A Forgotten Victim Of A 'terror Attack'

[Bounce 10]

I understand that specific incidents such as Finsbury Park and NZ were reported as terror attacks. I'm more concerned with stabbings or seriouse physical assaults perpetrated against Muslims which occur more regularly. These crimes are usually reported as "religiously motivated hate crimes" if reported at all. It seems that when the perpetrator is deemed to be Muslim and the victim non Muslim the narrative changes instantly. It goes from being a stabbing incident to a major terrorist attack. That's not to take away from the victims of any form of violence for whatever motivation. However if the crime is religiously motivated the terror attack label shouldn't be applied selectively. My personal opinion is that a terror attack is a large scale attack. A bombing or a mass shooting at the least. In my view these smaller scale crimes are religiously motivated hate crimes rather than terrorist attacks. Of course in the majority of cases stabbings in the UK have no religious motive. And in the USA regular mass shootings tend to be a white supremacist issue but the mainstream media will use terms such as "mass shooting" and "gunman".

[Bounce 10]

18 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Why would you expect something that happened in Germany over 10 years ago to be widely known in the UK?

 

I note you've referred to this case several times over the years - although you've made far more posts saying the 7/7 Tube Bombings  were some sort of conspiracy theory against Muslims.

 

Just wondering where we are going with this - thought I'd cut to the chase.

I don't recall bringing it up previously, although I may have done in a different context. I have explained my reasons for bringing it up in the original post.

 

The very fact that it happened in a courtroom and the security managed to shoot the victims husband rather than the attacker makes it a good example.

[Longcol 600]

4 minutes ago, Bounce said:

I don't recall bringing it up previously, although I may have done in a different context. I have explained my reasons for bringing it up in the original post.

 

The very fact that it happened in a courtroom and the security managed to shoot the victims husband rather than the attacker makes it a good example.

And as reported the victims husband was shot accidentally.

 

Threads you brought it up in.

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/402442-paris-shooting-17-dead/page/54/?tab=comments#comment-7329203

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/390681-violence-to-girls-and-women/page/21/?tab=comments#comment-7124019

 

 

And I remember you username well as a very strident voice that the 7/7 tube bombers were victims of some sort of plot to discredit Muslims.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

2 hours ago, Bounce said:

My personal opinion is that a terror attack is a large scale attack. A bombing or a mass shooting at the least. 

You are entitled to your opinion but scale has nothing to do with whether something is a terrorist attack or not.

[TomMix 0]

15 hours ago, Halibut said:

Wrong; it's money.

Thats the same thing .

[Halibut 12]

9 hours ago, TomMix said:

Thats the same thing .

Religion and money are the same thing? Really? 

 

Care to explain?

[Longcol 600]

3 hours ago, Halibut said:

Religion and money are the same thing? Really? 

 

Care to explain?

I think they're responding to your post #9 and the following post #10.

[Bounce 10]

On 04/12/2019 at 00:05, Longcol said:

And as reported the victims husband was shot accidentally.

 

Threads you brought it up in.

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/402442-paris-shooting-17-dead/page/54/?tab=comments#comment-7329203

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/390681-violence-to-girls-and-women/page/21/?tab=comments#comment-7124019

 

 

And I remember you username well as a very strident voice that the 7/7 tube bombers were victims of some sort of plot to discredit Muslims.

I don't see your point 7/7 has got nothing to do with the thread. It occurred  over 14 years ago and despite differing views on the subject, I don't see its relevance to the discussion.  

Edited December 6, 2019 by Bounce

[Bounce 10]

On 04/12/2019 at 01:47, Top Cats Hat said:

You are entitled to your opinion but scale has nothing to do with whether something is a terrorist attack or not.

Well I think the point here is that some smaller scale attacks are referred to as "terrorism" while others are not. The Dresden case is a poignant example.  There are many cases in the UK as well, motivated by religious hatred and not called terrorism. Their seems to be a degree of selective labelling going on, based on the background of the attacker.  

[Longcol 600]

11 minutes ago, Bounce said:

Well I think the point here is that some smaller scale attacks are referred to as "terrorism" while others are not. The Dresden case is a poignant example.  There are many cases in the UK as well, motivated by religious hatred and not called terrorism. Their seems to be a degree of selective labelling going on, based on the background of the attacker.  

They're called hate crimes. Quite a powerful message I think.

 

White neo-nazi in court yesterday on terrorism charges.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50666909

 

20 minutes ago, Bounce said:

I don't see your point 7/7 has got nothing to do with the thread. It occurred  over 14 years ago and despite differing views on the subject, I don't see its relevance to the discussion.  

The Sheribi case was 10 years ago.  In Germany. How is that hate crime relevant to how the UK defines terrorism on 2019.

[Bounce 10]

1 hour ago, Longcol said:

They're called hate crimes. Quite a powerful message I think.

 

White neo-nazi in court yesterday on terrorism charges.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50666909

 

The Sheribi case was 10 years ago.  In Germany. How is that hate crime relevant to how the UK defines terrorism on 2019.

They are indeed but then shouldn't small scale attacks like London Bridge also be called hate crimes? 

 

The point here is that certain religiously motivated hate crimes are reported as "terror attacks" and others are not. This horrific case in an example of that. 7/7 discussions from 10 years ago are irrelevant to the topic. 

Edited December 6, 2019 by Bounce

[Longcol 600]

2 minutes ago, Bounce said:

The point here is that certain hate crimes are reported as "terror attacks" and others are not. This horrific case in an example of that. 7/7 discussions from 10 years ago are irrelevant to the topic. 

Give examples of hate crimes reported as terror attacks then - the Sheribi case certainly fell into the former.

 

And the 7/7 discussions are certainly relevant to your personal views - ie it was a conspiracy against muslims.