UKC

Just seen the mb footage on the news - shouted at the Leytonstone knifeman in response to the "this is for Syria" attack at the Tube station

Somehow these 5 words seem more powerful than any of the politicians spouting pompously.

In reply to Babika:

I


It's perfect isn't it?

In reply to Trevers:

Indeed, I was heartened to hear it.

In reply to Trevers:

Yes, he probably isn't a true Scot either.

In reply to Babika:

But he and others seemed v keen to film it, from a distance...

And where were the armed police who will save us from a Paris style massacre...?

In reply to Skyfall:

So you would have gone straight in to remonstrate at close quarters?

In reply to Skyfall:

Leytonstone is hardly the location of a Paris style massacre.

In reply to marsbar:

Likely the place where the perps would come from though.

He has now been charged with attempted murder and was indeed local to the station. Possibly Somali or Sudanese according to the guy selling coffee and newspapers etc.

In reply to Skyfall:


I find it quite heartening to know that if I'm being kicked to death in the street or have been hit by a bus a large crowd of concerned citizens will gather to ensure it ends up on YouTube...

In reply to Babika:


Wishful thinking is something that there is a time and a place for it, but I'm not convinced that self-delusion is what we need right now.

In reply to Andy Morley:

Precisely.

The "nothing to do with Islam" line is the exact equivalent of a captain coming on the PA system on a plane in mid air and saying :

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking - there is no cause for alarm"

Then 5 minutes later :

"The wing is NOT on fire"

Though of course it is much more hackneyed than that, as we have heard it so often - after virtually every Islamic massacre where the perpetrators shout "Allah Akbar" and "die Kufurs, die" very loudly as they fire their AK 47s at defenceless men, women and children.

In reply to Babika:

There's gotta be a guardian article about social cohesion in there somewhere.

In reply to Babika:

I do find it noble gesture, but I am not sure if the attacker actually claimed to be a muslim (I might be wrong).

However, here is a more general question I have:

"What would it take for a terrorist to convince you that their actions were religiously motivated?"

In reply to Shani:

I think that may be a tricky one to answer. As I understand it, in many cases religion and politics are intertwined.

In reply to Shani:




But he didn't say this attach was religiously motivated, the bystander may have decided that the act he was carrying out was a bad thing from the point of view of any Muslim (OK lets say most Muslims).

In the same way we might shout that's not very Christian.

To the OP yes of course it was a great thing to say, half the people on here complaining are the same people moaning the Muslim community isn't speaking out enough. They won't be happy until ALL Muslims self immolate in shame at the acts of the few.

In reply to Babika:


I don't know for sure what my reaction would be but I can tell you one thing, it wouldn't be to whip out my phone and start filming. I would hope that I would either try to help in some way or, if I thought it was a sufficiently dangerous situation and my being around would do no good, get out of there. I can understand being in a quandry but just standing there filming it seems, to me, a very odd reaction. It's a bit (very much?) like rubber necking as you drive past a road accident, only worse in some respects.

I'm not sure when the normal reaction to something of this nature became to try to film it and, whilst I appreciate there probably is some value to the police in having filmed evidence, let's not kid ourselves that's why people have started filming such incidents.

In reply to Skyfall:

But was the bloke who said "You ain't...." filming it, or was someone else filming it.

In reply to Simon4:

It's about most people being peaceful at heart and wanting to just get on with their lives, Simon, and not wanting the world to be caught up in violence and strife. So when people say it's 'Nothing to do with Islam', or 'You ain't no Muslim bruv' it represents their truth - the truth they've been taught.

That other people are horrible and violent...that's because people are different from one another.

In reply to Babika:

Really?? I find it really trite that this is the main topic of conversation on such a horrific attack. It reduces the whole thing to a debate of labelling. Can you imagine if he had been wearing a Man Utd shirt and someone had shouted "You ain't no Man Utd fan"? What has being Muslim or not got to do with such a horrific attack? And what is the difference between an attack of this nature (i.e. a terrorist incident) and a regular stabbing?

In reply to ByEek:


It's being described as a terror attack, and he shouted 'this is for Syria'. Though I dare say any Muslims who may have their mosque attack following this will be wondering what it has to do with being a Muslim too.

In reply to Ridge:


It's weird isn't it.

In reply to Timmd:


Yes. It's almost prurient, “Oooh look! Someone with life changing injuries! I can film it and maybe I'll be famous on the news or get lots of likes on facebook or trend on twitter!"

In reply to krikoman:


Yes, I agree and made that exact same observation myself. That is why I preface my question as a 'more general question'.

As a thought-experiment it is quite challenging as most answers to that question fly in the face of what we hear trotted out in the face of many terrorist attacks.

In reply to Timmd:

But does one have to be a Muslim in order to feel so aggrieved at what is happening to Syria that you feel the only way forward is to lash out at random people?

I presume Christians or Jews or atheists would never do such outrageous things?

In reply to ByEek:


My thoughts exactly.

Slightly ironic though that he's thrown in a double negative....

In reply to Ridge:
I guess some might be wanting to make sure it doesn't go unrecorded, too, so there's evidence, there's probably a mixture of motives. It seems a little bit peculiar though compared to people going to help.

In reply to ByEek:


I'd say yes. Why would someone kill random strangers in protest over something in a random country that they have no connection with? Unless they had a mental age of about six or were otherwise mentally ill I can't see that happening.


Over Syria? I doubt it

In reply to Babika:

If only the pronouncement of one right-minded individual was an authority when it came to religious affiliation.

One of the complications around organised religions as a source of power is that, with very few exceptions (e.g. Scientology?), there is no single standard definition of affiliation to a religion. Indeed, the only one that could be viewed with any objective merit is what an individual believes themselves to be. This approach underlines various parts of the anti-discrimination law in the UK for example.

In reply to Shani:



My apologies, you're quite right, just the way I read it.


We shouldn't forget about the bloke who actually tackled him before the coppers got their, I suppose we should be talking about him really, a very brave man.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:



Well maybe we should lock him up as well.

FFS!! you know what he meant.

I don't think you understand noffink.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I see what you did there! very good!

In reply to Babika:

I don't think "this is the only thing people are talking about" at all. There are plenty of other threads on Syria, terrorism and indeed the Leytonstone stabbing. And please don't tarnish everyone from Leytonstone - I was born there!

I'm not naive enough to think this is earth shattering, I just felt that in the current climate we need more ordinary Muslim guys speaking, nay shouting, out and making the news rather than imams reading pre-prepared statements and politicians making serious condemnations in that peculiarly self righteous language they use.

As for filming - if I was confronted with a guy with a long blade or a machete, say, I would keep a very safe distance rather than wade in. I probably wouldn't film, but do remember if no one had filmed Ian Tomlinson being smacked in the back with a baton and subsequently falling to hit his head on the pavement, suffer a haemorrhage and die.......no one would have stood trial and been subsequently convicted.

I suspect that gunner Rigby's murder in Woolwich was also helped by very powerful video footage that captured the full horror and premeditation rather than allow any other type of defence.

Easy to condemn the YouTube culture, but on balance I'm for it.

In reply to Skyfall:

A more generous interpretation is that they were filming for evidential purposes.

I'm not sure I'd be running up to someone wielding a machete.

In reply to Babika:


This is confusing, I thought part of the problem of ISIS was their takfiri ideology, their claiming that some muslims were deficient and therefore non-muslim and therefore to be treated like the Infidel.

This seems to be a homeopathic approach of similia similibus curentur, Like Cures Like, so the cure for muslims who declare muslims are non-muslim is to declare them non-muslim and thus to be treated with the contempt reserved for the Infidel (bought, sold, killed, enslaved, the usual stuff).

Yet if a black person calls another black person a coconut, brown on the outside, white in the middle, we regard it as a form of racist hate speech, how is someone who calls a self-identified muslim a non-muslim not also guilty of racist hate speech, with religion now being protected like race?

We've already had a case of a dentist disciplined because he insisted his female customers wore a hijab, on the grounds that enforcing religious orthodoxy was racist.

In reply to Skyfall:


Without a clear view to ascertain that it was one bloke armed 'only' with a knife, I think my first reaction to what would reasonably be interpreted there and then as a terror attack would be to get as far away as possible in case he blew himself up.

In reply to Shani:

Not a lot.

People have been committing murder in order to try and prove who's got the best Imaginary Friend for centuries.

At least when terrorists are politically motivated, there's a good chance of finding some of them in possession of a brain cell?

In reply to Goucho:






I ask the question because the general response amongst those in the media (from muslims, politicians to other high profile individuals), seems to be "this is nothing to do with Islam".

