FabSwingers.com forum: When is a terror attack not a terror attack

By *andS66 OP Couple
over a year ago

Derby

These tweets are from a very well known and senior MP - in politics since 1982, in parliament for 20 years:

“My thoughts go out to all those affected by the horrific incident in Manchester” – 6:22a.m. 23rd May 2017

“My thoughts are with all those affected by the incidents in London tonight” 12:04 a.m. 4th June 2017

“Shocking terror attack outside Finsbury Park Mosque” – 5:39 a.m. 19th June 2017

“Terror attack outside Finsbury Park Mosque. Police must urgently review security for all mosques” – 5:49 a.m. 19th June 2017

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66 OP Couple
over a year ago

Derby

Sorry, that should have said in Parliament for 30 years....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Its all terrorisim and none of them are crazy or mentally ill or nutjobs.

You might not like what they want and think it's "crazy" but there not.

Their committed and willing to go further than liberals (like me) who lets be honest go tuut and ohhh dear at everything, oh well, life goes on, make the most of it, what can you do, the world today.

If being committed to a cause you believe in enough to die and kill for then you may as well add the suffragettes or Martin Luther king or Malcolm X or Nelson Mandela or... The entire of Britain.. Because apparently everybody who does anything we don't like to talk about is a fucking crazy nutjob loon

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

I'm not sure i get your point. We all know that all those incidents are terrorist incidents. You sure you're not just being a little bit pedantic?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I know exactly which MP you're talking about and I am absolutely astounded that her constituents re-elected the dosey cow!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ndykayMan
over a year ago

Falkirk

OP, having not seen any other tweets before or after these you have singled out, I have no way of knowing the full story.

Likewise, not knowing who wrote them means I cannot make an informed judgement.

What you have posted 'could' be looked at as propaganda. It 'could' be seen as a simple question.

My point is, it's ALL relative to the person that reads them and they decide the context that they see them.

However, what I would say is if an incident is deemed a terror attack - then it's a terror attack.

But if you only have sketchy details to go on, again, you have to wait for the full facts to make that decision.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"OP, having not seen any other tweets before or after these you have singled out, I have no way of knowing the full story.

Likewise, not knowing who wrote them means I cannot make an informed judgement.

What you have posted 'could' be looked at as propaganda. It 'could' be seen as a simple question.

My point is, it's ALL relative to the person that reads them and they decide the context that they see them.

However, what I would say is if an incident is deemed a terror attack - then it's a terror attack.

But if you only have sketchy details to go on, again, you have to wait for the full facts to make that decision.

"
Maybe s better Question is when is an Attack an Organiesed Attack ?

As all Attacks cause Terror

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *wingtolifeCouple
over a year ago

who knows

I think shes just trying to counter balance the right wing nut job extremist media organisations

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They all try and control and limit the definition of words like terrorism.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago

Limavady

"They all try and control and limit the definition of words like terrorism."

Agreed As we find now, in Northern Ireland, incidents that in the past would have been called terrorist incidents are now called "hate crimes" to try and pretend there's peace.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

Well the Daily Mail described the perpetrator of the latest attack as a "white van driver" rather than a terrorist. Why would they do that?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66 OP Couple
over a year ago

Derby

The Daily Mail is not the shadow home secretary though.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"These tweets are from a very well known and senior MP - in politics since 1982, in parliament for 20 years:

“My thoughts go out to all those affected by the horrific incident in Manchester” – 6:22a.m. 23rd May 2017

“My thoughts are with all those affected by the incidents in London tonight” 12:04 a.m. 4th June 2017

“Shocking terror attack outside Finsbury Park Mosque” – 5:39 a.m. 19th June 2017

“Terror attack outside Finsbury Park Mosque. Police must urgently review security for all mosques” – 5:49 a.m. 19th June 2017

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

'Incident' is being used as a pronoun.. Sticking the word 'terrorist' in or omitting it as an adverb in my view isn't really controversial or should be construed as differentiating the events

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

"The Daily Mail is not the shadow home secretary though."

I can think of a lot more serious thinks to criticise her for than the use or misuse of incident and terror attack.

Seems to me like it's not just the trendy left who have their own little PC correct language.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66 OP Couple
over a year ago

Derby

"The Daily Mail is not the shadow home secretary though.

I can think of a lot more serious thinks to criticise her for than the use or misuse of incident and terror attack.

Seems to me like it's not just the trendy left who have their own little PC correct language."

I'm sure she probably still considers herself as trendy left.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"The Daily Mail is not the shadow home secretary though.

