No details on the attacker at this point. Seems premature to label this a terror attack vs some random loony.
No details on the attacker at this point. Seems premature to label this a terror attack vs some random loony.
He's been named, well known Muslim been in prison for terrorist offences before.
"Abu Izzadeen, who was born Trevor Brooks, has been named in reports as the man who drove a car into the Houses of Parliament and attempted to attack police officers"
may not be 100% solid though...
The Scot wrote:
"Abu Izzadeen, who was born Trevor Brooks, has been named in reports as the man who drove a car into the Houses of Parliament and attempted to attack police officers"
may not be 100% solid though...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/abu-izzadeen-london-terror-attacks-westminster-who-is-he-police-politicians-a7644626.html
Ah, I see. Still, it seems as if they were calling it a terrorist attack from the very beginning, prior to identifying the suspect.
The definition of a "terrorist attack" is an attack by a terrorist, and a terrorist is one who caused terror (possibly by attacking). Now the Media (and deep state) controls the narrative, and will often call something a "terrorist attack" to let the people know that they *should* be terrified. Or sometimes they will decide it's *not* a terror attack, so the people shouldn't be worried. It can also (or perhaps usually) depend on the ideology of the media/government.
So it's a flexible weasel term.
Gravy wrote:
The Scot wrote:"Abu Izzadeen, who was born Trevor Brooks, has been named in reports as the man who drove a car into the Houses of Parliament and attempted to attack police officers"
may not be 100% solid though...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/abu-izzadeen-london-terror-attacks-westminster-who-is-he-police-politicians-a7644626.htmlAh, I see. Still, it seems as if they were calling it a terrorist attack from the very beginning, prior to identifying the suspect.
Ah, a cuckold.
Were people in terror when it happened?
L L wrote:
Were people in terror when it happened?
You mean the 3 innocents that died and the 20 that were injured? Is that what you mean?
Dictionary Dan wrote:
The definition of a "terrorist attack" is an attack by a terrorist, and a terrorist is one who caused terror (possibly by attacking). Now the Media (and deep state) controls the narrative, and will often call something a "terrorist attack" to let the people know that they *should* be terrified. Or sometimes they will decide it's *not* a terror attack, so the people shouldn't be worried. It can also (or perhaps usually) depend on the ideology of the media/government.
So it's a flexible weasel term.
No, at least in the US, a "terrorist" attack means the perpetrator was non-white. It's a given that no white person can be "terrorist." The Reflub congress has said as much.
theohiostate wrote:
L L wrote:Were people in terror when it happened?
You mean the 3 innocents that died and the 20 that were injured? Is that what you mean?
Yes
Why is it always converts?
L L wrote:
theohiostate wrote:You mean the 3 innocents that died and the 20 that were injured? Is that what you mean?
Yes
wtfdyt?
dc-wonk wrote:
Dictionary Dan wrote:The definition of a "terrorist attack" is an attack by a terrorist, and a terrorist is one who caused terror (possibly by attacking). Now the Media (and deep state) controls the narrative, and will often call something a "terrorist attack" to let the people know that they *should* be terrified. Or sometimes they will decide it's *not* a terror attack, so the people shouldn't be worried. It can also (or perhaps usually) depend on the ideology of the media/government.
So it's a flexible weasel term.
No, at least in the US, a "terrorist" attack means the perpetrator was non-white. It's a given that no white person can be "terrorist." The Reflub congress has said as much.
LOL; you've already forgotten the Caucasian Tsarnaev brothers?
As I said not 100%, latest is that it wasn't him ;-)
If the people were in terror then it was terrorism.
For example:
If the US military drops bombs near civilians in a foreign country and those civilians are in terror, it is terrorism.
It was easy to call this UK situation today terrorism.
Why do they say "We are treating it as an act of terror"? How would they treat it any differently?
Fair play to the Brit police for their speed of response. I've been to Westminster a few times and seen very few armed police (relatively speaking), but it looks like the place was crawling with them within minutes.
Born Trevor wrote:
Why is it always converts?
I'd guess it's because anyone who 'converts' from one crazy religion to another is seriously maladjusted. Way moreso than your average religious person who just sticks to their knitting.
Credit where it is due wrote:
Fair play to the Brit police for their speed of response. I've been to Westminster a few times and seen very few armed police (relatively speaking), but it looks like the place was crawling with them within minutes.
Pretty sure Westminster area is always crawling with police.
Was Dylan Roof labeled a terrorist?
If it walks like a duck, drives like a duck, kills like a duck, must be a mallard.
PC world makes no sense.
Islam- Religion of Peace
Keep saying if until they blow you up.
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Strava thinks the London Marathon times improved 12 minutes last year thanks to supershoes
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Clayton Murphy is giving some great insight into his training.
NAU women have no excuse - they should win it all at 2024 NCAA XC
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion