They may be, but it may not be. Just calling it terrorism doesn't make it so.
They might not take care to ensure there are no members of their own group in there but there is a target.
-
-
1/ obviously, people on London Bridge is a target. But you don't know that they are all Christians, capitalists etc. And they don't care
-
No. Random attacks will always include people who don't hold the values terrorists are targetting. But pereived as representing them.
-
They wouldn't have done it if they'd been in Pakistan. It was an attack on the British public even tho many non-Brits got hurt.
-
No it was an attack on British Muslims. Ask those attacked.
-
London Bridge?
-
Twitter not great for this. Crossed wires doesn't come close.
-
Honestly, it's fine. Not the point. I'm leaving it here.
-
Lol. Well my point is that we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions on any of these attacks to early.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
2/ this looks to be targeted at Muslims so could be opportunistic hate crime. Apart from van not really equipped to kill loads.
-
Like the Lee Rigby murder? But I'm not interested in semantic differences between terrorism & hate crime. 1/2
-
Lee Rigby wasn't terrorism. And I am. It's not just a semantic difference, it's a political one.
-
Yes but on the level of words. I don't want to discuss the meanings of words - 'semantics.' I'm addressing a false claim of imbalance.
-
But that issue of imbalance is bound up with the meaning of the words. Re no, still not clear what your were negating.
-
No, it wasn't. We've gone way off the point so I'll leave it here. They don't care (if they get ppl other than that target) No (they don't)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.