
What, if any, repercussions have there been?
I've not read about this.
(Gone a bit off thread here but this is news).
-
Very old news Stuart. See the video of 2012 WTA event and be amazed at just how ignorant sports commentators can be about the country they are visiting. Disappointing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxdK2ioEA4k
-
Ah, I see.
I thought you meant the Istanbul tennis from a few weeks ago.
Didn't know about this though.