hard times ahead!

when we identify ourselves as part of an '-ism' rather than as human beings, we get the sort of problems we are experiencing, and unfortunately, may continue to experience. hope there is some magic formula/wand that just dissolves all this hate and animosity -- but i have little hope. i visit Finbury Park often. My daughter shops quite often at Borough Mkt. and i know lots of friends who live in high rise towers.

sigh...

ken

Not to minimise the tragedy in London, so far we had over 306 murders as of 6/19 ( 2 got shot dead today ) in Chicago.

2017 Chicago Murders

It's been going on for years and nothing has been done about it so at this point the incidents are normalised.

The same thing could happen to you guys.

Another day. Another dead pedestrian. Have a nice day and hope nothing will happen to you.

in my view, terrorism of any sort, not matter to whom its directed, needs to be condemned in the strongest possible terms, always, by very decent folk -- and should be dealt with robustly under the law.

any tit for tat is very dangerous and can easily descend into total mayhem -- none of us want that surely.

enjoy

ken

kuma posted:

Not to minimise the tragedy in London, so far we had over 306 murders as of 6/19 ( 2 got shot dead today ) in Chicago.

2017 Chicago Murders

It's been going on for years and nothing has been done about it so at this point the incidents are normalised.

The same thing could happen to you guys.

Another day. Another dead pedestrian. Have a nice day and hope nothing will happen to you.

You are correct that a continual problem is just as important to tackle as the large sudden problems. It's like the plane or rail crash where 100+ are killed at once always garners more attention than the 1,700+ people that are killed on the road each year. 

ken c posted:

in my view, terrorism of any sort, not matter to whom its directed, needs to be condemned in the strongest possible terms, always, by very decent folk -- and should be dealt with robustly under the law.

any tit for tat is very dangerous and can easily descend into total mayhem -- none of us want that surely.

Well said ken ... an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind. 

However we have to keep things in perspective. 

Not really sure what my intention in starting this thread was; really just wanted/needed somewhere to write some thoughts down. The world seams a very uncertain place at the moment. 

Eloise posted:

 ... an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.  

i sometimes think that sometimes the term "terrorism" can be overused -- when we are talking about straight criminal activity -- Westminster bridge, Manchester, London Bridge/Borough Mkt -- plus a host of other similar in other countries -- are all instances of criminal activities -- whatever the reason behind these activities (and sometimes i feel we over-focus on the perverted rationals to no real benefit) -- and must be punished under law.

just some thoughts from me as well to try to come to terms with this tricky world that we now live in. i suppose not for long as the delicate situation in Syria may just take over centre stage.

enjoy...

ken

just caught Prof. Alice Roberts on Radio 2 right now -- and one the things she mentioned which draw my attention was to what extent we modern humans are better placed for survival -- and apparently its nothing more than the social ability to 'cooperate'. of course i can imagine lots of situations where this kind of 'cooperation' by  narrow issue groups can lead to the exact opposite -- as we are perhaps witnessing these days.

sorry, just random thoughts...

enjoy...

ken

ken c posted:

i sometimes think that sometimes the term "terrorism" can be overused -- when we are talking about straight criminal activity -- Westminster bridge, Manchester, London Bridge/Borough Mkt -- plus a host of other similar in other countries -- are all instances of criminal activities -- whatever the reason behind these activities (and sometimes i feel we over-focus on the perverted rationals to no real benefit) -- and must be punished under law.

just some thoughts from me as well to try to come to terms with this tricky world that we now live in. i suppose not for long as the delicate situation in Syria may just take over centre stage.

enjoy...

ken

All the attacks you mentioned above are clear acts of terrorism committed by highly motivated individuals inspired by extreme religious or political ideologies with a burning desire to take revenge and kill. They are willing to die for their cause, something no common criminal would ever agree to do.

Bundling these acts of terrorism with common crimes or calling them mental cases serve only the people who are doing their best to avoid facing reality and the need to ask oneself the difficult questions of why these attacks are being committed by our own citizens and how could they be deterred from doing them in the future.

Haim Ronen posted:

ken c posted:

i sometimes think that sometimes the term "terrorism" can be overused -- when we are talking about straight criminal activity -- Westminster bridge, Manchester, London Bridge/Borough Mkt -- plus a host of other similar in other countries -- are all instances of criminal activities -- whatever the reason behind these activities (and sometimes i feel we over-focus on the perverted rationals to no real benefit) -- and must be punished under law.

just some thoughts from me as well to try to come to terms with this tricky world that we now live in. i suppose not for long as the delicate situation in Syria may just take over centre stage.

enjoy...

ken

All the attacks you mentioned above are clear acts of terrorism committed by highly motivated individuals inspired by extreme religious or political ideologies with a burning desire to take revenge and kill. They are willing to die for their cause, something no common criminal would ever agree to do.

Bundling these acts of terrorism with common crimes or calling them mental cases serve only the people who are doing their best to avoid facing reality and the need to ask oneself the difficult questions of why these attacks are being committed by our own citizens and how could they be deterred from doing them in the future.

i see your point. 

i just feel sometimes 'terrorist' acts are used as excuse to commit crimes -- whether the perpetrator lives or not matters not to me -- the impact of their heinous acts is loss of innocent lives. but of course i can see from legal point of view that it may be useful to give such crimes against humanity a special case.

enjoy

ken

ken, i'm not very good at finding the right words to describe the difference between a "criminal" murder and an "act of terrorism" during which one or more people are murdered. I am sure I can visualize significant and consistent differences, but finding clear, concise words to convey these differences I am finding difficult.

However, the mere fact that I can't find the necessary words, doesn't mean these acts are one and the same.

.....if you see what I mean ?

Don Atkinson posted:

ken, i'm not very good at finding the right words to describe the difference between a "criminal" murder and an "act of terrorism" during which one or more people are murdered. I am sure I can visualize significant and consistent differences, but finding clear, concise words to convey these differences I am finding difficult.

However, the mere fact that I can't find the necessary words, doesn't mean these acts are one and the same.

.....if you see what I mean ?

thanks for chiming in Don. I guess what was at the back of my mind is to try to discount what to me sound like totally warped reasoning that lead to these 'terrorist' actions" -- and to try to dilute any "copy cat" appeal -- which these actions seem unfortunately to attract. the word "terrorist" to me seems loaded with evil context that, in my view, clouds the horrible end result of such actions -- i.e. murder of innocent people. 

Not sure if this helps explaining where i am coming from...

enjoy

ken

The way I see it, all terrorist acts are criminal. But not all criminal acts are terrorism. For me to see something as terrorism, there has to be a social, political or religious motivation for the crime. There has to be a message. By contrast, while killing someone in the act of armed robbery is terrible, it typically is not intended to cause terror among a larger population.

This is setting aside the argument that one man's "terrorist" may be another's so-called "freedom fighter".  Nelson Mandela was once labeled a terrorist. But history has a funny way of sorting this stuff out over time.

thanks Hook. this seems consistent with the fact that the Finsbury Park van driver has been charged with terrorist related murder. so its seems its already legally classified as 'murder' anyhow -- and 'terrorism' is just a qualifier for the sort of murder. in much the same way I guess, as we would refer to robbery related murder.

enjoy

ken

ken c posted:

thanks Hook. this seems consistent with the fact that the Finsbury Park van driver has been charged with terrorist related murder. so its seems its already legally classified as 'murder' anyhow -- and 'terrorism' is just a qualifier for the sort of murder. in much the same way I guess, as we would refer to robbery related murder.

enjoy

ken

That's the way I read it Ken. My only concern about the "terrorist" label is that it can be selectively applied for political purposes. Here in the US, if a Muslim commits a horrible crime, it is by definition terrorism (until proven otherwise). If a white supremacist commits an equally horrible crime (as recently happened in Portland), he's merely a crazy nutjob psychopath. For some reason, the "t" word is rarely used.

I guess my point is that it all depends which portion of the population feels terrorized - those who hold power and privilege versus those who do not. 

ATB.

Hook

Hook posted:

ken c posted:

thanks Hook. this seems consistent with the fact that the Finsbury Park van driver has been charged with terrorist related murder. so its seems its already legally classified as 'murder' anyhow -- and 'terrorism' is just a qualifier for the sort of murder. in much the same way I guess, as we would refer to robbery related murder.

enjoy

ken

That's the way I read it Ken. My only concern about the "terrorist" label is that it can be selectively applied for political purposes. Here in the US, if a Muslim commits a horrible crime, it is by definition terrorism (until proven otherwise). If a white supremacist commits an equally horrible crime (as recently happened in Portland), he's merely a crazy nutjob psychopath. For some reason, the "t" word is rarely used.

