WiganWarriorsFans.com

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:What defines a terriost attack though? is it simply the colour of your skin or your "apparent" religion?.

Im not trying to be facetious its a genuine question and please understand im not trying to offend anyone here or belittle the events of the past few months.

To my knowledge and please correct me, none of the last 3 "terror" attacks had a perpetrator whom defined their cause before acting out, so what im looking for here is shouting a particular cause or association, or leaving a letter or more damming a video confession.

ISIS claim responsibility for nearly all of these attacks, but again how much faith can you have in this, is it not sort of like someone doing something at work and you just claiming credit because that person isn't around anymore. Wouldnt they always claim credit even if they have zero input into the situation?

I know police tell us after that the attackers are "known" to them but again this seems fuzzy to me, it seems like they are saying yeah they were radical but not quite enough for us to put close tabs on

If you look at the two london incidents the amount of people killed was relatively small in terms of comparing it against other things, for example seven people killed could easily be replicated or increased in a motorway incident involving a drunk driver for example.

What im trying to get at is when does a murder (which is the crime) become terrorist?, if a white man walked into a pub and shot 10 people i cant see it being referred to as a terrorist attack, ISIS probably wouldn't claim responsibility but the core happening is the same someone doing something unbelievably cruel and hideous. Now say the person was known to police had a history of violence.

Is the only thing defining this from terrorism the religious connotations?

Josie's friend wrote:

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:What defines a terriost attack though? is it simply the colour of your skin or your "apparent" religion?.

Im not trying to be facetious its a genuine question and please understand im not trying to offend anyone here or belittle the events of the past few months.

To my knowledge and please correct me, none of the last 3 "terror" attacks had a perpetrator whom defined their cause before acting out, so what im looking for here is shouting a particular cause or association, or leaving a letter or more damming a video confession.

ISIS claim responsibility for nearly all of these attacks, but again how much faith can you have in this, is it not sort of like someone doing something at work and you just claiming credit because that person isn't around anymore. Wouldnt they always claim credit even if they have zero input into the situation?

I know police tell us after that the attackers are "known" to them but again this seems fuzzy to me, it seems like they are saying yeah they were radical but not quite enough for us to put close tabs on

If you look at the two london incidents the amount of people killed was relatively small in terms of comparing it against other things, for example seven people killed could easily be replicated or increased in a motorway incident involving a drunk driver for example.

What im trying to get at is when does a murder (which is the crime) become terrorist?, if a white man walked into a pub and shot 10 people i cant see it being referred to as a terrorist attack, ISIS probably wouldn't claim responsibility but the core happening is the same someone doing something unbelievably cruel and hideous. Now say the person was known to police had a history of violence.

Is the only thing defining this from terrorism the religious connotations?

You are not trying to get at anything, you are just talking shit

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:What defines a terriost attack though? is it simply the colour of your skin or your "apparent" religion?.

Im not trying to be facetious its a genuine question and please understand im not trying to offend anyone here or belittle the events of the past few months.

To my knowledge and please correct me, none of the last 3 "terror" attacks had a perpetrator whom defined their cause before acting out, so what im looking for here is shouting a particular cause or association, or leaving a letter or more damming a video confession.

ISIS claim responsibility for nearly all of these attacks, but again how much faith can you have in this, is it not sort of like someone doing something at work and you just claiming credit because that person isn't around anymore. Wouldnt they always claim credit even if they have zero input into the situation?

I know police tell us after that the attackers are "known" to them but again this seems fuzzy to me, it seems like they are saying yeah they were radical but not quite enough for us to put close tabs on

If you look at the two london incidents the amount of people killed was relatively small in terms of comparing it against other things, for example seven people killed could easily be replicated or increased in a motorway incident involving a drunk driver for example.

What im trying to get at is when does a murder (which is the crime) become terrorist?, if a white man walked into a pub and shot 10 people i cant see it being referred to as a terrorist attack, ISIS probably wouldn't claim responsibility but the core happening is the same someone doing something unbelievably cruel and hideous. Now say the person was known to police had a history of violence.

Is the only thing defining this from terrorism the religious connotations?

DaveO wrote:A bit of light, but salutary, relief

Tory MP James Conwyn on Twitter:

#VoteConservative if you want strong and stable leadershit

:lol1:

Frany1 wrote:

DaveO wrote:A bit of light, but salutary, relief

Tory MP James Conwyn on Twitter:

#VoteConservative if you want strong and stable leadershit

:lol1:

False news - James Conwyn MP is a spoof account, which has since been taken off Twitter.