I doubt if any of the children ripped apart in the Manchester bombings were Crusaders either.
Mine was highlighting the 'revenge' angle in the description, in case you missed it.
"Islamaphobia never killed anyone" - T. Abbott.
Tony Abbott said that?
Yeah but you are arguing semantics. The Londoners killed in the two previous terror attacks were never involved in anything either, guilt by association is how this works, and you know that.
Still doesn't prove anything?
The BBC (and the ABC here) are actually meant to abide by certain standards, they only say terrorist after the police (or other relevant authorities) do. BBC copped stick from the conservative press for not calling the london bridge attacks 'terrorist' attacks until after the cops did.
They subsequently put put out a detailed explanation of the when and why, they started calling it terrorism like 2 minutes after the cops did.
I know the point you're making, but we'd be in a much better place if people stopped jumping to calling every deluded one-off nutter with a car or knife a terrorist, just because they self identify as being part of X Y or Z group.
I know why it's done and understand it to a degree but it would be good if there was a better way to describe the victims of the Finsbury attack other than by their religion. It would go some way towards reducing the "us and them" mentality that underscores these events.
"A person attacked some other people"
The moment you start whacking labels on people, you de-humanise them.
Same with the rubbish about asylum seekers vs illegal immigrants vs whatever. They are people first, potential immigrant second.
Is it deliberate or in the rush to get the story out there, convenient? I want to give the media the benefit of the doubt but I suspect the former is more likely. I look at the story from about 4x weeks ago where a young lady from Melbourne was killed in a terrorist attack in Baghdad whilst enjoying an icecream. She wasn't described as a 'young Australian woman' rather as a 'young Muslim girl who attends a Muslim school in Melbourne'. I can't help but think the story went away as soon as possible because 'she's brown and a muso' and not really one of us.
Fear and strife certainly shift units, and we need to be careful about treating Newscorp and co as having any interest other than making a buck.
Which makes all the attacks on the ABC and BBC even more galling.
All true, but if the attacker did it BECAUSE the victims are Muslims, then i think its relevant to apply that label and not just "people".
But does that make it terrorism? Or just racism (or homophobia with the Orlando guy)?
I thought inherent within the definition of terrorism was some level of organisation, as well as intent?
Hmm. Not sure. I'll think about it. But i broadly think its targeting a specific group of innocents in an otherwise random manner that cant be either expected and/or accurately predicted. It probably needs a political and/or religious motivation too.
But its semantics in a lot of ways, isnt it? Eg- where is it genocide and where is it terrorism? Or are they the same, just varying in the expectation or ability to kill a small group or on-going a much larger group?
No clear lines here. They are all, after all, totally unhinged. Some are just more calculating.
"London attack plays into hands of IS"
should read "worldwide media plays in to hands of IS"
Basically: “My extreme prejudice is awesomer than yours.”
WTAF is the issue here???
I wasn't being mysterious. You don;'t go and murder a bunch of people and call it 'revenge' when it has nothing to do with those people. You just call it farking crazy. I don't give a fark whether it white black green or farking purple, whether someone believes in fairies, spaghetti monsters or sodomising goats - it's not farking 'revenge'. There's nothing just or honorable about it. It's simply murder.
Of course it was revenge, revenge against a people group based on religion, due to others of the same religion attacking this guys "own" people group. Not hard to see that. Sure it is simple murder, sure it is crazy but that doesn't mean it isn't being done as "revenge" in that persons mind.
Was the attack on innocent people in Manchester and London Bridge not "revenge" by certain people against a certain culture? Of course it was in their mind, that's why they are doing it. It is simple murder then too and it is crazy.
Just because something is murder and crazy doesn't invalidate it being done in the name of revenge.
All in cases we have seen, innocents are the ones being targeted, people who have nothing to do with either side of the issue.
By definition, revenge can only be a thing someone can do to someone else as payback for a wrong suffered at their hands. You could call it misplaced retaliation or something like that I suppose.