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:
VenusStarr · 24/05/2013 12:40

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.

FrankellyMyDearIDontGiveADamn · 24/05/2013 12:52

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.

landofsoapandglory · 24/05/2013 12:58

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 · 24/05/2013 13:08

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.

Saltire · 24/05/2013 13:15

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

landofsoapandglory · 24/05/2013 13:22

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.

landofsoapandglory · 24/05/2013 13:24

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

Saltire · 24/05/2013 13:28

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!

FrankellyMyDearIDontGiveADamn · 24/05/2013 13:29

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 · 24/05/2013 13:32

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!!

poppycock6 · 24/05/2013 15:02

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.

xylem8 · 24/05/2013 16:33

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

edam · 24/05/2013 18:14

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.

Madsometimes · 24/05/2013 22:09

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.

fragola · 24/05/2013 23:49

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

Lazyjaney · 25/05/2013 00:01

"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.....

Please create an account

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