I can think of a lot more serious thinks to criticise her for than the use or misuse of incident and terror attack.

Seems to me like it's not just the trendy left who have their own little PC correct language.

I'm sure she probably still considers herself as trendy left."

I think people can say what they like about Manchester and London Bridge because that attackers are dead.... because the person at Finsbury Park is still alive legally it has to be treated differently for the time being as to not affect any potential trial

Maybe that is her legal training kicking in.....

Or just maybe some people are trying to use sad and heinous acts to politically points score....

Now.... which am I more likely to believe is going on here bearing in mind the OP previous postings... hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ob1234123Man
over a year ago

northants

Is an revenge attack a terroist attack

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66 OP Couple
over a year ago

Derby

"The Daily Mail is not the shadow home secretary though.

I can think of a lot more serious thinks to criticise her for than the use or misuse of incident and terror attack.

Seems to me like it's not just the trendy left who have their own little PC correct language.

I'm sure she probably still considers herself as trendy left.

Maybe that is her legal training kicking in.....

Or just maybe some people are trying to use sad and heinous acts to politically points score....

Now.... which am I more likely to believe is going on here bearing in mind the OP previous postings... hmmmmmmmmmmmmm"

So Manchester and London Bridge, because the attackers are dead, can be called 'incidents', but Finsbury Park, where the attacker is still alive, has to be called 'terrorist'?

What legal basis is that then?

Because, if there was any kind of legal basis, then surely it would be the other way round, because she has therefore effectively pre-judged Finsbury Park to be an act of terrorism? So shouldn't she have said, to be legally 'safe', "suspected terrorism"?

And what would you call Manchester and London Bridge? Incidents, or terrorism?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Well the Daily Mail described the perpetrator of the latest attack as a "white van driver" rather than a terrorist. Why would they do that? "

They clarified the description in that way....they had clearly already called it a terrorist attack. Just as in other similar attacks they have gone on to describe (e.g. The borough market ring leader as Italian/Moroccan).

Too many people in here nit-picking and looking for things that just aren't there.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

Today's choice of weapon for the terrorist is the white van!

Easily available and lethal in the wrong hands. After all, who is going to suspect a white van driving around a city!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

"Is an revenge attack a terroist attack "

YES!! And definitely not in my name as Christian, English, British, European or anything else thank you.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

"Well the Daily Mail described the perpetrator of the latest attack as a "white van driver" rather than a terrorist. Why would they do that?

Too many people in here nit-picking and looking for things that just aren't there."

This!

And for both what the Mail or Abbot said.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"The Daily Mail is not the shadow home secretary though.

I can think of a lot more serious thinks to criticise her for than the use or misuse of incident and terror attack.

Seems to me like it's not just the trendy left who have their own little PC correct language.

I'm sure she probably still considers herself as trendy left.

Maybe that is her legal training kicking in.....

Or just maybe some people are trying to use sad and heinous acts to politically points score....

Now.... which am I more likely to believe is going on here bearing in mind the OP previous postings... hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

So Manchester and London Bridge, because the attackers are dead, can be called 'incidents', but Finsbury Park, where the attacker is still alive, has to be called 'terrorist'?

What legal basis is that then?

And what would you call Manchester and London Bridge? Incidents, or terrorism?

its a terrorist incident when the police label it to be a terrorist incident.....

so do we know the timeline of the tweets to as when the police labelled them to terrorist related....

because being up for manchester i know that that bombing wasn't called terrorist related for at least a few hours..... same with finsbury park...

london bridge was called terror related a lot sooner....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

but again.... my view is you are trying to point score over a matter of triviality....

but well done you!!!!! yey!!!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The Daily Mail is not the shadow home secretary though.

I can think of a lot more serious thinks to criticise her for than the use or misuse of incident and terror attack.

Seems to me like it's not just the trendy left who have their own little PC correct language.

I'm sure she probably still considers herself as trendy left.

Maybe that is her legal training kicking in.....

Or just maybe some people are trying to use sad and heinous acts to politically points score....

Now.... which am I more likely to believe is going on here bearing in mind the OP previous postings... hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

So Manchester and London Bridge, because the attackers are dead, can be called 'incidents', but Finsbury Park, where the attacker is still alive, has to be called 'terrorist'?

What legal basis is that then?

