Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

to think it was a nutter not a terrorist attack?

(92 Posts)
Corygal Thu 23-May-13 20:36:40

Because that's what we all say at Lambeth College evening class, with most students coming from Woolwich. No one thinks for a minute the killers had anything serious to do with Al Qaeda but were, most likely, mentally ill, personality disordered or just plain old murderers.

What we do think is that the media has not considered this possibility, and of course now the racism and anti-muslim schtick gets another go.

Lazyjaney Sat 25-May-13 00:01:19

"I'm not quite sure how anyone can question this was terrorism."

Given the target was a military one and thus valid in a war, it's not that clear cut.....

fragola Fri 24-May-13 23:49:24

OP, sorry if this has been asked before, but what is your definition of a terrorist and what is your definition of a "nutter"?

Madsometimes Fri 24-May-13 22:09:07

YABU. It was a premeditated attack based on a twisted political ideology. The man was targeted purely because of his job. The terrorists told the camera that we will not be safe as long as our government takes part in operations in Muslim countries. The purpose of the attack was to make us feel unsafe.

I'm not quite sure how anyone can question this was terrorism. The British tourist that was murdered in a similar way in a Spanish supermarket was not a victim of terror. Both cases are tragedies, both are very different. Woolwich was terrorism, Spain was a frenzied random attack.

edam Fri 24-May-13 18:14:22

poppycock, insanity is a perfectly proper term for mental illness that has as specific meaning. Nutter is informal speech for someone who is crazy - not a medical term and not usually intended to be a medical term. It isn't necessarily a great way to describe an evil murderous terrorist, but it's accepted informal speech.

Whatever, I do object to people making the illogical and ill-informed assumption that bad = mad. Perfectly sane people perform evil acts knowing full well what they are doing. And insane people are often their victims.

xylem8 Fri 24-May-13 16:33:39

terrorism and mental health are poles apart. Terrorists are not generally in any way insane . They are doing what they believe need to be done to further their cause

poppycock6 Fri 24-May-13 15:02:29

Some people on here are linking the terms nutter and insane to people with mh issues. That in itself is offensive! They are not terms that I would ever consider for people with such problems.

This is about people who are completely deluded (is that an acceptable term or is that also not allowed?) To commit such an evil act you cannot be in a rational state of mind.

Saltire Fri 24-May-13 13:32:28

It could be that he ahd to check the wrmourey in case someone ahd stolen weapons?
just a thought. When we first got married it was RAFP on the gates of RAF bases we were at. Then they changed it so that junior ranks each did a stint on guard. Then they introduced the security guard!!

FrankellyMyDearIDontGiveADamn Fri 24-May-13 13:29:50

Fair enough grin

DH has been at the MOD for the last 18 months, but certainly when he was on base and Duty Officer he had to go and check the armoury at the end of each guard shift. Perhaps I've misunderstood.

Saltire Fri 24-May-13 13:28:55

and very occasionally an MOD policeman and his dog (instead of an RAF/MP dog handler) man our gate. Much to the delight of my dog loving mindee who hasn't grasped yet that the dog is working not just there for him to pet!

landofsoapandglory Fri 24-May-13 13:24:06

Sometimes the men who issue the passes man the gate, too.

landofsoapandglory Fri 24-May-13 13:22:23

My DH is in the RAF too, there hasn't been 2 armed service personell on the gate for years. Here, we have an MPGS security guard who is unarmed, or sometimes we have 1 unarmed member of the lower ranks.

Saltire Fri 24-May-13 13:15:55

The base we live on has 1 unarmed MPGS security guard on the gate. Most Bases I have been on have either them or the MGS guards on the gate

FrankellyMyDearIDontGiveADamn Fri 24-May-13 13:08:35

I'm only speaking from my own experience. My husband is in the RAF and every base I've ever been on has had two armed guards on the gate, and they have always been serving personnel.

landofsoapandglory Fri 24-May-13 12:58:35

The guards on the gate are not always armed anymore. Infact, it is not always a member of the military who is manning the gate anymore.

