Muslim women kill more women in London today.

[Tilly]

Imams refuse to give Islamic burials for London attackers in 'unprecedented move'

Because, as they endlessly say a THEY ARE NOT MUSLIMS!
So Why on earth would they give them Islamic burials?
Not very impressive.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

So all hate crimes are now terrorism?

Because YOU decided it's a hate crime doesn't make it a hate crime, you're just doing your usual excuse for the Muzzies and their terrorism

What ever. I don't want to argue with you.

Police said they aren't treating it as terrorism yet.

I'm not arguing I'm stating a fact, it's Islamic terrorism....the first clue is screaming Allah, the second is the knife

Not to mention happening on the back of our two recent Islamic terrorist attacks.

Yep, the Ragheads be all riled up.

 

[Coyote]

It sounds more like a hate crime.

Not sure what you are seeing as the difference in this instance between a hate crime and a terrorist act which emulates terrorist attacks in many places. How would you define one or the other?

A terrorist act has a purpose- the best definition I've seen is wikipedia: "the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim".

I suppose it could be regarded as terrorism but then that makes it very broad - for example would a group of people assaulting someone and shouting racial slurs as they do so committing a terrorist act?

I go "no", on that last one. That would be a hate crime.

But, because these women were carrying at least one knife, they used methods linked to terrorism, and because I think the article said they did it on a busy street, and because they seemed to pick a random target -- I'm calling the OP incident an act of terrorism.

Then would that incident on the Portland train where the nut attacked two women yelling anti-Islamic slurs and then knifing the two men who tried to interfere terrorism?

 

[irosie91]

is that it ? a bunch of muslimah sluts with a big knife? ------

 

[Coyote]

This is the article that has the most info on it, which isn't a whole lot. Female nursery worker is stabbed by three women in London | Daily Mail Online

 

[Meathead]

That doesn't in and of itself make it terrorism. Look at the attack by that nutter on the Portland train, yelling anti-muslim slurs at two girls and then knifing people? That ended in two deaths. Is that terrorism? No.

Yeah, it is.

The only thing worse than a dingbat is a broken-record dingbat. Of course it's terrorism, by any definition.

 

[Shusha]

Then would that incident on the Portland train where the nut attacked two women yelling anti-Islamic slurs and then knifing the two men who tried to interfere terrorism?

Nope. But probably not for the reasons you would think.

That was a white (Christian) man's entitlement crime in a Trump America. He didn't (physically) attack the two muslim women, right? My belief is that he wouldn't have. He just wanted the right to abuse them. And felt he was entitled to abuse them. (Which is a hate crime.)

He attacked the men who came to their assistance. Its the same sort of reaction an abuser has to a knight rescuing a woman from an abusive situation, especially in public. The abuser feels entitled to abuse HIS woman. The knight, therefore, is interrupting his perceived right to abuse HIS woman and therefore becomes a legitimate target. The abuser feels he is defending himself from the violent attack of the knight.

I think Portland guy felt he had a right, in Trump America, to verbally assault women he perceives to be "other" or "dangerous" (ideologically). The knights who came to their rescue were therefore infringing on HIS rights and HIS freedom of speech. In his mind, THEY were the instigators and the ones behaving in an asocial manner. (Not saying he is correct in his thinking, but laying out my understanding of it).

Therefore, its a privileged person's (white Christian male) entitlement crime. Which is different than a hate crime. Which is different than terrorism.

Make sense?

 

[irosie91]

just a friendly little ramadingdong greeting

 

[irosie91]

Then would that incident on the Portland train where the nut attacked two women yelling anti-Islamic slurs and then knifing the two men who tried to interfere terrorism?

Nope. But probably not for the reasons you would think.

That was a white (Christian) man's entitlement crime in a Trump America. He didn't (physically) attack the two muslim women, right? My belief is that he wouldn't have. He just wanted the right to abuse them. And felt he was entitled to abuse them. (Which is a hate crime.)

