They should stop describing attackers as terrorists and just call them criminals.(28 Posts)
To describe people as terrorists implies there is some greater cause or end goal they're fighting for. For the most part these days it seems they just want to kill people.
no...they want to also spread fear....terror
No, they're terrorists. Their motivation for killing is to cause terror in pursuit of a specific ideology, which is exactly what they are doing.
Terrorism is a specific crime. Yes, they are murderers, but that doesn't mean they can't also be terrorists.
No, criminals in the name given to a law breaker.
Every "criminal" has a descriptor - murderers, rapists, pedophiles, burgalars etc.
Terrorists are no different.
I agree - calling them terrorists gives them more cudos in some people's eyes. They should be called murderers.
And while we are at it - I hate the constant references to ''community leaders' when referring to who should be addressing this problem of home grown terrorists. About time we stopped identifying as separate communities. Community leaders should be what they are - people elected by democratic process by all of us to be our representatives - councillors and MP's.
Everybody knows terrorists are criminals so there's no need, and they are fighting for a goal.
They don't just want to kill, that's their point isn't it? To create fear by being as outrageous as they can, maiming children and causing pain to as many families and bystanders as they can.
' I hate the constant references to ''community leaders' '
Is this to combat the criticism that some 'communities' aren't doing all they can to stop it and may actually be protecting them, even indirectly by not speaking out?
And they want to get passed it just being democratically elected people taking responsibility to get everyone to feel they have power to stop these people.
I don't agree OP, as others have said, they don't just want to murder people they want to instill terror in others.
I agree with Tapandgo in that I also don't like the references to ''community leaders''. Lots of communities don't have people who are seen as leaders and the idea that wannabe terrorists would actually listen anyway is unrealistic imo.
Imams maybe Stateless? Like all the Imams who were publically listed as refusing to bury the London attackers in June.
Although to be fair (re the OP) what we call them is neither here or there, they're widely given negative labels, unlike the men who murder their families (on another thread on here today).
Some Imams are prominent figures in their communities, some aren't, it depends on the community and the Imam. I don't like the common beliefs that terrorists can be stopped by people their communities, and that most terrorists are radicalised at their mosque, it puts blame on people who don't deserve it. If we don't know someone holds those kinds of beliefs what are we supposed to do about it
agent .Not sure I understand your comment. Mine is a simple one - in UK democracy we have elected community leaders and one set of laws we are bound to live by. Pandering to the idea that there are 'separate' community leaders we should 'go through' to deal with issues creates barriers and suspicion or worse. People intent on murder are out of control of any 'community leader' anyway.
It's also important to remember many of these murderes have passed through normal state school systems and some even university systems - not nestled only in the care of 'their community'.
I think (sticking with the Imam eg) they were given lists of what to watch out for, along with teachers, SS, doctors etc, they're people who might see a change in behaviour and can flag it up to police or whoever.
Who do you think should do something about it? (if I can say that without sounding shitty, not meant to)
Politicians can only guide the law, the police don't live with whoever's doing it/going to do it, and they've tried and failed as far as I can tell anyway.
But you can't just leave them to it, somebody has to do something, who best than the people living and working alongside them.
I see what you're saying Tapandgo, but terrorists actually do see themselves as apart from the rest of us and maybe some hold (if they're Islamic fundamentalists) their religious leaders in high esteem.
I would say whoever's asking the 'community leaders' to get involved more are looking to work alongside them rather than leaving them to sort it on their own?
What does it matter anyway, they're still killing people.
I usually refer to them as, 'evil, degenerate cunts,' but 'terrorist' rolls off my tongue just as easy. I can also say that word in front of my DD and Nan, so it's a useful substitute.
maybe some hold (if they're Islamic fundamentalists) their religious leaders in high esteem. They dont though, the vast majority of Muslims, including Imams, disagree with terrorism and the majority of ISIS supporters and members are pretty ignorant about Islam. Holding genuine religious leaders in high esteem would actually be a good thing.
They hold specific 'religious leaders' in esteem.
The Branch Davidians involved in the Waco siege held David Koresh in esteem as a religious (Christian) leader. He had a very different ideology than that of mainstream Christian leaders. Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christians can have very different beliefs - why would the leader of one denomination be blamed for the followers of a different leader?
Same with Islam.
It might be effective if the person is teetering on the brink of being sucked into whatever ideology's being peddled Stateless?
They want to belong and feel included, and if a more mainstream religion has been actively encouraged to make an effort to pull them back it could make a difference.
I'm sure it doesn't work in many instances, but the idea filters down into general knowledge giving other people around the potential terrorist (like parents) the knowledge that these red flags are significant and becoming a terrorist once you're on that path isn't necessarily set in stone.
agent - that is my point re terrorists see themselves as apart from us
We are encouraging this 'apartness' by pandering to it. We need to use language of inclusivity i.e. You are part of this UK community (regardless of varied religious beliefs) and as part of it you obey UK law and your reference needs to be to that standard). No picking and choosing - and if you want to change things then use the democratic process to vote for it.
imams need to be no more 'community leaders' than vicars, priests or rabbi's - they are spiritual leaders, not people running separate communities in some sort of separate 'state'.
You sound naive Agent, sorry. Most European terrorists do not attend mainstream religious services. Most terrorists do not display suspicious behaviour, when they do the people around them report them to the police. Salman Abedi for example was reported by many people. Obviously if people are aware that someone is being radicalised then people can try and stop it but I don't think people do know most of the time because most (including Muslims) generally expect someone like that to be ultra religious and conservative but in reality they usually aren't.
They want to spread terror but why should we validate their wants by calling them terrorists?
Las Ramblas was open this morning with joggers and newspaper sellers. That's impressive and a big fuck you to the
'You sound naive Agent, sorry.'
Funny, because you sound as though you know nothing about the process of radicalisation.
I'm not saying I have all the answers and have posted using maybe/possibly on only one aspect of govt strategy, but you don't have any answers either and still haven't said what you think would be a more effective strategy.
We're years down the line and tons of people are still getting murdered, I can't see the problem with putting pressure on the people who live with them to at least try and find a way to stop it.
Or maybe you think enough is being done and terrorism is inevitable so why bother trying anything else?
I would prefer to use the word "murderers" to "terrorists". I also feel that in some people's twisted minds, "terrorism" almost glorifies acts of cruel mass murder.
You're right Agent I don't have all the answers, clearly nobody does but that them and us mentality is a huge problem and you want the government to add to it . I'm sure that putting the responsibility for catching these people before they kill onto their friends and family creates more division not less. You don't see a problem with it, I guess you're not a Muslim living in a Muslim community so this isn't something that affects you? I've known 2 people who became radicalised and left the country, nobody had a clue what they were doing until it was too late. If someone is discovered to be a pedophile or serial killer are their family blamed for not knowing and telling someone? Why does this happen with terrorism?
Your post proves they're right to tell people what the red flags are Stateless, whether they're a paedophile, murderer or terrorist there are always signs, people don't just do those things out of the blue (although there are lots of reasons why it might seem they do).
The people around them have to be almost given permission to get involved, encouraged to go against the idea that it's none of their business.
Only the terrorists are personally responsible for the crimes they commit, but giving people the idea that they can change things doesn't divide people at all, only in that it divides us from the terrorists.
You still haven't said what you think would be a good way of tackling them. What about the 'home grown' ones I'm talking about, what do you think might stop them if you had the chance before they could do anything? (which to me can be a crucial time, the bit between them as just a lad at school playing footy and them determined to commit murder on a large scale).
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.