southernpie wrote:
What is a terrorist? Does anyone know that his actions yesterday were for reasons other than someone with mental health problems going off the rails. Do we know he had a particular ideology to commit this act. Was the Hungerford killings a terrorist act or not?
I believe Somion Jenkins had a go at the BBC on Newsnight for over-publicizing the act in London yesterday and not simply calling it a crime.
He has a point because publicity is what terrorist groups crave and whether the perpetrator fits a definition of a terrorist or not, you can bet the leadership of Isis will be claiming it and lapping up the publicity. The sensationalization of it by news outlets and newspapers is more of a concern to me than whether or not this guy fits some academic definition of a terrorist.
That said while I am sure we all think people who do as he did are mentally ill at the very least, I can guarantee this will be classified as a terrorist act whereas Hungerford wasn't. The reason Hungerford wasn't is pretty blindingly obvious in that the perpetrator was not out to terrorise a population as a means to an end (Isis, IRA) or out to make a political statement (Jo Cox murder).
DaveO wrote:
Rubbish. He was born here. As was the person who murdered Jo Cox and he was White/British. They are both peas from the same pod.
But Dave that was the end of all discussion according to the person you replied to. You got to laugh at people that think that any discussion and solution is based on the level of information they have. Just to come out and say the end is real woeful and lacks understanding of the world..
Your right Dave your reply is very much spot on. If multiculturalism was the issue how have the Welsh, English and Scots managed to not have a war for centruries how have we got on with Europe, USA, Austrtralia and so on for decades or more. We are all culturally different and have different values.
Problem of what happened in London is a heck of a lot larger than multiculturalism. Most terrorism acts since the IRA stopped attacking the mainland UK has been done by British people. Regardless of religion we have an issue of how British people get converted into terrorists in the UK initially.
What is a terrorist? Does anyone know that his actions yesterday were for reasons other than someone with mental health problems going off the rails. Do we know he had a particular ideology to commit this act. Was the Hungerford killings a terrorist act or not?
You have nailed it well said. Every killing in this country is an act of terror for me.
Dictionary definition (not being argumentative with the next part was interested in its meaning)
someone who uses violent action, or threats of violent action, for political purposes:
Only reason I accounted for what happened was that I heard on the news that ISIS took responsibility for it. But that again that is up to debate.
Your right Dave your reply is very much spot on. If multiculturalism was the issue how have the Welsh, English and Scots managed to not have a war for centruries how have we got on with Europe, USA, Austrtralia and so on for decades or more. We are all culturally different and have different values.
We didn't blame the entire Irish population or the Catholic religion.
Problem of what happened in London is a heck of a lot larger than multiculturalism. Most terrorism acts since the IRA stopped attacking the mainland UK has been done by British people. Regardless of religion we have an issue of how British people get converted into terrorists in the UK initially.
Yes radicalisation and what causes it are serious issues. You can't dismiss it as these people being mentally ill and so they aren't really terrorists. It's already come out the perpetrator had attracted the attention of the security services some time ago. He didn't just have a mental breakdown and decide to do this. He was radicalised and was a terrorist.
southernpie wrote:
What is a terrorist? Does anyone know that his actions yesterday were for reasons other than someone with mental health problems going off the rails. Do we know he had a particular ideology to commit this act. Was the Hungerford killings a terrorist act or not?
I believe Somion Jenkins had a go at the BBC on Newsnight for over-publicizing the act in London yesterday and not simply calling it a crime.
He has a point because publicity is what terrorist groups crave and whether the perpetrator fits a definition of a terrorist or not, you can bet the leadership of Isis will be claiming it and lapping up the publicity. The sensationalization of it by news outlets and newspapers is more of a concern to me than whether or not this guy fits some academic definition of a terrorist.
That said while I am sure we all think people who do as he did are mentally ill at the very least, I can guarantee this will be classified as a terrorist act whereas Hungerford wasn't. The reason Hungerford wasn't is pretty blindingly obvious in that the perpetrator was not out to terrorise a population as a means to an end (Isis, IRA) or out to make a political statement (Jo Cox murder).
Thanks Dave that sums up my point exactly
This St Helens Defence is like a lollipopman at Brands Hatch -Ray French BBC TV Challenge Cup 1982
SJ wrote:McGuiness was something of a Parodox I think
He was. I was living in London when the IRA were bombing it. Worked not far at all from where a bomb went off in a McDonalds and there were regular bomb scares.
In Kilburn near where I lived there were pubs where they collected money for the IRA.
I always felt McGuiness was the most ruthless and chilling of the more notorious IRA leadership. He was an IRA commander when Mountbatten and 18 soldiers were killed on the same day. Yet in later life he put aside the guns and took the political route even becoming friends with Paisley.
I saw Norman Tebbit was one of the few dissenting political voices saying he was not going to mourn his passing (to put it mildly). His wife was a victim of the Brighton hotel bomb and has been paralysed ever since.
I can understand that on a personal level. I am sure any relatives of the over 1,700 victims of the IRA won't be sending flowers to McGuiness's funeral though I think even some of them have more about them then Tebbit and recognise talking to McGuiness and the IRA has led to a better situation than stubbornly carrying on fighting. So on a political level it shows Tebbit up. What would he have done had it been him in charge when McGuiness and Adams were making overtures to the British government to end the shooting? Tell him to sod off because of his wife? How many more would have died if he had?
It takes real guts as a politician to do the unpopular things for the greater good such as pardon IRA members as Blair did but he would not have had the opportunity if McGuiness and Adams had not changed tack.
Ironically I don't think Gerry Adams has liked the praise given to McGuiness. He has said he didn't have a road to damascus conversion. I don't doubt McGuiness was still an Irish Republican through and through but I think he had totally abandoned violence.
Unfortunately I don't think we will be getting any McGuiness like conversions away from violence with Isis. They are not after a political solution to anything. They just want us all dead.
Excellent post Dave,
It's all too easy to dismiss McGuiness as just a terrorist he was someone i suspect we wont ever see again a man of violence who became a man of peace,or as much as close to being so as it was ever going to be.
I'm sure it was in Alastair Campbell's diaries that said something along the lines of he was the only man who truly scared big Alastair when he first met him,simply put those of us who are old enough to remember the endless nonsense of the 70's and 80's from the IRA knew change had to come from the top of the tree and the top more or less was McGuiness,he and Adams had to be brought into the discussions at some point and it was brave of Major and of course Blair to bring to fruition the peace process.
As for what happened in London..words simply fail me.
SJ wrote:McGuiness was something of a Parodox I think
He was. I was living in London when the IRA were bombing it. Worked not far at all from where a bomb went off in a McDonalds and there were regular bomb scares.
In Kilburn near where I lived there were pubs where they collected money for the IRA.
I always felt McGuiness was the most ruthless and chilling of the more notorious IRA leadership. He was an IRA commander when Mountbatten and 18 soldiers were killed on the same day. Yet in later life he put aside the guns and took the political route even becoming friends with Paisley.
I saw Norman Tebbit was one of the few dissenting political voices saying he was not going to mourn his passing (to put it mildly). His wife was a victim of the Brighton hotel bomb and has been paralysed ever since.
I can understand that on a personal level. I am sure any relatives of the over 1,700 victims of the IRA won't be sending flowers to McGuiness's funeral though I think even some of them have more about them then Tebbit and recognise talking to McGuiness and the IRA has led to a better situation than stubbornly carrying on fighting. So on a political level it shows Tebbit up. What would he have done had it been him in charge when McGuiness and Adams were making overtures to the British government to end the shooting? Tell him to sod off because of his wife? How many more would have died if he had?
It takes real guts as a politician to do the unpopular things for the greater good such as pardon IRA members as Blair did but he would not have had the opportunity if McGuiness and Adams had not changed tack.