He attacked the men who came to their assistance. Its the same sort of reaction an abuser has to a knight rescuing a woman from an abusive situation, especially in public. The abuser feels entitled to abuse HIS woman. The knight, therefore, is interrupting his perceived right to abuse HIS woman and therefore becomes a legitimate target. The knight feels he is defending himself from the violent attack of the knight.

I think Portland guy felt he had a right, in Trump America, to verbally assault women he perceives to be "other" or "dangerous" (ideologically). The knights who came to their rescue were therefore infringing on HIS rights and HIS freedom of speech. In his mind, THEY were the instigators and the ones behaving in an asocial manner. (Not saying he is correct in his thinking, but laying out my understanding of it).

Therefore, its a privileged person's (white Christian male) entitlement crime. Which is different than a hate crime. Which is different than terrorism.

Make sense?

<<< nope

 

[Shusha]

<<< nope

My explanation doesn't make sense?

 

[Coyote]

Then would that incident on the Portland train where the nut attacked two women yelling anti-Islamic slurs and then knifing the two men who tried to interfere terrorism?

Nope. But probably not for the reasons you would think.

That was a white (Christian) man's entitlement crime in a Trump America. He didn't (physically) attack the two muslim women, right? My belief is that he wouldn't have. He just wanted the right to abuse them. And felt he was entitled to abuse them. (Which is a hate crime.)

He attacked the men who came to their assistance. Its the same sort of reaction an abuser has to a knight rescuing a woman from an abusive situation, especially in public. The abuser feels entitled to abuse HIS woman. The knight, therefore, is interrupting his perceived right to abuse HIS woman and therefore becomes a legitimate target. The knight feels he is defending himself from the violent attack of the knight.

I think Portland guy felt he had a right, in Trump America, to verbally assault women he perceives to be "other" or "dangerous" (ideologically). The knights who came to their rescue were therefore infringing on HIS rights and HIS freedom of speech. In his mind, THEY were the instigators and the ones behaving in an asocial manner. (Not saying he is correct in his thinking, but laying out my understanding of it).

Therefore, its a privileged person's (white Christian male) entitlement crime. Which is different than a hate crime. Which is different than terrorism.

Make sense?

Thank you.

Your post makes the most sense of any I've read on this in a while...so, he felt entitled to abuse them, and it's a hate crime? And an entitlement crime? That's an interesting way of looking at it. I didn't see it as "terrorism" because there was no ideological intent.

But I'm still undecided as to whether the OP crime is "terrorism" - police also mentioned "gangs" - the victim was punched, hair pulled out, ribs broken, and cut with a knife (a lot of people carry knives). Police haven't said much but I do see how coming on the heels of recent events, it's suspicious.

 

[Godboy]

That doesn't in and of itself make it terrorism. Look at the attack by that nutter on the Portland train, yelling anti-muslim slurs at two girls and then knifing people? That ended in two deaths. Is that terrorism? No.

Until we have evidence that shows she is crazy, all we can go on is that she was yelling the terrorist mantra as she tried to kill people. Shes a terrorist until proven otherwise.

 

[mudwhistle]

It sounds more like a hate crime.

Ya think?

 

[Shusha]

Thank you.

Your post makes the most sense of any I've read on this in a while...so, he felt entitled to abuse them, and it's a hate crime? And an entitlement crime? That's an interesting way of looking at it. I didn't see it as "terrorism" because there was no ideological intent.

We agree. Yes, the Portland incident was a hate crime towards the women. And an entitlement crime towards the three men. But not terrorism because there was no intent to scare a target audience.

But I'm still undecided as to whether the OP crime is "terrorism" - police also mentioned "gangs" - the victim was punched, hair pulled out, ribs broken, and cut with a knife (a lot of people carry knives). Police haven't said much but I do see how coming on the heels of recent events, it's suspicious.

Another possibility is a "territorial" crime -- where certain groups of people ('gangs') feel entitled to a specific neighborhood or territory and attack outsiders as a matter of course. That is apparently becoming a reality in some cities in Europe with certain groups. (I won't label them, but I'm sure you know what I mean). Not sure that fits this case, but its another possibility to consider.

