There is still no internationally accepted definition.

We in the UK have a definition as set out in the terrorism act of 2000 and if you read it we have as you say committed actions that appear to contravene our own law.



Depends on the definition and if the motives match it.

The UK terrorism act says this:

The United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000 defined terrorism as follows:

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system

So the motive has to be one of b) or c) in section 1 and you then have to do one of actions in section 2.

Revenge isn't in there as a motive and that is the reason given by one of the perpetrators to the woman who engaged him in conversation.

Next stop is enforced stop and search, proceeded by mandortory ID cards. Thanks to tony Blair , their is very little the anti terrorism law does not cover.

This was not a terrorist attack.

Mintball wrote:How about this, then? It's heinous but I'm not sure if it's terrorism. Seems to be a senseless attack by somebody who is mentally ill more than anything but then that's my first time reading the story.

Mintball wrote:How about this, then? It's heinous but I'm not sure if it's terrorism. Seems to be a senseless attack by somebody who is mentally ill more than anything but then that's my first time reading the story.

But will it cause terror to disabled people in that area?

If so, is it not by definition, a terrorist attack?

Incidentally, we're guessing at the mental state of the attacker. But let's fly with it for a moment. If one has been indoctrinated/brainwashed into a jihadist mentality, what is that if not a state of mental affliction?

toast wrote:Next stop is enforced stop and search, proceeded by mandortory ID cards. Thanks to tony Blair , their is very little the anti terrorism law does not cover. This was not a terrorist attack. You need to direct your fire at Theresa May. Watch as she pushes for the "snoopers charter" bill to be put back into the legislative program. So far Cameron has shown suitable restraint in saying no such knee jerk reactions. We will see if he sticks too it and isn't bullied on this issue as he has been by his back benchers over Europe. Here is a bit of background: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-cameron-reject-knee-jerk This is a pretty good observation piece as well: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-keeping-calm I particularly liked this comment: "Whatever their religious beliefs, they are modern and secular enough to have decided to defer the fruits of martyrdom and carnal rewards in paradise. " which is an interesting point and lends some weight to this comment from the same piece: "Preoccupied elsewhere yesterday afternoon, I became aware of a "terrorist incident at Woolwich" quite late in the cycle. When I checked the BBC's News channel – Sky gets far too excited too quickly for my taste – I quickly decided that this ugly crime was likely to be a one-off by a couple of disturbed young men who joined a jihadi website class rather than one of south-east London's gangs. They might have murdered a gang rival or a shopkeeper, instead they channelled their testosterone bloodlust elsewhere. I switched the TV off, watching the endless recycling of this voyeuristic stuff is bad for us all, even at my age." "That instant assessment – a "lone wolf" attack, not part of an orchestrated onslaught directed by sinister forces abroad – may prove to be wrong, but nothing I have read or heard since then yet changes my mind." And that is my view also. As such I don't it does anyone any favours to class this as terrorism.

toast wrote:Next stop is enforced stop and search, proceeded by mandortory ID cards. Thanks to tony Blair , their is very little the anti terrorism law does not cover. This was not a terrorist attack. You need to direct your fire at Theresa May. Watch as she pushes for the "snoopers charter" bill to be put back into the legislative program. So far Cameron has shown suitable restraint in saying no such knee jerk reactions. We will see if he sticks too it and isn't bullied on this issue as he has been by his back benchers over Europe. Here is a bit of background: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-cameron-reject-knee-jerk This is a pretty good observation piece as well: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-keeping-calm I particularly liked this comment: "Whatever their religious beliefs, they are modern and secular enough to have decided to defer the fruits of martyrdom and carnal rewards in paradise. " which is an interesting point and lends some weight to this comment from the same piece: "Preoccupied elsewhere yesterday afternoon, I became aware of a "terrorist incident at Woolwich" quite late in the cycle. When I checked the BBC's News channel – Sky gets far too excited too quickly for my taste – I quickly decided that this ugly crime was likely to be a one-off by a couple of disturbed young men who joined a jihadi website class rather than one of south-east London's gangs. They might have murdered a gang rival or a shopkeeper, instead they channelled their testosterone bloodlust elsewhere. I switched the TV off, watching the endless recycling of this voyeuristic stuff is bad for us all, even at my age." "That instant assessment – a "lone wolf" attack, not part of an orchestrated onslaught directed by sinister forces abroad – may prove to be wrong, but nothing I have read or heard since then yet changes my mind." And that is my view also. As such I don't it does anyone any favours to class this as terrorism.

In either case this is an act of terrorism, in the general sense and in a more specific legal sense to what I know, at least so far as the UK goes.




The perpetrator did implore the camera man and more generally the British people to do-away with the government, on the other hand, and that's (b) and (c) in section 1. Political/religious coercion, the means being serious violence.

I'm confused as to why there is any doubt this is an act of terrorism but I'm not a legal person. Seems pretty clear cut to me

But he mentioned gang violence and killings. Possibly that's what Rooster Booster is getting confused with?

I see the EDL have been out last night on the streets in their balaclavas. Do they have something to hide by disguising themselves as I would have thought that they'd have no problem showing their faces ?

It might but I would say no because I don't see evidence that there was any direction to the attack, unlike the one yesterday where the individual had a political/religious agenda he was trying to push.

I think they're mentally afflicted but that's fairly point of view based.