I don't find this a satisfactory answer because if a terrorist commits an attack on those he calls kaffir, shouts 'Alloha Akbar", calls on muslims to follow him via his twitter account, wears a headband with Koranic scripture on it, and documents his specific religious affiliation and motivation in a jihadi video.... all under the auspicies of religious scholars who go on to approve of this behaviour in a religious capacity, I find it quite persuasive that the terrorists motivation IS religious.

I regularly contact BBC QT with this question for the panel, when appropriate.
We will only tackle this behaviour if we recognise the problem.

In reply to Shani:

Whilst I see what you are saying, this particular nutcase didn't do that, he shouted something about Syria and nothing else.

In reply to marsbar:

He shouted "this is for Syria MY MUSLIM BROTHERS"

and it looks like he is more articulate than Spielberg wannabe who responded

In reply to Shani:






I'm no theological scholar, and therefore haven't a clue how religious ideologies work.

All I do know is that outside of a despotic lunatic with their finger on the nuke button, Religion will probably be at the root cause of armaggedon.

In reply to marsbar:

As above (twice!), I am NOT saying that the tube station attacker was a muslim. I have generalised my question beyond this particular attack.

*It is not me DISLIKING your comment above!

In reply to Goucho:



Yup.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Ah OK, that isn't what I saw reported. Although it does make more sense why the other man shouted what he did.

In reply to winhill:
Is there a Muslim race?

Religion is protected from discrimination like race is, the difference (which seems obvious) is that people can't change their race, but they can change their religion, or simply stop being religious like I did.

Freedom of religion is in the UN charter of human rights, and rightly so I think if you look at what happens places like China.

Or religious genocides in Africa etc...

In reply to winhill:

I'm sure you aren't actually suggesting that the poor man with the knife is a victim of hate speech. Are you?

If a self professsed Christian was nasty to some one and an onlooker said "Call yourself a Christian, you aren't a Christian behaving like that" it would be considered common sense and free speech.

In reply to Babika:



Total side issue, but he was struck on the leg with a baton. He was then pushed causing him to fall to the floor. He did not strike his head, instead dying from internal bleeding, contributed to by cirrhosis of the liver. And no-one was convicted.
Perhaps a good example of fallibility of witness recollection ?

In reply to off-duty:

My apologies - you're completely right, but also being a little economical with the facts.
Police Officer Simon Harwood stood trial for manslaughter but was indeed acquitted. However the inquest found "unlawful killing" and the officer was dismissed from the force for gross misconduct.

The point I was making, which is not a side issue, is that without mb phone footage PC Harwood would most likely still be in a job and (possibly) bashing innocent people who happen to be in his path going home from work with his baton.

Mb phone footage/YouTube stuff is voyeurism, but it does have a role to play in justice sometimes.

In reply to Babika:





No intention to economize with the truth. I was in effect agreeing with your point - as you demonstrated an imperfect recall of events that had been played out at length on the front page of newspapers and TV, there is a parallel with eye witnesses getting it wrong.
Video footage does have its place in justice.

In reply to Shani



Just what we need, Hawaiian terrorists getting in on the act.

In reply to Ridge:

"In the name of" type incidents happen all over the world all the time, committed by all sorts of groups of all sorts of persuasion. Please tell me which sandpit you bury your head in. Right now I would happily join you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_(non-state)_terrorist_incidents

I note that there are now two wiki pages just for this year

In reply to ByEek:

We really shouldn't give clowns like this the oxygen of publicity, he should be just another stabby inadequate with the story maybe making the front of the local rag, not spending the whole day on 24H national rolling news and half the national papers. Haul him off to court and process as a common criminal or psychiatric patient whichever is more appropriate, no fuss, no terror-nonsense.

jk

In reply to teflonpete:



Maybe it was Tom Selleck

In reply to jkarran:


Better still "hero, attacks knife nutter" make the story about him and leave knife boy out of it.

In reply to jkarran:

I agree. But there are two sides to every story. What about the victims? Do they not matter or should we just pretend it didn't happen for the greater good?

That said - news is no longer about reporting facts. It is an entertainment form to satisfy the voyeuristic nature of most who like to follow the news.

In reply to Babika:

Interview with his brother says he thought there were demons. Sounds like he may have been schizophrenic.

In reply to ByEek:


Where have I suggested the victims don't matter or that we should pretend it didn't happen? All I said was he should have been treated like every other knife wielding fool is.

You're right, it's entertainment not news but cynically stoking and preying on our fears of terrorism and of 'others' whoever they may be to generate clicks and sell papers isn't without risk.
jk

In reply to ByEek:

Are you aware that 15 teenagers have been fatally stabbed in London this year?