-
I think the original point I was trying to make has been well and truly lost ...
I just looked up the definition of terrorism, and I guess it makes the rest of you right, and me wrong.
So I'll concede on that front.
Still fucks me off though the way people are quick to jump on use of the word terrorism, KNOWING use of it creates such high anxiety in a large part of the world. I'd prefer people are pointed out as nutjobs. As ultimately, all terrorists (by definition of the world) are nutjobs.
-
@MajorRage like @Rembrandt alludes to above, mention terrorism and most associate it with ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Queda or simply Islam when in reality terrorism has a wider definition in the true sense.
-
@MajorRage I get your point and I agree to some extent. I think in this case the terrorism name came from an official source which legitimises its use. I wouldn't be surprised if certain media outlets were calling him that before it was official. I know during the melbourne attack there was some mention of it being terrorism but not from mainstream media. I have to admit during that time I immediately jumped on the terrorism angle based mainly on the foiled terror plot here just a few weeks earlier, I was wrong there.
Now whether the MSM in its current decline will stick to using the correct terms is another story...
-
@MajorRage sorry if I came across a bit harsh before. But just so we all know I googled the definition too.
"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
So it's essentially where there are political aims.
Hence the difference between Melbourne and this thing in London.
-
@booboo said in Ferners in London:
@MajorRage sorry if I came across a bit harsh before. But just so we all know I googled the definition too.
"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
So it's essentially where there are political aims.
Hence the difference between Melbourne and this thing in London.
There's another definition too. The purpose of terrorism is to terrorise.
Without going down the route of this attack is or isn't terrorism, a group such as ISIS would be happy to claim responsibility as it increases terror. Similarly they would be happy to offer support, encouragement etc to any nutcase that shows signs of being willing to commit acts such as this.
No doubt we will learn more as things progress. The breaking news is that there have been seven arrests in relation to this act, so maybe more than just a simple nutcase.
A further indication of relying too much on information (hearsay?) in the immediate aftermath was my previous comments abut people allegedly jumping into the river. Having seen what this whacko did, it is not surprising. Basically he was speeding all the way down the pavement along Westminster Bridge scattering people left and right.
Video of it on the Beeb.
-
I work about half a mile from where it happened, and next to fairly large police station. A lot more officers and vehicles outside there this morning coming into work. Parliament is (unsurprisingly) one of the most heavily policed places in the country; I walked past there last week and there are cops with machine guns wandering about everywhere. Just goes to show how hard it is to defend against attacks like this.
-
The bit that gets missed in this, that I think is hugely important, is there's around 3m muslims in the UK. We've (apparently) been at war with Islam for 16 years. This attack was obviously impossible to defend against. Really its lucky he did it on that bridge & not, say, down Regents Street at lunchtime, 5 dead would have been 50 dead.
And yet... despite all that this is the only time "we" have taken serious casualties in the UK since 7/7. Thats 12 years. And he killed 5 people. And thats tragic, but its a piss poor return.
It'll be hyped to all fuck - mostly by people thousands of miles from London, but its nothing. It sure as fuck isn't a war. The IRA had a 10x better strike rate than these fluffybunnies & that was only a "Trouble"
So either there's no war, or UK Muslims are not in it. Because 3m others didn't do shit yesterday, or last week, or any week since 2005, when 4 of them did shit.
Life will be 100% normal again in London within a couple of days, no one will change anything they do, today was no different out on the streets I walk. Same way I was on the tube again right after 7/7 & went from getting a seat back to fricking rammed within a couple of days.
-
@gollum said in Ferners in London:
The bit that gets missed in this, that I think is hugely important, is there's around 3m muslims in the UK. We've (apparently) been at war with Islam for 16 years. This attack was obviously impossible to defend against. Really its lucky he did it on that bridge & not, say, down Regents Street at lunchtime, 5 dead would have been 50 dead.
And yet... despite all that this is the only time "we" have taken serious casualties in the UK since 7/7. Thats 12 years. And he killed 5 people. And thats tragic, but its a piss poor return.
It'll be hyped to all fuck - mostly by people thousands of miles from London, but its nothing. It sure as fuck isn't a war. The IRA had a 10x better strike rate than these fluffybunnies & that was only a "Trouble"
So either there's no war, or UK Muslims are not in it. Because 3m others didn't do shit yesterday, or last week, or any week since 2005, when 4 of them did shit.
Life will be 100% normal again in London within a couple of days, no one will change anything they do, today was no different out on the streets I walk. Same way I was on the tube again right after 7/7 & went from getting a seat back to fricking rammed within a couple of days.
Don't forget though that part of the reason there are so few attacks is that so many are headed off before they happen.
Excellent counter-terrorism is part of the reason there are so few attacks that reach conclusion and the agencies/police will be pissed off that they didn't see this one coming (which also points to it being a random, rather than planned, act even if the individual was known to them).That doesn't totally wipe out your point that the number of attacks (or spoiled attacks) is not in proportion to the fear generated.
You are more at risk of getting killed as a pedestrian on a road in London than a terrorist attack. Last year there was a tram crash that killed more people than this yet it stayed in the headlines for a day and people were more pissed off that the trams weren't running as they would have hopped straight back on them.
-
@Crucial said in Ferners in London:
Don't forget though that part of the reason there are so few attacks is that so many are headed off before they happen.
Excellent counter-terrorism is part of the reason there are so few attacks that reach conclusion and the agencies/police will be pissed off that they didn't see this one coming (which also points to it being a random, rather than planned, act even if the individual was known to them).Definately, R4 this morning was saying 19 attacks headed off in last few years.
My point is more given the number of Muslims in the UK & the utter impossibility of stopping someone driving his car into pedestrians if this was as bad as made out we'd be having one of these a day, not 1 every 12 years. The intelligence services do an excellent job, but they are fighting lone nutjobs & a tiny number of brainwashed idiots, not a mass movement.
As Nick points put, compared to the Baader Meinhoff, the IRA, ETA etc, these guys are pathetic try-hards, but if you read the press today you'd assume we face an existential threat.
-
You would also have to assume that back in the 70's and 80's the security forces were working hard in pre-empting IRA threats.
-
@Catogrande said in Ferners in London:
You would also have to assume that back in the 70's and 80's the security forces were working hard in pre-empting IRA threats.
-
-
@TeWaio said in Ferners in London:
I just found out that a guy I deal with at Citigroup.....his wife was one of the people killed on Westminster Bridge. Hit by the speeding car on the pavement, then thrown onto the road and under a bus. Was walking to pick their two kids up from school.
Farken terrible man
-
@NTA said in Ferners in London:
Lot of commentary out there on social media.
You have to take into consideration that anti-terrorism and intelligence services are much better and more advanced now than they were back then. Governments are also spending billions more on preventing terrorism. I don't even want to think about what the situation would be like if the current lot of loonies were operating against 70s era resources. The Baader Meinhoff and co would be kittens in comparison.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Ferners in London:
@NTA said in Ferners in London:
Lot of commentary out there on social media.
You have to take into consideration that anti-terrorism and intelligence services are much better and more advanced now than they were back then. Governments are also spending billions more on preventing terrorism. I don't even want to think about what the situation would be like if the current lot of loonies were operating against 70s era resources. The Baader Meinhoff and co would be kittens in comparison.
Just like sports it is hard to judge groups from different eras. The terrorists have more tech than the 70s and so do anti-terror agencies. What is really difficult now is that back then the terror organization planned and executed their operations. Now groups like ISIS can "inspire" whack jobs to give themselves to the cause
Ferners in London