there was a Muslim leader on TV shouting that this was a terrorist attack by a Christian. how does he know the bloke was a Christian? he was suggesting there are only two faiths in the UK. either Muslim or Christian and neither represent terror (which is true) in their name.
what I thought he should realise and be told is that there's firstly many more religions in this country and that secondly people of no religious beliefs outnumber both Muslims and Christians.
its not a fight between Christians and Muslims. its ethnocentric wankers on both sides with a holier than thou attitude who believe lies and are that far gone they will kill in the name of those lies. they are a stain on humanity.
"In times like these it's really important that the Muslim white community condemn the actions and stress the attacker was not a part of their community, and it's great to see that happening"
Curious as to why my comment merits two abuse flags?!
Because "white" isn't a religion, with a doctrine attached, and a book that's interpreted to generate hate. "White" doesnt have an organised religious terrorist group generating and perpetrating terror. It's a spurious and unhelpful link between skin color and religion as drivers for terror, and ignores every one of the problems that caused all of the latest attacks.
Sure WHITE isn't a religion with a doctrine attached, it's a race with one attached.
People like this guy: who actually believes he is genetically superior to Usain Bolt and as such preaches hate against other races
Many organisations throughout history have been made up of predominantly white people who have preached terror and generated hate against other races. Just in case you have forgotten the most famous the actions of the KKK were not only brutally terrifying but also IGNORED by the majority of whites. Need I remind you of the lynchings etc carried out by the KKK not only throughout the last couple of hundred years but on a smaller scale this has continued since...
I know that was predominantly in the USA, but the point stands. WHITE isn't as clean of the things you state as you'd like to believe.
This was a racist and Islamophobic attack carried out by a WHITE, BRITISH man and I wholly condemn his disgusting act of terrorism.
I would not have been as kind to him as the Muslim men that simply pinned him down until police arrived. I'd have caused him pain whilst he was held, probably a lot of it too.
You're both right. White is a colour, not a religion. They're a difference there.
However, I could use the words white or Muslim interchangeably at the start of the following:
"[x] people come from all sorts of backgrounds, and hold many varying beliefs, and there is often disagreement amongst them as to what's right or wrong - Labour or Tory; Keynesian economics/boom and bust or austerity; kittens or puppies."
A mistake I would think you're both making is to equate takfiri salafi Wahhabi Islamism to ALL Islam, and therefore expect every other Muslim to condemn something that they, too, do not believe in and are just as scared of as you.
It's a spurious and unhelpful link between skin color and religion as drivers for terror, and ignores every one of the problems that caused all of the latest attacks.
This is fair enough, Addicted. As for the problems that caused the latest attacks, I'd like to point to a couple of comments I've come across in the past:
It is wrong to say "ISIS are not Muslims" and it is extremely unhelpful to separate them from the religion. My tutor actually has spoken on national TV and written articles about this exact topic. He is a Shi'a Muslim and an academic, and he argues - quite correctly I think - that if you ignore the religious roots of the group then you cannot possible grasp the problem. Because their ideology, their beliefs and their objectives, are entirely religious. They fit within a framework that is Islamic (albeit a distinct brand of fundamental Islam) and their justifications are entirely theological.
If you disassociate them from Islam, then you have to explain their motives and actions by completely different terms. This is something you hear a lot: 'They just don't know how great Western culture is'. 'They are poor and marginalised so turn to violence.' 'They are responding to the US occupation of Iraq.' 'They are responding to European colonialism.' 'It is all about oil'. So on and so forth.
Some of those things have elements of truth - marginalisation, poverty and retribution certainly are causes as well. Yet the biggest cause, above anything else, is their religious belief. If you are an atheist like me, you can only truly understand this by imagining how you would see the world if you were a fundamentalist Muslim.
Once you do that, (and it requires a basic understanding of fundamental Islam that I don't have time to write here), then it all makes sense. It works the same for if you imagine you were a fundamental Christian - this might be easier to imagine.
