They may be, but it may not be. Just calling it terrorism doesn't make it so.
-
-
Replying to @colwight
Well, no. You'd hope they are basing this on knowledge they have. The Met are pretty good. They don't say this for no reason.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Investigating it as terrorism is normal given recent events, but for it to be terrorism special conditions needed.https://he.palgrave.com/page/detail/Rethinking-Terrorism/?K=9780230573765 …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @colwight
Not disagreeing with that. Someone suggesting no-one calls it terrorism when white ppl attack a targetted group but they did. Instantly.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Agree, what's interesting abt most terrorist attacks is that they don't target specific groups; they don't care who is in attacked group.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @colwight
They might not take care to ensure there are no members of their own group in there but there is a target.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @colwight
No. Random attacks will always include people who don't hold the values terrorists are targetting. But pereived as representing them.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
That's exactly why this one may not be terrorism. It seems to have been targeted at a specific group. Didn't understand the "no", u affirmed
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes. 'No' affirms a negative statement. It's not cold today. No, it's not.
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.