And what would you call Manchester and London Bridge? Incidents, or terrorism?

its a terrorist incident when the police label it to be a terrorist incident.....

so do we know the timeline of the tweets to as when the police labelled them to terrorist related....

because being up for manchester i know that that bombing wasn't called terrorist related for at least a few hours..... same with finsbury park...

london bridge was called terror related a lot sooner.... "

Exactly we lack context. Time of posting and how it was reported. In Manchester no-one knew what happened for hours. In Finsbury May called it a terror attack very quickly.

We need context.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

"
Everything is a terror attack when its done to the public, but taking those 2 examples. I can see it is political correctness as they try to word it so it doesnt come across wrong, the first 2 was done by isis the other by a brit.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Everything is a terror attack when its done to the public, but taking those 2 examples. I can see it is political correctness as they try to word it so it doesnt come across wrong, the first 2 was done by isis the other by a brit."

Its political correct to say dropping bombs on children and women isnt terrorism.Its collateral damage.Those who have been bombed are terrified and terrorised. The definition is owned by the victims not the perpetrator.Or more often than not the media or state owns the word.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago

Barbados

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Just a minor point, but all three attacks were by British nationals.

-Matt

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

"
Yes, it seems it is the media that decide what it is.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Just a minor point, but all three attacks were by British nationals.

-Matt"
Yes. I guess it depends how far back you want to go of what you class as a brit.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Just a minor point, but all three attacks were by British nationals.

-MattYes. I guess it depends how far back you want to go of what you class as a brit."
What you mean is non white terrorism.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oxychick35Couple
over a year ago

thornaby

The USA don't drop bombs on women and children as targets they get things wrong it's war for ya also Isis use them as human shields .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66 OP Couple
over a year ago

Derby

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Just a minor point, but all three attacks were by British nationals.

-Matt"

There were three attackers at London Bridge..one British, one who 'described himself as Moroccan/ Libyan', and the third who I think has not yet been named but police have said he's not a UK citizen.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

"The USA don't drop bombs on women and children as targets they get things wrong it's war for ya also Isis use them as human shields ."

sadly they do as do other nations..

the new term 'collateral damage' is maybe nicer than 'slaughtering innocents' with high tech munitions but the outcome is still the same..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66 OP Couple
over a year ago

Derby

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Just a minor point, but all three attacks were by British nationals.

-Matt

There were three attackers at London Bridge..one British, one who 'described himself as Moroccan/ Libyan', and the third who I think has not yet been named but police have said he's not a UK citizen. "

Just read the following:

The three attackers have been named:

Khuram Shazad Butt, 27, a British citizen born in Pakistan

Rachid Redouane, 30, who had claimed to be Moroccan and Libyan

Youssef Zaghba, 22, a Moroccan-Italian man

Sources in Dublin said Redouane was understood to have been carrying an identification card issued in the Republic of Ireland when he was shot dead, the Press Association reported.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oxychick35Couple
over a year ago

thornaby

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The USA don't drop bombs on women and children as targets they get things wrong it's war for ya also Isis use them as human shields ."
What about the vietnam war? they dropped lots of bombs there.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oxychick35Couple
over a year ago

thornaby

They drop lots of bombs in every war it's why they AV bomber planes ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"They drop lots of bombs in every war it's why they AV bomber planes ?"
That is right, but they do get hit, maibe not as targets, but casualties.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oxychick35Couple
over a year ago

thornaby

Yes but until they invent bombs and bullets which only kill the bad guys then nothing will change in war sadly

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago

Barbados

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Just a minor point, but all three attacks were by British nationals.

-Matt

True. But I'm sure you get my point. Implying a Brit was only involved in the third one doesn't help matters.

-Matt

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66 OP Couple
over a year ago

Derby

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Just a minor point, but all three attacks were by British nationals.

-Matt

There were three attackers at London Bridge..one British, one who 'described himself as Moroccan/ Libyan', and the third who I think has not yet been named but police have said he's not a UK citizen.

True. But I'm sure you get my point. Implying a Brit was only involved in the third one doesn't help matters.

-Matt"

No, I don't get your point.

No-one implied that Brits weren't involved in the first two.

Implying all three attacks were only by Brits doesn't help matters.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago

Barbados

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Just a minor point, but all three attacks were by British nationals.

-Matt

There were three attackers at London Bridge..one British, one who 'described himself as Moroccan/ Libyan', and the third who I think has not yet been named but police have said he's not a UK citizen.

True. But I'm sure you get my point. Implying a Brit was only involved in the third one doesn't help matters.

-Matt

No, I don't get your point.

No-one implied that Brits weren't involved in the first two.

Implying all three attacks were only by Brits doesn't help matters.