I'm still inclined to believe the OP attack was most similar to a terrorist attack.

I think it matters to determine the root causes of these attacks in terms of the thinking of the individuals involved. If its a territorial dispute -- you can't solve it by providing empathy training. If its a perceived right, you can't solve it by denying those rights. You know?

 

[LuckyDuck]

Conceal carry helps prevent this...some one comes at you yelling Allah Akbar? Ventilate them

True, but the Brits have decided only the government, cops, crooks and terrorists can own guns.

Don't forget that the farmers can have a shotgun for hunting.

 

[Coyote]

Thank you.

Your post makes the most sense of any I've read on this in a while...so, he felt entitled to abuse them, and it's a hate crime? And an entitlement crime? That's an interesting way of looking at it. I didn't see it as "terrorism" because there was no ideological intent.

We agree. Yes, the Portland incident was a hate crime towards the women. And an entitlement crime towards the three men. But not terrorism because there was no intent to scare a target audience.

But I'm still undecided as to whether the OP crime is "terrorism" - police also mentioned "gangs" - the victim was punched, hair pulled out, ribs broken, and cut with a knife (a lot of people carry knives). Police haven't said much but I do see how coming on the heels of recent events, it's suspicious.

Another possibility is a "territorial" crime -- where certain groups of people ('gangs') feel entitled to a specific neighborhood or territory and attack outsiders as a matter of course. That is apparently becoming a reality in some cities in Europe with certain groups. (I won't label them, but I'm sure you know what I mean). Not sure that fits this case, but its another possibility to consider.

I'm still inclined to believe the OP attack was most similar to a terrorist attack.

I think it matters to determine the root causes of these attacks in terms of the thinking of the individuals involved. If its a territorial dispute -- you can't solve it by providing empathy training. If its a perceived right, you can't solve it by denying those rights. You know?

That is really an interesting break down - and a lot more to think about then the simplistic way I was viewing it, and I guess a lot of us view it. Thanks!

 

[irosie91]

<<< nope

My explanation doesn't make sense?

not to me-----I do not think spousal abuse is the same as an attack by a bigot
upon the specific objects of his bigotry. Both are crimes but driven by different
"passions"-------it is hard for me to see the attack on the muslim girls as something
like-------a bigots impression of his victims as "HIS WOMEN"

 

[Shusha]

<<< nope

My explanation doesn't make sense?

not to me-----I do not think spousal abuse is the same as an attack by a bigot
upon the specific objects of his bigotry. Both are crimes but driven by different
"passions"-------it is hard for me to see the attack on the muslim girls as something
like-------a bigots impression of his victims as "HIS WOMEN"

Fair enough. Think of it this way: its just a different type of bigotry. On the one hand, a bigotry towards "wife", specifically his wife. And on the other hand a bigotry towards "women who appear to be muslim". Both are fueled by a societal acceptance.

 

[Tilly]

<<< nope

My explanation doesn't make sense?

From what I've read this man has been behaving this way for a long time - before 'Trumps America' - and was not enamoured of Trump.
He was certainly also a racist against blacks and Jews. He referred to Jews as AskeNAZIS, for example. I don't see him though as having any ideology on which to place any ideological label, so not a terrorist IMHO. He was always shooting his mouth off at black people, people who didn't vote his way, Christians, Jews and Muslims, in public and online.

 

[irosie91]

<<< nope

My explanation doesn't make sense?

not to me-----I do not think spousal abuse is the same as an attack by a bigot
upon the specific objects of his bigotry. Both are crimes but driven by different
"passions"-------it is hard for me to see the attack on the muslim girls as something
like-------a bigots impression of his victims as "HIS WOMEN"

Fair enough. Think of it this way: its just a different type of bigotry. On the one hand, a bigotry towards "wife", specifically his wife. And on the other hand a bigotry towards "women who appear to be muslim". Both are fueled by a societal acceptance.

ok----you got me there-----that societal acceptance issue on the abuse of women is---
REALLY IS............a ubiquitous bitch