FrankellyMyDearIDontGiveADamn Fri 24-May-13 12:52:05

I doubt they were planning on attacking the guards on the gate. They are always armed and would have taken the attackers down before they had a chance to get in a blow.

My suspicion is they simply went with intention of attacking someone seen leaving the barracks. They would have had no way of knowing if that person was a serving member of the armed forces or, for example, a cleaner.

VenusStarr Fri 24-May-13 12:40:04

Agree with scottishmummy

Stop trying to rationalise their behaviour. Calling these men 'nutters' or 'insane' shows that you have ignorance of mental illness and attitudes like that fuel fear and misunderstanding.

EldritchCleavage Fri 24-May-13 12:26:22

I think those men may well be suffering psychosis or otherwise be unbalanced/ill. But people like that are ripe for exploitation by terrorist groups.

The completely random, low tech one-on-one sudden attack is the nightmare scenario for the police and security services, and I'm sure they will be concerned about whether someone is pulling the strings with more disturbed young people being primed for attack somewhere (as US authorities probably were in Boston). So even what might well look like 'just' a madman's attack merits a COBRA meeting.

AngsanaTree Fri 24-May-13 10:58:08

to think that this was a nutter, not a terrorist act.

I think this is very insulting to people who live with MH issues and would never hurt someone else. I think this theory is perhaps being thrown around to try and diffuse and divert peoples anger. Perhaps if it were a person with MH issues we would all shrug our shoulders, feel sorry for the perpetrator, blame a couple of social workers, benefits cuts and say that it was unavoidable and not ask why and how.

Religious terrorism is terrorism carried out based on motivations and goals that have a predominantly religious character or influence.

This was clearly a case of religious terrorism. Of course, it was done by a very small minority who have highjacked and misinterpreted the true meaning of that religion for their own sick purpose, not dissimilar to what Breivik did in Norway in 2011.

Saltire Fri 24-May-13 10:52:30

mcmooncup - my take on him being targetted is that they were possibly on their way to the barracks with the mad idea of attacking the security guard on the gate (not sure of th set up of thos barracks, so don't know how many on gate etc), then saw this young man wlaking down the steet wearing his H4H top, and decided to attack him - possibly on teh basis they guessed he was military or just attacked becasue of what he was wearing and the fact he turned out to be a soldier was a "bonus" ( wrong word I know, can't think of another) to them.

I think they were demented to be honest, and possibly under the influence of drugs.

mayorquimby Fri 24-May-13 10:39:55

Oh right
Apologies so
I thought it had been reported they knocked him down upon seeing him leave an army base

mcmooncup Fri 24-May-13 10:32:26

I am not clear if they knew the victim was serving in the army ?

mayorquimby Fri 24-May-13 10:25:53

* as terrorism

mayorquimby Fri 24-May-13 10:23:18

If it was an act of war they'd be fighting for an army, under a flag Ian's adhering to the laws of war.
Don't think they did any of this.
I don't necessarily disagree with the premise that things like this are to be expected based on the military actions of Britain and the u.s.
But it quite clearly isn't in line with the conventional practices of war time conflict and is clearly capable of being defined as war.
If the argument was "I think this was an act of war not terrorism" then the debate of freedom fighter v terrorist, who sets the rules if war etc. could definitely be argued.
I was responding to the assertion that as there were no links to al Qaida & this was an isolated attack etc. that it couldn't be terrorism and was just nutters

Lazyjaney Fri 24-May-13 09:24:05

"Well they targeted a military personnel, based solely on the fact their military status."

Given that we declared the "War on Terror" and sentbour soldiers to attack them in their countries, you don't have to be a genius to work out they will attack us in ours - in fact arguably this isn't terrorism as it's attacking our military, not our civilians.

sweetestcup Fri 24-May-13 09:08:38

Nutters/terrorism - not much difference really

How ignorant and offensive - yet again - to people with mental heath issues.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now