My feed

to access all these features


to think it was a nutter not a terrorist attack?

91 replies

Corygal · 23/05/2013 20:36

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.

OP posts:
Bumpotato · 23/05/2013 23:02

Why is it okay to say nutter but not moron on MN?

OT but curious, I'm newish here.

FrankellyMyDearIDontGiveADamn · 23/05/2013 23:03

The dictionary definition of terrorism:

  1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Yesterday's awful events fit the bill as far as I'm concerned.
ClayDavis · 23/05/2013 23:38

Bumpotato, it isn't OK to say 'nutter' on Mumsnet. On every thread I've seen it used on it has been picked up on by other users. Some people seem to be willfully ignoring how offensive it can be. Particularly the way its being used in the context of this thread.

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 23/05/2013 23:47

He didn't seem insane,just evil and deluded

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 23/05/2013 23:55

Actually what is scary is he didn't seem evil, just convinced something very wrong was right,was even apologetic.

His act was obviously heinously wicked.

HairTodayShornTomorrow · 24/05/2013 00:24

to commit such an atrocity, you are totally out of touch with reality

I agree with this.

It's also true of the Norwegian man who shot 69 young people in 2011, after killing 8 others with a bomb:

And true, too, of the American terrorist who killed 168 people with a bomb in 1995

The Woolwich murderers are despicable, but not unique.

ShellyBoobs · 24/05/2013 00:26

Of course it was terrorism!

What on earth do you think 'terrorism' means, OP (and others who 'agree it wasn't terrorism', ffs)?

It doesn't mean that the perpetrator was a signed up member of a fundamentalist organisation; it means the perpetrator committed an act designed to provoke fear.

Mimishimi · 24/05/2013 06:51

Nutters/terrorism - not much difference really.

AuntieStella · 24/05/2013 06:58

Huge difference.

People with MN health issues are not all terrorists.

And using terms such as "nutters", "insane" etc does take this into MH territory.

Discussion of how people become radicalised does not need to use MH terms (especially derogatory ones) as it is a totally separate thing, which could occur whether MH issues are present or not.

scottishmummy · 24/05/2013 07:32

no poppy you used terms like nutter,insane,not normal mind.all mh terms
you are habitually linking this heinous act to mh,and you don't grasp this isn't mh
stigma and misunderstanding of mh are huge,not helped by use of word like nutter for any atrocity

Lazyjaney · 24/05/2013 07:37

YANBU, the media seemed very quick with the muslim terrorist storyline, long before any facts had come out.

I also think it's very naive to think you can send attack people in their own country, especially those with a global ideology, and not expect those people to come back at you in yours.

OrlaKiely · 24/05/2013 07:43

I think I saw something about their already having tried to leave the country at one point, they were known to police iyswim

but I thought the same as you tbh

scottishmummy · 24/05/2013 07:44

so you're uncomfortable with terrorism storyline but not presumption of mh?
what facts have you used to deduce this is mh?its not a view replicated elsewhere
don't shunt this onto mh because you're uncomfortable with anti-islamic sentiments or racism

cory · 24/05/2013 07:49

From the evidence so far it seems Adebolajo was brought up a Christian, then fell in with violent criminal gangs, then at a later stage was attracted to a particular (banned) Muslim organisation, presumably because it offered him an outlet for the violence he was addicted to.

It is as if a white American man who was already into violence had been attracted to the KKK: you would blame the KKK for any atrocities they encouraged but not the whole of Christianity.

Why he was attracted to crime and violence we do not know. It may be that he had MH issues which made him more vulnerable to that sort of thing, it may be that he did not. His behaviour at the time of the crime does seem very odd and not standard terrorist behaviour, but it may also be that he had taken drugs. Presumably these things will all come out at his trial.

Mondrian · 24/05/2013 08:30

Actually there is no international legal definition for the word terrorist as different governments adopt a selective definition so as to avoid implicating themselves.

However murdering someone irrespective of the cause takes a certain level of flawed character, to do it in the manner which was done in Woolwich is way beyond the boundaries of sanity & morality and has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with violence.

mayorquimby · 24/05/2013 08:41

Well they targeted a military personnel, based solely on the fact their military status.
The killing was motivated by religious and political ideology.
It would appear that they wanted to cause fear and division amongst parts of society and have succeeded.
Looks like textbook terrorist to me. Timothy mcveigh wasn't affiliated to any international terrorist cell, he was still a terrorist.

sweetestcup · 24/05/2013 09:08

Nutters/terrorism - not much difference really

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

Lazyjaney · 24/05/2013 09:24

"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.

mayorquimby · 24/05/2013 10:23

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

mayorquimby · 24/05/2013 10:25
  • as terrorism
mcmooncup · 24/05/2013 10:32

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

mayorquimby · 24/05/2013 10:39

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

Saltire · 24/05/2013 10:52

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.

AngsanaTree · 24/05/2013 10:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

EldritchCleavage · 24/05/2013 12:26

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.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.