Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Bradford missing family members
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
So they set out to kill a soldier but were guessing rather than relying on any specific knowledge.
Yep.
and the other guy set out to kill a muslim....and just thought any guy who isnt white will be close enough
because you don't get white muslims....or dark Christians....or any other religions i the world
they seem different types of evil from each other and I can understand theirs more as so many women and children had died from army bombs etc from the west... I can see how the fanatics can spread hatred for a uniform even if it isnt justified...
By contrast, the Rigby killers thinking was more joined up. A man outside army barracks with an army backpack wearing a garment that proclaims sympathy with the armed forces is reasonably likely to have army connections.
Bizarrely Davies now admits an obsession with Isis and going on jihadists websites to learn more about them and beading in particular. He even professes to draw inspiration from some of their attitudes.
Vvdot there's your muslim bias connection right there...
Meanwhile, this is quite interesting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33240611
Davis has known links with far right (Christian) groups and attacked a man based on his skin colour, which is not a lot different firm rigby's killers having links with extremist (Muslim) groups and killing a man that they believed to be an active soldier. Both horrific attacks but reported in a majorly biased way due to one man being white and the other of tanned complexion.
I don't think this explains it. David Copeland's attacks are generally referred to as terrorist attacks, as was Timothy McVeigh's, although both are white. Ditto Anders Breivik. Ditto IRA terrorists.
More likely, given that there is no single definition of what a terrorist is, it's one that depends on a combination of factors - the number of perpetrators, the number of victims and the influence behind the attacks.
Breivik: one man acting alone with no link to known active terror organisations* but multiple victims and multiple attacks = terrorist.
Copeland: same scenario = terrorist.
Davies: one man acting alone with no link to known active terror organisations and one victim = not a terrorist.
Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale: two men conspiring together under the influence of a known terror organisation, one victim = terrorists
Personally I think the last one is borderline but perhaps the fact that they also shot at the police who attended the scene does edge them into that category. Sometimes, perhaps, that definition is wrong precisely because it can be hard to define.
*I make the distinction because most far right groups aren't, despite their views
Moreover, zack Davies supposedly set out to murder his mums boyfriend (no mention of him being dark skinned so I assume he was white) didn't find him and then somehow latched onto bhambra and went for it on a white supremacy / anti muslim thing.
It gets murkier when you read that Davies drew inspiration from jihadi John, supposedly used the online alias Zak Ali, posted incendiary passages from the Koran and admits toying with conversion to Islam.
He was also expelled from school for bringing in a knife to have a go at someone with.
So while I can see a grade A psychotic nutter / lone wolf - I'm struggling to see the planning, clarity of purpose, ideology and bigger organisation that I'd associate with terrorism.
After today's shenanigans in Tunisia and France I suppose we have to start asking what it is that society/societies/Islam itself can offer these people that's more attractive than what they are doing?
Screams, your formula for terrorist assessment makes about as much sense to me as mine obviously does to you. What I find interesting is hat the victims family believe it was an act of terrorism. They are not jihadist Muslims trying to score points, they are innocent victims. If they feel terrorised by the crime then it was an act of terror.