Swiss chainsaw attack "Not an act of terror"

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

Indeed, wasn't sure either about the use of the smoking icon...

Was sarcastically stating it's not a terror attack so phew we are all good. Since attacker was not a Muslim, its all ok guys don't worry!

[_V_]

He looks like one of us..

"We are extending the daily standup to twice daily, with weekly SCRUM retrospectives, and 5 minutely project timesheet updates"

[NotAllThere]

Was sarcastically stating it's not a terror attack so phew we are all good. Since attacker was not a Muslim, its all ok guys don't worry!

What, like the guy who attacked the folk at Finsbury Park Mosque? Not a Muslim, so it wasn't treated as a terrorist attack. Oh... but wait. it was!

You really need to get over yourself.

[xoggoth]

My chainsaw is just a mains operated one. Difficult to attack anyone outside my garden without a long extension cord.

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

What, like the guy who attacked the folk at Finsbury Park Mosque? Not a Muslim, so it wasn't treated as a terrorist attack. Oh... but wait. it was!

You really need to get over yourself.

Precisely.... so why wouldn't a chainsaw one be classified as such? Did it not invoke enough terror into the victims?

[NotAllThere]

Precisely.... so why wouldn't a chainsaw one be classified as such? Did it not invoke enough terror into the victims?

Thank you for verifying what I wrote previously.

Clearly has no understanding of what constitutes a terror attack.

But on the off-chance you're just dense, rather than trolling, in the interests of educating you, try here.

[original PM]

For it to be a terrorist attack you need to be doing it to further some sort of political agenda which has a visible leadership which supports the actions.

Which is why the attack on Finsbury mosque was not - because there was no political body supporting the actions.

And it is why this is not a terrorist attack - because there is no political body supporting the actions.

Did the people feel some form of fear and maybe 'terror' when the chainsaw wielding nutter attacked them - the answer is yes but that does not make it terrorism.

[WTFH]

For it to be a terrorist attack you need to be doing it to further some sort of political agenda which has a visible leadership which supports the actions.

Which is why the attack on Finsbury mosque was not - because there was no political body supporting the actions.

And it is why this is not a terrorist attack - because there is no political body supporting the actions.

Total BS, but it suits your viewpoint.
Terrorism is not always political, it is not always backed by any one political group.
The motivation for terror may come from many things - oppression, revenge/retaliation.

As for the Finsbury Park attack not being supported by political organisations, no one from UKIP, EDL or BF came out and said it was terrible, it was wrong or it was an act of terrorism, because they all supported the atrocity.
In fact many of those who support the above organisations were quick to point out that "it was about time" or "they got a taste of their own medicine"

[original PM]

Well firstly there is a difference between not condemning it and actively supporting it.

Also why should any political body have to condemn an arson attack - it is illegal an therefore condemned by everyone.

Saying that these groups should have come out wringing their hands and wailing about how terrible it was it just ridiculous - should they do the same for every 'attack' which involves someone of one race/creed/colour when it is perpetrated against someone of a different race/creed/colour.

And therefore by association any attack which is done against someone of the same/race/creed is acceptable and not worth condemning?

[WTFH]

Well firstly there is a difference between not condemning it and actively supporting it.

Also why should any political body have to condemn an arson attack - it is illegal an therefore condemned by everyone.

BS again. Not all illegal things are condemned by everyone. Speeding tickets?

Saying that these groups should have come out wringing their hands and wailing about how terrible it was it just ridiculous

Utter BS. I did not say anything about them wringing their hands, but they are quick off the mark to complain when not enough Muslims condemn attacks carried out by ISIS and it's supporters.

should they do the same for every 'attack' which involves someone of one race/creed/colour when it is perpetrated against someone of a different race/creed/colour.

And therefore by association any attack which is done against someone of the same/race/creed is acceptable and not worth condemning?

Depends, if they are going to pick and choose which ones they condemn, and they refuse to condemn attacks that they motivate and are carried out by their supporters, then UKIP/EDL/BF are already choosing which they condemn, and are choosing which they support.