Read it again. It is quoted above.

-Matt

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Yes but until they invent bombs and bullets which only kill the bad guys then nothing will change in war sadly "
Thats the holy grail of warfare. The gentic bio weapon.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford

I could be wrong, but actually the difference in the tone of the tweets is a timescale thing - The London and Manchester attacks were "incidents" until it was established much later that they were terrorist attacks. The guy who carried out the Finsbury Park attack was caught at the scene, alive and was by himself, so it was much easiier to ascertain what was going on. Police/anti terror diliberatley hold back on confinrming things if they feel that there is a network of potential threats that could be exposed in a time sensetive manner.

But of course, you could instead think that Dianne Abbott is simehow an ISIS supporter if you like. Makes you seem like a bit of a moron though.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Just a minor point, but all three attacks were by British nationals.

-MattYes. I guess it depends how far back you want to go of what you class as a brit. What you mean is non white terrorism.

Happy to call any edl/ukip supporter mentally ill. Calling them terrorist is a bit mean.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Just a minor point, but all three attacks were by British nationals.

-Matt

I am British but describe myself as Chilean. Only reason is because I get questioned about my origin and told I'm not British I'm Chilean. Sad really.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Just a minor point, but all three attacks were by British nationals.

-Matt

There were three attackers at London Bridge..one British, one who 'described himself as Moroccan/ Libyan', and the third who I think has not yet been named but police have said he's not a UK citizen.

I am British but describe myself as Chilean. Only reason is because I get questioned about my origin and told I'm not British I'm Chilean. Sad really."
Some people cant see past ethnicity.My kids get asked where are they from .Both born here and their mother.I can relate

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66 OP Couple
over a year ago

Derby

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Just a minor point, but all three attacks were by British nationals.

-Matt

There were three attackers at London Bridge..one British, one who 'described himself as Moroccan/ Libyan', and the third who I think has not yet been named but police have said he's not a UK citizen.

True. But I'm sure you get my point. Implying a Brit was only involved in the third one doesn't help matters.

-Matt

No, I don't get your point.

No-one implied that Brits weren't involved in the first two.

Implying all three attacks were only by Brits doesn't help matters.

Read it again. It is quoted above.

-Matt"

"All three attacks were by British Nationals"

Implying no others were involved.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Just a minor point, but all three attacks were by British nationals.

-Matt

There were three attackers at London Bridge..one British, one who 'described himself as Moroccan/ Libyan', and the third who I think has not yet been named but police have said he's not a UK citizen.

True. But I'm sure you get my point. Implying a Brit was only involved in the third one doesn't help matters.

-Matt

No, I don't get your point.

No-one implied that Brits weren't involved in the first two.

Implying all three attacks were only by Brits doesn't help matters.

Read it again. It is quoted above.

-Matt

"All three attacks were by British Nationals"

Implying no others were involved. "

"All three attacks" refers to 3 seperate attacks, rather than 3 attackers from a single attack.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford

Today's lesson; Basic written English.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

"Today's lesson; Basic written English.

Thats the lesson most days on here!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago

Barbados

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Just a minor point, but all three attacks were by British nationals.

-Matt

There were three attackers at London Bridge..one British, one who 'described himself as Moroccan/ Libyan', and the third who I think has not yet been named but police have said he's not a UK citizen.

True. But I'm sure you get my point. Implying a Brit was only involved in the third one doesn't help matters.

-Matt

No, I don't get your point.

No-one implied that Brits weren't involved in the first two.

Implying all three attacks were only by Brits doesn't help matters.

Read it again. It is quoted above.

-Matt

"All three attacks were by British Nationals"

Implying no others were involved. "

In response to "the first 2 was done by isis the other by a brit.". Are you really this thick to not be able to understand this?

-Matt

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66 OP Couple
over a year ago

Derby

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Just a minor point, but all three attacks were by British nationals.

-Matt

There were three attackers at London Bridge..one British, one who 'described himself as Moroccan/ Libyan', and the third who I think has not yet been named but police have said he's not a UK citizen.

True. But I'm sure you get my point. Implying a Brit was only involved in the third one doesn't help matters.

-Matt

No, I don't get your point.

No-one implied that Brits weren't involved in the first two.

Implying all three attacks were only by Brits doesn't help matters.

Read it again. It is quoted above.

-Matt

"All three attacks were by British Nationals"

Implying no others were involved.

"All three attacks" refers to 3 seperate attacks, rather than 3 attackers from a single attack. "

I know the difference between attacks and attackers.

