Yeah, you are. I was pouring scorn on the very thing you seem to believe I was advocating. 
1 Like
Totally irrelevant, but I can’t stand that Alan Davies guy.
4 Likes
I liked Jonathan Creek. Other than that, can’t see the appeal either.
And that’s the common ground we share.
The Metropolitan Police said there was “a potential motivation linked to Islamist extremism”.
Our nearest relations - chimpanzees - regularly hunt, kill and consume chimpanzees from other tribes, sometimes even within their own tribe.
I am just illustrating that violence is inherent in human biology - it could be argued that society and environment have dampened, suppressed and reduced these urges - but they still linger in the “lizard” part of the brain for sure. We are animals, we are part of nature - it is not separate or divorced from us.
Murder definitely goes against the mores and morals of society, but not against the laws of human nature. acceptance of this would I believe go a long way towards identifying, predicting and reducing violent attacks.
Exactly. I’ve never heard “The killer was a British national, of Essex descent” on the news. Yet the fact that yesterday’s murderer was apparently from a Somali family is all over the place today, despite the fact that it is of no relevance whatsoever.
5 Likes
The BBC, as I referenced earlier in this thread, reported that a government source had told them he is a British national.
I don’t know how terrorism is defined, but surely an individual acting alone can’t be a terrorist. He may have been inspired by terrorist ideology, but he was working alone and not as part of a plot to terrorise and destabilise society. The same goes for the murderer of Jo Cox. Right wing extremist, but not a terrorist.
dunno.
i understand the shaky ground im walking on here…but if hes first generation, well, yeah, its relevant
humans are tribal, the tribes are massive now, and thats how it should be, but, if a first generation imigrant is killing political leaders, its not irrelevant, surely?
i know its highly sensitive…i dont mean any offence by it, but standing on the outside looking in, i dont think you should feel guilty if a newly immigrated person has been mentioned by their origin.
i mean, im second generation immigrant and i still call yself australian italian, im sure he relates to himself as somalian or somalian/british…
if hes twelth generation then yeah…fair enough, thats shite.
3 Likes
um…becuase you are letting him into your country. he probably still identifies as somalian.
my father was allowed to enter Australia…we are grateful for that…im happy to concede the issues of Australian history, but in 1954, when my fathers father had earnt enough money here to pay for his families path to this country, it was a blessing.
we still identify with our Italian roots, that frames my conversation on the matter. it does not come from a racist angle. but it also acknowledges nationality
its really hard to explain, but not really.
if you want to understand my angle you will, if you want to be offended, you will.
2 Likes
It’s simply about what his main influences are likely to be.
3 Likes
But terrorism is a tactic designed to destabilise a society in order to further a political aim. It requires a coherent objective and organisation. Random guys who have watched a couple of YouTube videos don’t fit the description.
1 Like
Agree with the first part of your first sentence.
its a minefield.
completely understand your point, but, how far do you extend that logic…e.g. can we label him a male?
i dont even know if he is first generation, but i think (if he is) just ignoring it makes the problem bigger.
as in…OK, we have a great somalian community, but theres some disastifaction, how do we overcome that…
by simply telling people who have been here for years its not relevant and none of thier biusiness, opens up more cause for dissent in the long run, surely?
1 Like
This is an excellent post, a lot of the people I know don’t align with any party. Historically all are staunch Labour voters… politics now It’s all shortermism. Ironically for my stage in life the Tory’s actually benefit me and my family the most, yet I see through the lies and see the underbelly of elitism for the few… I’m very much for the many.
1 Like
Interestingly I think there’s a very large part of the electorate still looking, yearning for a party that is more left leaning. Labour should be that but they are clearly in disarray and lack a clear identity.
1 Like
I really think that Labour should split, such is the obvious factionism that already exists. Then voters to the left will have a party more closely aligned with their views. A political home they don’t feel they currently have that can properly represent them.
2 Likes
It seems a logical way forward I agree, but they aren’t winning any elections by doing that. Then again they aren’t winning any now either.
It could be a way forward if (big if, huge if) after the split they could come to some pre election pact on which party puts forward a candidate. That also needs to be wider and include other parties as well.
But given the way this lot squabble agreeing on what colour socks to wear seems to be an impossibility.
Maybe a full reset is the an answer?
1 Like
If the act is carried out on the same ideals as those attempting to destabilise society then it is terrorism. It is not random, it is carried out with purpose and it has an objective.