To not be surprised that the so-called terrorist had killing urges for a long time

[Lweji]

London attacker Khalid Masood: how hard-drinking, drug-taking village thug sought help over his urges to kill

I've just seen these headlines and just really need to post here after the discussion about this man on the Katie Hopkins thread.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/24/london-attacker-khalid-masood-hard-drinking-drug-taking-village/

Yes, terrorism is a problem, radical Islamic terrorism is a problem, as is radical white supremacist terrorism and violence.

But how many of these disturbed men are using such groups as excuses?
Is it a problem with these men or with those inciting them?

And if it's those inciting them, what's the difference between angry radical imams and ISIS calls for actions, and people spouting minority hate online or calling for military action that doesn't give a shit about civilians?

Coalition air strikes 'kill more than 200 people' in Mosul

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/23/coalition-air-strikes-kill-100-civilians-one-building-mosul/

I may be a bit angry with some twats that have gone on Fox, yes.

He was a terrorist who committed an act of terror. There is nothing "so-called" about this.

But if he was of another religion would we be calling him a terrorist?

The first line of a page on Wikipedia:

"Anders Behring Breivik is a Norwegian far-right terrorist "

I'm not aware of any right wing surpremists groups who openly tell their supporters to kill ALL others who do not support their cause and are actively doing so

But they certainly influence followers to create harm and division

Prejudice allows some to only be concerned with Islamic terrorists but it's certainly not the root of all those that are

I suppose he's classed as a terrorist rather than a murderer because the aim of his actions were political or aimed at the establishment but nobody knows yet how or if he was radicalised.

Werks, your posts are fascinating. Do carry on :)

He bogey may at the moment is the daesh or Al Qaeda inspired attacker. I remember terrorist attacks as a child by the IRA, ETA, Baader meinhoff, etc.

Nobody said 'oh they are only terrorist because they are white/catholic/Basque/German...' They were just 'terrorists'. Thugs with a label, just as they are now.

Fair enough. :)
But headlines use "mass murderer" and "warped mind".

It still remains that the right-wing danger hasn't been as reinforced as the Muslim (as in we should beware of all Muslims) danger.
And

What that he had no direct contact with Isis? that he was Muslim? or that he was influenced by Isis?

Of course Isis will claim responsibility and if he has been influenced by their teachings then
they are to some extent they are responsible

That he committed the crime where he did and in such a way strongly suggests he had been influenced and he was a Muslim

Enthusiasm, what about National Action?

What about them ?

Sorry, I was replying to your earlier post. They do think it's ok to kill.

It still remains that the right-wing danger hasn't been as reinforced as the Muslim (as in we should beware of all Muslims) danger.

Is this largely down to racism? It's much easier to 'other' those who are often of a different skin colour. Personally, I suspect the threat of the far right might actually be a greater risk to the west, precisely because so many people are having their attention pushed in another direction.

Maybe becuase he was a Muslim and Isis have claimed responsibility

I thought they hadn't claimed responsibility but that he had answered their call (or similar) which to me suggests he wasn't working with isis but was inspired by them.

I know they do

And they are a terrorist group

But I don't think they are actively encouraging ALL (that's why I highlighted it) members to kill those that have different beliefs

"so-called terrorist" wtf!!?? He was a terrorist. How can that be disputed? Would you describe Anders Breivik as a "so called terrorist"?

I think this is wilfully misunderstanding the nature of terrorism. Terrorists don't have a rule book or a code of conduct. They don't conduct interviews or do psychological evaluations or invite you to attend their HQ for a joining ceremony and a laminated membership card.

They use what's available to them. And yes that often does mean people with drug problems, mental health problems, criminal records, psychopaths, those with a history of violence. This is no different to the IRA or ETA or any other terrorist organisation you care to mention.

I think it's insulting the intelligence of your fellow citizens to expect people to pretend it's just as likely someone outraged by a parking ticket or Men's rights or whatever.

BillSykesDog

I think this is wilfully misunderstanding the nature of terrorism. Terrorists don't have a rule book or a code of conduct. They don't conduct interviews or do psychological evaluations or invite you to attend their HQ for a joining ceremony and a laminated membership card.

They use what's available to them. And yes that often does mean people with drug problems, mental health problems, criminal records, psychopaths, those with a history of violence. This is no different to the IRA or ETA or any other terrorist organisation you care to mention.

I think it's insulting the intelligence of your fellow citizens to expect people to pretend it's just as likely someone outraged by a parking ticket or Men's rights or whatever.

Bloody well said, as always. The degree of minimising and whataboutery in the OP is disgusting.

If a global far right white supremacist group conquers several countries and incites its adherents worldwide to commit mass casualty attacks against civilians, then that will most certainly be terrorism too. Just like this is. Denying it is a sick insult to all of us, but especially the victims.

Personally, I suspect the threat of the far right might actually be a greater risk to the west, precisely because so many people are having their attention pushed in another direction.

Particularly because some are disputing elections.

So far, we've had Trump with his Breitbart mentors.
Their methods of killing aren't overtly terrorist, but just as chilling.

Ah, Lweji. So according to you, driving a car down a bridge into civilians and stabbing a policeman isn't terrorism. But writing articles you don't like is. I think I get where you're coming from.

I guess the difference between what this creature did and say someone holed up in a campus belltower taking pot shots at people is their own self justification of their actions.

People do shit things. Some do it out of hatred for the works and done do it for the 'love' of something.

So according to you, driving a car down a bridge into civilians and stabbing a policeman isn't terrorism. But writing articles you don't like is.

Clearly, you don't see where I'm coming from because that's not what I said.

To start with in wasn't talking about articles I don't like. I was talking about people inciting hate and othering, and then actual military attacks that kills hundreds of civilians indiscriminately, about leaving refugees and civilians to die, even attacking places of worship and cemeteries, about mass murdering people too (but not by a Muslim).

What I'm saying is that our society is biased on what we classify as terrorism and incitement of terrorism.

I don't think many on here will deny that the rise in support for the far right is worry

I think it's very concerning but have been told that they didn't win elections so that ok

I also find the influence of Isis and similar groups are very concerning

I find all extremes and all incitement of hate and violence worrying.

And the far-right did win one key election, btw.

Lweji

So far, we've had Trump with his Breitbart mentors.
Their methods of killing aren't overtly terrorist, but just as chilling.

When Trump and Breitbart starting murdering people on Westminster Bridge, be sure to let us know. Until then, you can keep your insulting whataboutery.

A key to the problem is that those extremes feed each other. And it's us in the middle who get fucked. And by us I mean moderate people who just want to live in peace, anywhere.

They may not be murdering people directly in Westminster bridge.
They are murdering people in Mosul and Yemen. They are happy for the population to be armed with no restrictions.
They are intent on leaving people without life saving health care. They are intent on letting people die because of less safety and environmental regulations.
They may start a new war.
Are you fine with that?

Lweji

They may not be murdering people directly in Westminster bridge.

Glad to hear one piece of reality today.

They are murdering people in Mosul and Yemen.

Fighting wars against extremists is not terrorism.

They are happy for the population to be armed with no restrictions.

Also not terrorism.

They are intent on leaving people without life saving health care.

Also not terrorism.

They are intent on letting people die because of less safety and environmental regulations.

Also not terrorism.

They may start a new war.

Also not terrorism, and pure speculation about the future.

Are you fine with that?

As a matter of fact no, I oppose most of those policies. But they have literally nothing to do with the terrorist act in London this week, and everything to do with a desperate attempt to deflect rational analysis of it.