Ironically I don't think Gerry Adams has liked the praise given to McGuiness. He has said he didn't have a road to damascus conversion. I don't doubt McGuiness was still an Irish Republican through and through but I think he had totally abandoned violence.
Unfortunately I don't think we will be getting any McGuiness like conversions away from violence with Isis. They are not after a political solution to anything. They just want us all dead.
Excellent post Dave,
It's all too easy to dismiss McGuiness as just a terrorist he was someone i suspect we wont ever see again a man of violence who became a man of peace,or as much as close to being so as it was ever going to be.
I'm sure it was in Alastair Campbell's diaries that said something along the lines of he was the only man who truly scared big Alastair when he first met him,simply put those of us who are old enough to remember the endless nonsense of the 70's and 80's from the IRA knew change had to come from the top of the tree and the top more or less was McGuiness,he and Adams had to be brought into the discussions at some point and it was brave of Major and of course Blair to bring to fruition the peace process.
As for what happened in London..words simply fail me.
I think Dave et al have have explained the paradox of Mcguiniss well. I remember Warren Point massacre and other atrocities with equal horror. With the Good Friday agreement still tenuous I think has a politician Tebbit probably should have been more pragmatic and said nothing
,although I do understand his pain re his wife,s injuries. Hopefully it's all confined to the past.
Over the years, I've succumbed to the view that one man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter. I found myself strangely ambivalent to the death of McGuinness which surprised me. I was serving in NI at the time of the Warrenpoint ambush and the immediate aftermath when I was involved in operations to find the IRA unit who carried it out. For a lot of years afterwards, I was very angry about it.
The good Friday Agreement was in the main a positive step, and McGuinness turned into a major force in making it work. What I couldn't understand about the process was why the Blair Government let convicted IRA killers walk free from prison, whilst at the same time actively pursuing ex and serving military personnel with a view to prosecuting them.
i'm spartacus wrote:Over the years, I've succumbed to the view that one man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter. I found myself strangely ambivalent to the death of McGuinness which surprised me. I was serving in NI at the time of the Warrenpoint ambush and the immediate aftermath when I was involved in operations to find the IRA unit who carried it out. For a lot of years afterwards, I was very angry about it.
The good Friday Agreement was in the main a positive step, and McGuinness turned into a major force in making it work. What I couldn't understand about the process was why the Blair Government let convicted IRA killers walk free from prison, whilst at the same time actively pursuing ex and serving military personnel with a view to prosecuting them.
Freedom fighters are such when it suits the authorities to call them so, say in a state that a Government does not support. McGuinness was a terrorist for many years and suddenly became a nice man because he was weeks away from jail and changed track.
Adams called him a freedom fighter last night, tell that to the IRA victims.
Having visited Belfast and been through the troubles areas I must say it must have been frightening to live there whilst now it's been turned into a circus for tourists.
No doubt I'm not telling you anything you don't know?
Blair set off on his great plan for peace yet followed Bush blindly in Iraq and Afghanistan in causing disruption. Hypocrisy is a wonderful leveller isn't it? It certainly exposes and confirms a person's integrity.
When John Byrom plays on snow, he doesn't leave any footprints - Jimmy Armfield
At one time, I would have probably had a long drink on the death of McGuinness. I've had smiley faces texts from more than a few of the lads I served with. Like I say, I thought I would have reacted totally differently to the way I did.
Now I've developed into having a deep seated dislike for Blair. First for the sellout that sees service personnel prosecuted while killers walk free or are not pursued. And more recently because the current ISIS led terrorist campaign which has propagated and flourished from the massive void created in Iraq by the Bush/Blair war on terror.
I don't think it's unreasonable to draw the conclusion that the spate of attacks across Europe have flowed directly from turning Iraq into an ungoverned melting pot of varying Islamic factions which formed a breeding ground for the terrorists.