So why didn't you say, all three attacks were by Battacks foreign nationals?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Just a minor point, but all three attacks were by British nationals.

-Matt

There were three attackers at London Bridge..one British, one who 'described himself as Moroccan/ Libyan', and the third who I think has not yet been named but police have said he's not a UK citizen.

True. But I'm sure you get my point. Implying a Brit was only involved in the third one doesn't help matters.

-Matt

No, I don't get your point.

No-one implied that Brits weren't involved in the first two.

Implying all three attacks were only by Brits doesn't help matters.

Read it again. It is quoted above.

-Matt

"All three attacks were by British Nationals"

Implying no others were involved.

"All three attacks" refers to 3 seperate attacks, rather than 3 attackers from a single attack.

I know the difference between attacks and attackers.

So why didn't you say, all three attacks were by Battacks foreign nationals?"

What the hell are battacks foreign nationals?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66 OP Couple
over a year ago

Derby

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Just a minor point, but all three attacks were by British nationals.

-Matt

There were three attackers at London Bridge..one British, one who 'described himself as Moroccan/ Libyan', and the third who I think has not yet been named but police have said he's not a UK citizen.

True. But I'm sure you get my point. Implying a Brit was only involved in the third one doesn't help matters.

-Matt

No, I don't get your point.

No-one implied that Brits weren't involved in the first two.

Implying all three attacks were only by Brits doesn't help matters.

Read it again. It is quoted above.

-Matt

"All three attacks were by British Nationals"

Implying no others were involved.

"All three attacks" refers to 3 seperate attacks, rather than 3 attackers from a single attack.

I know the difference between attacks and attackers.

So why didn't you say, all three attacks were by Battacks foreign nationals?

What the hell are battacks foreign nationals? "

British and foreign nationals...

Damn fat thumbs!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Just a minor point, but all three attacks were by British nationals.

-Matt

There were three attackers at London Bridge..one British, one who 'described himself as Moroccan/ Libyan', and the third who I think has not yet been named but police have said he's not a UK citizen.

True. But I'm sure you get my point. Implying a Brit was only involved in the third one doesn't help matters.

-Matt

No, I don't get your point.

No-one implied that Brits weren't involved in the first two.

Implying all three attacks were only by Brits doesn't help matters.

Read it again. It is quoted above.

-Matt

"All three attacks were by British Nationals"

Implying no others were involved.

"All three attacks" refers to 3 seperate attacks, rather than 3 attackers from a single attack.

I know the difference between attacks and attackers.

So why didn't you say, all three attacks were by Battacks foreign nationals?

What the hell are battacks foreign nationals?

British and foreign nationals...

Damn fat thumbs!"

Well I'm not the one that you started arguing with, but it would be incorrect to say that "all 3 attacks were carried out by british and foreign nationals." Including 'all' means there were both foreign and British nationals involved in each seperate attack.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 21/06/17 20:01:40]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Just a minor point, but all three attacks were by British nationals.

-Matt

There were three attackers at London Bridge..one British, one who 'described himself as Moroccan/ Libyan', and the third who I think has not yet been named but police have said he's not a UK citizen.

True. But I'm sure you get my point. Implying a Brit was only involved in the third one doesn't help matters.

-Matt

No, I don't get your point.

No-one implied that Brits weren't involved in the first two.

Implying all three attacks were only by Brits doesn't help matters.

Read it again. It is quoted above.

-Matt

"All three attacks were by British Nationals"

Implying no others were involved.

"All three attacks" refers to 3 seperate attacks, rather than 3 attackers from a single attack.

I know the difference between attacks and attackers.

So why didn't you say, all three attacks were by Battacks foreign nationals?

What the hell are battacks foreign nationals?

British and foreign nationals...

Damn fat thumbs!

You could say "the 3 attacks were carried out by a mixture of British and foreign nationals" or you could say "2 attacks were carried out by british nationals and the third attack was carroed out by british and foreign nationals""
That is right, cos many hide behind political correctness, we all know that a british national is not born in britain or a british citizen.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago

Barbados

"You could say "the 3 attacks were carried out by a mixture of British and foreign nationals" or you could say "2 attacks were carried out by british nationals and the third attack was carroed out by british and foreign nationals"

That is right, cos many hide behind political correctness, we all know that a british national is not born in britain or a british citizen."

eh?

-Matt

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Just a minor point, but all three attacks were by British nationals.