If I believed that the world was going to end and I had to obey the law of the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful deity in order to reach eternal paradise, I'd do whatever the hell was needed to get on his good side. If that means killing people, why wouldn't I? This world is just a temporary, physical one. It's worth it for infinity in paradise. And they are non-believers anyway, they know nothing.
If that is how you see the world and that is how you understand it, then these acts of violence make sense. The whole Islamic State makes sense.
I'm never going to claim to be an authority on causes, but hopefully these are useful reads.
As for my initial comment - I concede it was inflammatory, but I didn't want to start an argument, rather create a dialogue, and I apologise for my flippancy.
"In times like these it's really important that the Muslim white community condemn the actions and stress the attacker was not a part of their community, and it's great to see that happening"
Curious as to why my comment merits two abuse flags?!
I meant to draw parallels between, for instance, the Muslim Council/various mosques and imams always having to say "we condemn the [attack somewhere]", while when it's a white guy, this needn't happen.
I'm in agreement with you, were I christian and it were to come out he did this as an act of christianity i'd expect to condemn it. His acts certainly wouldn't meet any of the new testament values of christianity... The old testament however...
He is white, I am white, we are both british, therefore I can condemn him in the one link many muslims will see between us, We are white brits.
He deserves whatever punishment comes his way and worse.
You're both right. White is a colour, not a religion. They're a difference there.
However, I could use the words white or Muslim interchangeably at the start of the following:
"[x] people come from all sorts of backgrounds, and hold many varying beliefs, and there is often disagreement amongst them as to what's right or wrong - Labour or Tory; Keynesian economics/boom and bust or austerity; kittens or puppies."
A mistake I would think you're both making is to equate takfiri salafi Wahhabi Islamism to ALL Islam, and therefore expect every other Muslim to condemn something that they, too, do not believe in and are just as scared of as you.
It's a spurious and unhelpful link between skin color and religion as drivers for terror, and ignores every one of the problems that caused all of the latest attacks.
Where have I said that? Lets get this straight, I've hardly commented on previous threads about terror attacks. Like I said the flag was because you were trying to encourage a childish argument by being sarcastic. Had some made a similar childish comment on the opposite side of the argument to you then I would have flagged them as well.
You're both right. White is a colour, not a religion. They're a difference there.
However, I could use the words white or Muslim interchangeably at the start of the following:
"[x] people come from all sorts of backgrounds, and hold many varying beliefs, and there is often disagreement amongst them as to what's right or wrong - Labour or Tory; Keynesian economics/boom and bust or austerity; kittens or puppies."
A mistake I would think you're both making is to equate takfiri salafi Wahhabi Islamism to ALL Islam, and therefore expect every other Muslim to condemn something that they, too, do not believe in and are just as scared of as you.
It's a spurious and unhelpful link between skin color and religion as drivers for terror, and ignores every one of the problems that caused all of the latest attacks.
Where have I said that? Lets get this straight, I've hardly commented on previous threads about terror attacks. Like I said the flag was because you were trying to encourage a childish argument by being sarcastic. Had some made a similar childish comment on the opposite side of the argument to you then I would have flagged them as well.
Fair enough.
I suppose I took when you said "it's worth pointing out that white is a colour and Islam is a religion" as you thinking that "Islam" was one thing? There may have been a miscommunication there.
Addicted definitely seemed to imply it, though said "a doctrine that can be interpreted" so acknowledges there are differences within Islam - but it's still unhelpful to blanket the term "Islam" in such situations imo
Can this incident be classed as a terrorist attack?
"the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear."
Some slight confusion it would seem. It's noticeable that the suspect has been charged with 'attempted' murder not murder. It's been suggested that the person who died was in fact already dead from a heart attack 'prior' to the incident. So.....some slight confusion around the one person killed claims.
I don't think I've seen that 'suggested' anywhere. Be a hell of a coincidence wouldn't it?
I don't see a happy future for our society. There are too many religious, social and economic tensions and we've become worryingly weak and divided. Attacks like this aren't going to bring the roof down but they're a good indicator of what's to come.
Some slight confusion it would seem. It's noticeable that the suspect has been charged with 'attempted' murder not murder. It's been suggested that the person who died was in fact already dead from a heart attack 'prior' to the incident. So.....some slight confusion around the one person killed claims.
The Guardian has this from 8:25
"Driver arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, Scotland Yard says
Dep Asst Comm Neil Basu of the Metropolitan police, who is senior national co-ordinator for counter-terrorism policing, is giving a statement.
He says it is too early to tell whether the man who died at the scene was killed in the attack. Eight others were taken to hospital. Two were treated at the scene. All of the victims were Muslim.
The driver of the van has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, Basu said."
It certainly seems paradoxical, but it's worth remembering that we get updates in real time these days. I have no idea how the British booking/charging system works, but it may be that the man was originally arrested on attempted murder, and that police are now waiting to change the charge until they determine if this was a terrorist attack. Also possible there may need to be some form of formal determination of cause of death. I can think of any number of other little reasons why he may be currently held on attempted murder, but I would expect that to change.
Some slight confusion it would seem. It's noticeable that the suspect has been charged with 'attempted' murder not murder. It's been suggested that the person who died was in fact already dead from a heart attack 'prior' to the incident. So.....some slight confusion around the one person killed claims.
The Guardian has this from 8:25
"Driver arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, Scotland Yard says
Dep Asst Comm Neil Basu of the Metropolitan police, who is senior national co-ordinator for counter-terrorism policing, is giving a statement.
He says it is too early to tell whether the man who died at the scene was killed in the attack. Eight others were taken to hospital. Two were treated at the scene. All of the victims were Muslim.
The driver of the van has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, Basu said."
It certainly seems paradoxical, but it's worth remembering that we get updates in real time these days. I have no idea how the British booking/charging system works, but it may be that the man was originally arrested on attempted murder, and that police are now waiting to change the charge until they determine if this was a terrorist attack. Also possible there may need to be some form of formal determination of cause of death. I can think of any number of other little reasons why he may be currently held on attempted murder, but I would expect that to change.
Not sure what he was oringally arrested for is hugely relevant - as you say it can change at any point if there is sufficient evidence to do so.
Some slight confusion it would seem. It's noticeable that the suspect has been charged with 'attempted' murder not murder. It's been suggested that the person who died was in fact already dead from a heart attack 'prior' to the incident. So.....some slight confusion around the one person killed claims.
I don't think I've seen that 'suggested' anywhere. Be a hell of a coincidence wouldn't it?
It was mentioned as a possibility on the 10 am news on Radio 4.
This guy is an eyewitness. Watching this made me draw three conclusions.
1. There was a man ill or injured, on the ground, before the attack happened. So it was likely that the target of the attacker was the group of people surrounding him. And the suggestion that someone suffered a heart attack rather than dying by being struck is likely true.
2. The immediate police and ambulance response was too slow and too few. Half an hour is way too long. His recall of timing may not have been accurate, so even if it were half that time, it's too long. And one ambulance being dispatched for eight or ten casualties is obviously far too few.
This guy is an eyewitness. Watching this made me draw three conclusions.
1. There was a man ill or injured, on the ground, before the attack happened. So it was likely that the target of the attacker was the group of people surrounding him. And the suggestion that someone suffered a heart attack rather than dying by being struck is likely true.
2. The immediate police and ambulance response was too slow and too few. Half an hour is way too long. His recall of timing may not have been accurate, so even if it were half that time, it's too long. And one ambulance being dispatched for eight or ten casualties is obviously far too few.
This guy is an eyewitness. Watching this made me draw three conclusions.
1. There was a man ill or injured, on the ground, before the attack happened. So it was likely that the target of the attacker was the group of people surrounding him. And the suggestion that someone suffered a heart attack rather than dying by being struck is likely true.