I guess my point is that it all depends which portion of the population feels terrorized - those who hold power and privilege versus those who do not. 

ATB.

Hook

ah, i think you may have nailed down what i had in mind here Hook -- i guess i was after making sure no significance is ever attached to (mostly) multiple murders -- whether there are 'terrorist' inspired or not. i cant right now see any benefit in the 'terrorist' qualification. apparently there was some initial disquiet amongst those who experienced the Finsbury Park attack that the authorities were initially reluctant  to call it a terrorist attack. which adds to you point above about selective use of this description.

enjoy

ken

Hook posted:

That's the way I read it Ken. My only concern about the "terrorist" label is that it can be selectively applied for political purposes. Here in the US, if a Muslim commits a horrible crime, it is by definition terrorism (until proven otherwise). If a white supremacist commits an equally horrible crime (as recently happened in Portland), he's merely a crazy nutjob psychopath. For some reason, the "t" word is rarely used.

I guess my point is that it all depends which portion of the population feels terrorized - those who hold power and privilege versus those who do not. 

 

Well expressed Hook ... language matters.

Here the perpetrator of this act has been repeatedly described as being an Islamaphobic.  Is it just me or does that sound so much more "friendly" than "extremist".  It even could make their actions justifiable.  

"Yes, stepping in a spider is wrong, but understandable as he's arachnophobia". 

Indeed, I don't believe 'phobia' is the correct term. We should call it what it is i.e. an irrational hatred.

Eloise posted:

Well expressed Hook ... language matters.

Here the perpetrator of this act has been repeatedly described as being an Islamaphobic.  Is it just me or does that sound so much more "friendly" than "extremist".  It even could make their actions justifiable.  

"Yes, stepping in a spider is wrong, but understandable as he's arachnophobia". 

Language does indeed matter.

The late Christopher Hitchens is supposed to have come up with famous quote: “Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.”

Whoever did come up with it, I agree entirely.

'Islamophobia' has been used by the aggressively religious (along with their deluded allies on the regressive Left)  for years to shut down criticism of this particular religious ideology,and to further a narrative of toxic self-pity and belligerent entitlement; and, of course, to somehow paint its critics, enemies and opponents as racists.

This rather inconveniently forgets that Islam is not a race, it is a religion whose adherents come from all corners of the world are who are of every imaginable race. One's race is not a choice one can make, but religion is (except, ironically, in Muslim majority countries, where the leaving of Islam is a criminal offence - punishable by death in, I think, around 20 countries).

Although 'islamophobia' has long been used by both cynical opportunists and would-be oppressors to shut down debate, and is something of a made-up word, it does carry weight when it is taken absolutely literally: 'fear [or dislike] of Islam'. Which, remember, is NOT a race, but an idea, a system of beliefs.

As someone who has a strong dislike, even detestation of organised religion, it is perfectly valid for me (or a gay man, or a woman who likes to dress in a way that certain people would describe as 'immodest', or a person who has fled, say, Iran or KoSA to escape religious strictures to live in a secular society) to fear the encroachment of Islam (or indeed any religious ideology) into public life. Ideas are there to be challenged, questioned and, if necessary, rejected. Any attempt - by the use of terms like 'Islamophobia' or otherwise - to shut down robust debate shoukd be resisted by any civilised society.

Anyway, to get to the point. We should call the crime perpetuated by this individual what it is: An attempted mass murder of innocent people peaceably going about their business; and attempt to strike fear into the hearts into Muslims. As such it is an act of criminal terrorism. He may have been motivated by a hatred of Muslims and/or by extreme right-wing ideology, but that is different from the weasle word 'Islamophobia'.

So, in a roundabout way, I'm kind of agreeing with you Eloise...

Kevin ... I think we are mostly agreeing, but I was suggesting that (in some cases) "Islamaphobia" is also used to justify a hatred of Islam when that hatred is irrational or taken to an unjustified extreme.

It is justified to be afraid of Isis / Isil / Daesh and Al-Qaeda; it's even justified to resist the introduction or Islamic values into politics / general society.  It is not justified to be afraid of people who are carrying on peaceful worship as a Moslem.

I've come to this late but what happened at Finsbury Park is hate crime isn't it?

Christopher_M posted:

I've come to this late but what happened at Finsbury Park is hate crime isn't it?

No, it's (being classed by the authorities) as terrorism.

Now where a crime becomes a hate crime or becomes terrorism is where the discussion is going.  And the language used to describe crimes and how important it its.