-Matt

There were three attackers at London Bridge..one British, one who 'described himself as Moroccan/ Libyan', and the third who I think has not yet been named but police have said he's not a UK citizen.

True. But I'm sure you get my point. Implying a Brit was only involved in the third one doesn't help matters.

-Matt

No, I don't get your point.

No-one implied that Brits weren't involved in the first two.

Implying all three attacks were only by Brits doesn't help matters.

Read it again. It is quoted above.

-Matt

"All three attacks were by British Nationals"

Implying no others were involved.

"All three attacks" refers to 3 seperate attacks, rather than 3 attackers from a single attack.

I know the difference between attacks and attackers.

So why didn't you say, all three attacks were by Battacks foreign nationals?

What the hell are battacks foreign nationals?

British and foreign nationals...

Damn fat thumbs!

You could say "the 3 attacks were carried out by a mixture of British and foreign nationals" or you could say "2 attacks were carried out by british nationals and the third attack was carroed out by british and foreign nationals"That is right, cos many hide behind political correctness, we all know that a british national is not born in britain or a british citizen."

You can swap out the word national and put citizen. I wasn't intending to make a nuanced point about their status.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Just a minor point, but all three attacks were by British nationals.

-Matt

There were three attackers at London Bridge..one British, one who 'described himself as Moroccan/ Libyan', and the third who I think has not yet been named but police have said he's not a UK citizen.

True. But I'm sure you get my point. Implying a Brit was only involved in the third one doesn't help matters.

-Matt

No, I don't get your point.

No-one implied that Brits weren't involved in the first two.

Implying all three attacks were only by Brits doesn't help matters.

Read it again. It is quoted above.

-Matt

"All three attacks were by British Nationals"

Implying no others were involved.

"All three attacks" refers to 3 seperate attacks, rather than 3 attackers from a single attack.

I know the difference between attacks and attackers.

So why didn't you say, all three attacks were by Battacks foreign nationals?

What the hell are battacks foreign nationals?

British and foreign nationals...

Damn fat thumbs!

You could say "the 3 attacks were carried out by a mixture of British and foreign nationals" or you could say "2 attacks were carried out by british nationals and the third attack was carroed out by british and foreign nationals"That is right, cos many hide behind political correctness, we all know that a british national is not born in britain or a british citizen.

You can swap out the word national and put citizen. I wasn't intending to make a nuanced point about their status. "
I see and that is good, yeah there are few combinations we can use there.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

That is right, cos many hide behind political correctness, we all know that a british national is not born in britain or a british citizen.

eh?

-Matt"
Just few combinations of what national mean there.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

i think it is quite ironic that the OP who started the thread being semantic then went on the argue when someone brought up their smemantics....

when political points scoring goes wrong.... its like someone pissed in their conrflakes this morning and decided to try and get angry for no apparent reason than wanting to be angry...

reminds me of the simpsons "angry man yells at cloud" gif you see often.....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mcouple1Couple
over a year ago

nr warrington

"These tweets are from a very well known and senior MP - in politics since 1982, in parliament for 20 years:

“My thoughts go out to all those affected by the horrific incident in Manchester” – 6:22a.m. 23rd May 2017

“My thoughts are with all those affected by the incidents in London tonight” 12:04 a.m. 4th June 2017

“Shocking terror attack outside Finsbury Park Mosque” – 5:39 a.m. 19th June 2017

“Terror attack outside Finsbury Park Mosque. Police must urgently review security for all mosques” – 5:49 a.m. 19th June 2017

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mcouple1Couple
over a year ago

nr warrington

Diane Abbott type of thing. She said White people play the divide and rule ( Not racist ) she said West Indian mothers would go to the end of the earth for their children . ( Not racist ) . They all have their own prejudices but some are stupid enough to say it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"These tweets are from a very well known and senior MP - in politics since 1982, in parliament for 20 years:

“My thoughts go out to all those affected by the horrific incident in Manchester” – 6:22a.m. 23rd May 2017

“My thoughts are with all those affected by the incidents in London tonight” 12:04 a.m. 4th June 2017

“Shocking terror attack outside Finsbury Park Mosque” – 5:39 a.m. 19th June 2017

“Terror attack outside Finsbury Park Mosque. Police must urgently review security for all mosques” – 5:49 a.m. 19th June 2017

So, Manchester and London Bridge / Borough Market were 'incidents', whereas Finsbury Park Mosque was a terror attack.

"
a terror attack is not a terror attack when the British are behind it have you seen what's happening for the past 30 years in the Middle East all thanks to british money and weapons ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread