Islamically motivated terrorism and freedom of movement

[53x13]

Going back to Nice - TV showed a copy of the attacker's residence permit, so doesn't that mean he was a non-EU national who passed whatever checks to live in France? As France and the UK currently have broadly harmonised visa processes, is there any reason to suspect he wouldn't have been about as likely to gain UK residency? Trying to hang this on freedom of movement seems absurd.

What I asked for was input on whether people think increased attacks will affect freedom of movement to the UK post Brexit?

Yes, you asked for that while suggesting that "stopping freedom of movement to the UK from Europe may be one answer to limiting [Nice-style attacks]", so I'm replying to highlight that freedom of movement seems to have been completely irrelevant to that attack and stopping it probably wouldn't make any difference to such attacks.

Have many recent terrorist attacks in the UK have been by non-UK EU citizens or non-EU citizens using freedom of movement somehow? I think the last one was about 15 years ago.

Precisely. Almost ALL of the terror attacks on the UK in the past 20.years have been perpretated by home grown British citizens.

What immigration has to do with that unshakeable fact is something only Freddie can answer. And how has brexit changed ANYTHING vis a vis home grown terrorism?

[pete75]

The vast majority of UK terrorist attacks during my lifetime were carried out by Christians. They were religiously motivated by the hatred felt towards each other by Northern Irish adherents of the two branches of the faith. No one ever used the expression Christianity motivated terrorism at the time.

[Freddie]

In what way have these two (non terrorist attacks, no one terror group admitted nor was ascribed responsibility) made anyone change the way they act? They are simply the result of persons with extreme mental illness lashing out at unfortunate and tragic victims.

Tanveer Ahmed attacked and killed the minority Ahmadi Muslim man, Asad Shah, because he found this Facebook videos to be disrespectful and blasphemous towards Islam. He travelled 200 miles to kill the man. This is obviously going to have a knock on effect, which I suggest was intended by the attacker, in that more moderate or progressive Muslims, especially Ahmadi, will be afraid to express views on Islam that may be considered by other less liberal Muslims as disrespectful or blasphemous.

It seems that the feeling that Ahmadi Muslims are a) not true Muslims and/or b) disrespect the faith through their unorthodox beliefs, could hold true with a number of Muslim groups in Glasgow, as they failed to attend an event against extremism organised by an Ahmadi group, when Sikhs, Christians and others did attend:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ch-glasgow

I'd also like to point you in the direction of the article below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

By the definitions in the link, both the Jo Cox attack and the attack on Asad Shah could be considered terrorism, as they both fulfil the criteria in one way or another. Both attacks were intended to have an effect on society at large and were done in the hopes of changing behaviour.

It is true that terrorism is hard to define, but I don't think it necessarily requires being part of a specific group. Anders Breivik was convicted of terrorism; even though he was a lone wolf, his violence was obviously in pursuit of a political and ideological aim.

There is another interesting article here, if you care to read it:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92340&page=1

Tragic they are: unforeseeable and completely unpreventable. I've had experience of mental illness in my own immediate family. People with such illnesses have no control over their actions. They are seriously ill, and have to be treated as such.

So everybody with mental illness has no control over their actions? I'm sorry, but that is patently untrue. Those who have no control over their actions are typically sectioned or cared for away from the community at large. Most people with mental illness are considered responsible for their actions, until proven otherwise.

Mental illness may be a factor, but given that large numbers of people in the UK take anti-depressants (and therefore are considered to be mentally ill), by your logic none of them should be considered responsible if they brutally murder somebody.

People kill each other all the time; though it is not something most people do, it does not automatically relinquish people that do it of responsibility for their actions, even if they are known to have some degree of mental illness.

Maybe that is not the point you were trying to make, but it is the point your words convey.

[53x13]

In what way have these two (non terrorist attacks, no one terror group admitted nor was ascribed responsibility) made anyone change the way they act? They are simply the result of persons with extreme mental illness lashing out at unfortunate and tragic victims.

Tanveer Ahmed attacked and killed the minority Ahmadi Muslim man, Asad Shah, because he found this Facebook videos to be disrespectful and blasphemous towards Islam. He travelled 200 miles to kill the man. This is obviously going to have a knock on effect, which I suggest was intended by the attacker, in that more moderate or progressive Muslims, especially Ahmadi, will be afraid to express views on Islam that may be considered by other less liberal Muslims as disrespectful or blasphemous.

It seems that the feeling that Ahmadi Muslims are a) not true Muslims and/or b) disrespect the faith through their unorthodox beliefs, could hold true with a number of Muslim groups in Glasgow, as they failed to attend an event against extremism organised by an Ahmadi group, when Sikhs, Christians and others did attend:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ch-glasgow

I'd also like to point you in the direction of the article below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

By the definitions in the link, both the Jo Cox attack and the attack on Asad Shah could be considered terrorism, as they both fulfil the criteria in one way or another. Both attacks were intended to have an effect on society at large and were done in the hopes of changing behaviour.

It is true that terrorism is hard to define, but I don't think it necessarily requires being part of a specific group. Anders Breivik was convicted of terrorism; even though he was a lone wolf, his violence was obviously in pursuit of a political and ideological aim.

There is another interesting article here, if you care to read it:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92340&page=1

Tragic they are: unforeseeable and completely unpreventable. I've had experience of mental illness in my own immediate family. People with such illnesses have no control over their actions. They are seriously ill, and have to be treated as such.

So everybody with mental illness has no control over their actions? I'm sorry, but that is patently untrue. Those who have no control over their actions are typically sectioned or cared for away from the community at large. Most people with mental illness are considered responsible for their actions, until proven otherwise.

Mental illness may be a factor, but given that large numbers of people in the UK take anti-depressants (and therefore are considered to be mentally ill), by your logic none of them should be considered responsible if they brutally murder somebody.

People kill each other all the time; though it is not something most people do, it does not automatically relinquish people that do it of responsibility for their actions, even if they are known to have some degree of mental illness.

Maybe that is not the point you were trying to make, but it is the point your words convey.

And what does ANY of this (confusedly erroneous statements) have to do with immigration post Brexit?

Please don't obfuscate what is a very serious discussion with non sequiturs. Stay on topic, nearly all of the UK terror attacks in the past 20 years have been perpretated by home grown British citizens.

[Freddie]

Well, seeing as you started the digression onto what is and what is not terrorism, then you should expect people to respond to your digression. It is a bit much to tell others to stay on topic, if you are the very person that started the digression in the first place. That isn't particularly good forum etiquette, I must say.

If you are going to be strict about it, I hope you don't mind other contributors pulling you up if you digress in future, however interesting that digression may seem to you.

To be clear, are you agreeing that the killing of Jo Cox and Asad Shah could, in fact, be seen to be terrorist attacks, so that we can move away from the digression you started and get back to the topic at hand?

[pete75]

Well, seeing as you started the digression onto what is and what is not terrorism, then you should expect people to respond to your digression. It is a bit much to tell others to stay on topic, if you are the very person that started the digression in the first place. That isn't particularly good forum etiquette, I must say.

If you are going to be strict about it, I hope you don't mind other contributors pulling you up if you digress in future, however interesting that digression may seem to you.

To be clear, are you agreeing that the killing of Jo Cox and Asad Shah could, in fact, be seen to be terrorist attacks, so that we can move away from the digression you started and get back to the topic at hand?

According to Wikipedia "Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is defined as the use or threatened use of violence (terror) in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim."

If we accept this definition the Glasgow murder could be called terrorism as it looks to have had a religious aim. Similarly the murder of Joe Cox could also be called terrorism with an ideological aim because it was someone from the political right, perhaps linked to the Britain First movement, killing someone he doubtless regarded as a "lefty".

[Vorpal]

I'd also like to point you in the direction of the article below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

By the definitions in the link, both the Jo Cox attack and the attack on Asad Shah could be considered terrorism, as they both fulfil the criteria in one way or another. Both attacks were intended to have an effect on society at large and were done in the hopes of changing behaviour.

It is true that terrorism is hard to define, but I don't think it necessarily requires being part of a specific group. Anders Breivik was convicted of terrorism; even though he was a lone wolf, his violence was obviously in pursuit of a political and ideological aim.