2. The immediate police and ambulance response was too slow and too few. Half an hour is way too long. His recall of timing may not have been accurate, so even if it were half that time, it's too long. And one ambulance being dispatched for eight or ten casualties is obviously far too few.
Some slight confusion it would seem. It's noticeable that the suspect has been charged with 'attempted' murder not murder. It's been suggested that the person who died was in fact already dead from a heart attack 'prior' to the incident. So.....some slight confusion around the one person killed claims.
The Guardian has this from 8:25
"Driver arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, Scotland Yard says
Dep Asst Comm Neil Basu of the Metropolitan police, who is senior national co-ordinator for counter-terrorism policing, is giving a statement.
He says it is too early to tell whether the man who died at the scene was killed in the attack. Eight others were taken to hospital. Two were treated at the scene. All of the victims were Muslim.
The driver of the van has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, Basu said."
It certainly seems paradoxical, but it's worth remembering that we get updates in real time these days. I have no idea how the British booking/charging system works, but it may be that the man was originally arrested on attempted murder, and that police are now waiting to change the charge until they determine if this was a terrorist attack. Also possible there may need to be some form of formal determination of cause of death. I can think of any number of other little reasons why he may be currently held on attempted murder, but I would expect that to change.
Not sure what he was oringally arrested for is hugely relevant - as you say it can change at any point if there is sufficient evidence to do so.
It is quite true that this is likely to be just a holding charge (and they needed a serious one). But the evidence thing means the process is quite complex. By virtue of PACE, in formal interview under caution, in order to be allowed to mount a defence properly, a suspect is entitled (and indeed must) be informed of the offence(s) of which he is suspected. (I do not know whether the terrorism legislation impacts upon that right though.) Otherwise prosecution will fail.
It is for this reason that it is always a very bad idea indeed to agree to a "nice friendly chat with plod" either in your own home or down the nick. It is a common ploy and one no individual should have any truck with. The correct answer if so requested is always to refer the police to the response given in Arkell vs Pressdram (1971).
One should always insist upon saying nothing unless they arrest you on suspicion of committing an offence.
This, I think, is the main reason why so many suspects are released on police bail pending further investigation. In serious matters, of course, suspects will be remanded. But I doubt this individual will actually be interviewed until such time as all the evidential ducks are in a row and the appropriate charges formulated. But the police/CPS cannot add charges willy-nilly.
This guy is an eyewitness. Watching this made me draw three conclusions.
1. There was a man ill or injured, on the ground, before the attack happened. So it was likely that the target of the attacker was the group of people surrounding him. And the suggestion that someone suffered a heart attack rather than dying by being struck is likely true.
2. The immediate police and ambulance response was too slow and too few. Half an hour is way too long. His recall of timing may not have been accurate, so even if it were half that time, it's too long. And one ambulance being dispatched for eight or ten casualties is obviously far too few.
You're both right. White is a colour, not a religion. They're a difference there.
However, I could use the words white or Muslim interchangeably at the start of the following:
"[x] people come from all sorts of backgrounds, and hold many varying beliefs, and there is often disagreement amongst them as to what's right or wrong - Labour or Tory; Keynesian economics/boom and bust or austerity; kittens or puppies."
A mistake I would think you're both making is to equate takfiri salafi Wahhabi Islamism to ALL Islam, and therefore expect every other Muslim to condemn something that they, too, do not believe in and are just as scared of as you.
It's a spurious and unhelpful link between skin color and religion as drivers for terror, and ignores every one of the problems that caused all of the latest attacks.
This is fair enough, Addicted. As for the problems that caused the latest attacks, I'd like to point to a couple of comments I've come across in the past:
It is wrong to say "ISIS are not Muslims" and it is extremely unhelpful to separate them from the religion. My tutor actually has spoken on national TV and written articles about this exact topic. He is a Shi'a Muslim and an academic, and he argues - quite correctly I think - that if you ignore the religious roots of the group then you cannot possible grasp the problem. Because their ideology, their beliefs and their objectives, are entirely religious. They fit within a framework that is Islamic (albeit a distinct brand of fundamental Islam) and their justifications are entirely theological.
If you disassociate them from Islam, then you have to explain their motives and actions by completely different terms. This is something you hear a lot: 'They just don't know how great Western culture is'. 'They are poor and marginalised so turn to violence.' 'They are responding to the US occupation of Iraq.' 'They are responding to European colonialism.' 'It is all about oil'. So on and so forth.
Some of those things have elements of truth - marginalisation, poverty and retribution certainly are causes as well. Yet the biggest cause, above anything else, is their religious belief. If you are an atheist like me, you can only truly understand this by imagining how you would see the world if you were a fundamentalist Muslim.
Once you do that, (and it requires a basic understanding of fundamental Islam that I don't have time to write here), then it all makes sense. It works the same for if you imagine you were a fundamental Christian - this might be easier to imagine.
If I believed that the world was going to end and I had to obey the law of the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful deity in order to reach eternal paradise, I'd do whatever the hell was needed to get on his good side. If that means killing people, why wouldn't I? This world is just a temporary, physical one. It's worth it for infinity in paradise. And they are non-believers anyway, they know nothing.
If that is how you see the world and that is how you understand it, then these acts of violence make sense. The whole Islamic State makes sense.
I'm never going to claim to be an authority on causes, but hopefully these are useful reads.
As for my initial comment - I concede it was inflammatory, but I didn't want to start an argument, rather create a dialogue, and I apologise for my flippancy.
If there is one truism in law enforcement it is that eyewitness testimony is shockingly unreliable. Enforcement agencies make especial endeavour to find plenty of other evidence to support a case.
@PaddyP17 , @Addickted , @C_Jensens_Love_Child: Think we need to focus on an attack on London and it's citizens, be they of whatever creed or cast. Communities are what they are:communities. No need to say if they're black or white, Islam or Christian or Jewish or atheist - there's no room in this world for hate-mongers from any corner of the world. Many people have been born in this country with Islam as their reliegon, as have many Christians. The vast majority of the country is athiest. Let each go about their lives in peace.
Comments
what I thought he should realise and be told is that there's firstly many more religions in this country and that secondly people of no religious beliefs outnumber both Muslims and Christians.
its not a fight between Christians and Muslims. its ethnocentric wankers on both sides with a holier than thou attitude who believe lies and are that far gone they will kill in the name of those lies. they are a stain on humanity.
People like this guy:
who actually believes he is genetically superior to Usain Bolt and as such preaches hate against other races
Many organisations throughout history have been made up of predominantly white people who have preached terror and generated hate against other races. Just in case you have forgotten the most famous the actions of the KKK were not only brutally terrifying but also IGNORED by the majority of whites. Need I remind you of the lynchings etc carried out by the KKK not only throughout the last couple of hundred years but on a smaller scale this has continued since...
I know that was predominantly in the USA, but the point stands. WHITE isn't as clean of the things you state as you'd like to believe.
This was a racist and Islamophobic attack carried out by a WHITE, BRITISH man and I wholly condemn his disgusting act of terrorism.
I would not have been as kind to him as the Muslim men that simply pinned him down until police arrived. I'd have caused him pain whilst he was held, probably a lot of it too.
You're both right. White is a colour, not a religion. They're a difference there.
However, I could use the words white or Muslim interchangeably at the start of the following:
"[x] people come from all sorts of backgrounds, and hold many varying beliefs, and there is often disagreement amongst them as to what's right or wrong - Labour or Tory; Keynesian economics/boom and bust or austerity; kittens or puppies."
A mistake I would think you're both making is to equate takfiri salafi Wahhabi Islamism to ALL Islam, and therefore expect every other Muslim to condemn something that they, too, do not believe in and are just as scared of as you. This is fair enough, Addicted. As for the problems that caused the latest attacks, I'd like to point to a couple of comments I've come across in the past:
1) http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/72326/explosion-at-brussels-airport/p10 2) https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5wmsqz/cmv_islam_is_a_repugnant_religion_which_has_no/debcxmd/
-------
I'm never going to claim to be an authority on causes, but hopefully these are useful reads.
As for my initial comment - I concede it was inflammatory, but I didn't want to start an argument, rather create a dialogue, and I apologise for my flippancy.
He is white, I am white, we are both british, therefore I can condemn him in the one link many muslims will see between us, We are white brits.
He deserves whatever punishment comes his way and worse.
Where have I said that? Lets get this straight, I've hardly commented on previous threads about terror attacks. Like I said the flag was because you were trying to encourage a childish argument by being sarcastic. Had some made a similar childish comment on the opposite side of the argument to you then I would have flagged them as well.
I suppose I took when you said "it's worth pointing out that white is a colour and Islam is a religion" as you thinking that "Islam" was one thing? There may have been a miscommunication there.
Addicted definitely seemed to imply it, though said "a doctrine that can be interpreted" so acknowledges there are differences within Islam - but it's still unhelpful to blanket the term "Islam" in such situations imo
RIP
"Driver arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, Scotland Yard says
Dep Asst Comm Neil Basu of the Metropolitan police, who is senior national co-ordinator for counter-terrorism policing, is giving a statement.
He says it is too early to tell whether the man who died at the scene was killed in the attack. Eight others were taken to hospital. Two were treated at the scene. All of the victims were Muslim.
The driver of the van has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, Basu said."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/jun/19/north-london-van-incident-finsbury-park-casualties-collides-pedestrians-live-updates?page=with:block-594786f2e4b0d5ab311e93b8#liveblog-navigation
It certainly seems paradoxical, but it's worth remembering that we get updates in real time these days. I have no idea how the British booking/charging system works, but it may be that the man was originally arrested on attempted murder, and that police are now waiting to change the charge until they determine if this was a terrorist attack. Also possible there may need to be some form of formal determination of cause of death. I can think of any number of other little reasons why he may be currently held on attempted murder, but I would expect that to change.
1. There was a man ill or injured, on the ground, before the attack happened. So it was likely that the target of the attacker was the group of people surrounding him. And the suggestion that someone suffered a heart attack rather than dying by being struck is likely true.
2. The immediate police and ambulance response was too slow and too few. Half an hour is way too long. His recall of timing may not have been accurate, so even if it were half that time, it's too long. And one ambulance being dispatched for eight or ten casualties is obviously far too few.
3. This man deserves a medal.
"Officers were in the immediate vicinity as the attack unfolded and responded instantly. Additional officers arrived within 10 minutes.
http://news.met.police.uk/news/incident-in-seven-sisters-road-247036
Last thing that's needed is for this to develop into a 'The Police only care when white people get hurt' argument.
It is for this reason that it is always a very bad idea indeed to agree to a "nice friendly chat with plod" either in your own home or down the nick. It is a common ploy and one no individual should have any truck with. The correct answer if so requested is always to refer the police to the response given in Arkell vs Pressdram (1971).
One should always insist upon saying nothing unless they arrest you on suspicion of committing an offence.
This, I think, is the main reason why so many suspects are released on police bail pending further investigation. In serious matters, of course, suspects will be remanded. But I doubt this individual will actually be interviewed until such time as all the evidential ducks are in a row and the appropriate charges formulated. But the police/CPS cannot add charges willy-nilly.
1) http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/72326/explosion-at-brussels-airport/p10 2) https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5wmsqz/cmv_islam_is_a_repugnant_religion_which_has_no/debcxmd/
-------
I'm never going to claim to be an authority on causes, but hopefully these are useful reads.
As for my initial comment - I concede it was inflammatory, but I didn't want to start an argument, rather create a dialogue, and I apologise for my flippancy.
@PaddyP17 , @Addickted
More here https://scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
And see how you do in this test on counting basketball passes.