There is another interesting article here, if you care to read it:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92340&page=1

I am not going to debate the definition of terrorism, but I would like to point out that ABC news has a vested interest in a flexible definition of terrorism. That way, they can refer to incidents in which white, Christian terrorists who bomb family planning centers, or murder their clients in the USA, as 'anti-abortion violence', rather than terrorism, whilst at the same time, they can label an attack perpetrated by someone with some vague connections to Islam as a 'terrorist'.

[Freddie]

Hey pete, we agree on something, that is pretty rare, but I'm pleased that we can see eye to eye on the occasional thing. This calls for a celebration, what's your poison?

Your agreement makes me feel a bit better about the strength of my, as 53x13 puts it, 'confusedly erroneous statements' and 'non sequiturs'. I had almost started to believe I was flagging.

Vorpal, you may be right, I don't know much about ABC's position on these things, but the article was more an overview of how the term is somewhat vaguely defined with input from various experts, rather than an ABC opinion piece. A number of opinions offered by third parties in the piece would run contrary to them being able to provide that particular narrative (at least, within the article itself). Have you had a chance to read it?

[Vorpal]

Vorpal, you may be right, I don't know much about ABC's position on these things, but the article was more an overview of how the term is somewhat vaguely defined with input from various experts, rather than an ABC opinion piece. A number of opinions offered by third parties in the piece would run contrary to them being able to provide that particular narrative (at least, within the article itself). Have you had a chance to read it?

I have read it. There is very little to disagree with in it, and some interesting points. Except that it ends with a nice vague idea that terrorism might be anything causing terror.

[pete75]

Hey pete, we agree on something, that is pretty rare, but I'm pleased that we can see eye to eye on the occasional thing. This calls for a celebration, what's your poison?

Well we both can't be wrong all the time - or can we??

[syklist]

Trouble is, many of them actually WANT to be killed. Best thing is NOT to kill them but lock them up alive instead of creating yet another martyr.

Martyrdom comes in many forms. The "Christian" IRA hunger strikers died in prison, which suited their purposes well. On the other hand the "Christian" Anders Bering Breivik got himself locked up with solitary confinement and other limitations on his ability to communicate with the outside world. Which I suspect serves his purposes well too.

I really don't like the use of the word "them" in your first sentence. "Them" and "us" is what drives terrorism.

That aside, I have always struggled to see a difference between "many them actually WANT to be killed" and "our boys sacrificing their lives for their country whilst giving Johnny Foreigner a good beating".

[Mick F]

I really don't like the use of the word "them" in your first sentence. "Them" and "us" is what drives terrorism.

I agree of course.

However, the word "them" was grammatically correct considering the thread title and the previous posts and the full text of mine. Also, it was my LAST sentence.

............. now news of an axe attack on a train in Germany ......

I heard on the news that he was shot dead by the police.

Why shoot a man with an axe?

Taser?
Big net thrown over him?
Shoot him in the legs?
Loads of ways to disable someone without actually killing them.

Trouble is, many of them actually WANT to be killed. Best thing is NOT to kill them but lock them up alive instead of creating yet another martyr.

[Psamathe]

Going back to Nice - TV showed a copy of the attacker's residence permit, so doesn't that mean he was a non-EU national who passed whatever checks to live in France? As France and the UK currently have broadly harmonised visa processes, is there any reason to suspect he wouldn't have been about as likely to gain UK residency? Trying to hang this on freedom of movement seems absurd.

But them a lot of the massive increase in race hate crime in the UK after Brexit is directed at people whose ethnic origin is outside the EU anyway. So many of the "we voted to send you home" abuses going on are directed at people who cannot be affected by Brexit (mainly because they were born in the UK and are British citizens).

Ian

[pete75]

Trouble is, many of them actually WANT to be killed. Best thing is NOT to kill them but lock them up alive instead of creating yet another martyr.

Or let them know that if they are killed they'll be buried in a pigskin shroud.

[blackbike]

Freedom of movement can only help terrorists move around because it helps everyone move around.

We need to restrict freedom of movement because the UK has been a popular destination for people from poor EU nations, so driving down wages and causing unemployment and unemployment in the UK to be higher than they otherwise would be. Allowing that free movement from 2004 is now described by Jack Straw as a spectacular mistake.

Brexit will help end this free movement to a certain extent, and a bonus is that it will make things harder for terrorists to move to our country too, should any want to.