Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

When I was still working on the border I had a man from Turkey threaten to throw acid on me. I hadn't heard of people doing that at the time so I thought it was odd.

Monsters. To think you can do that to someone should land you a long time in jail.

Honour sure... You van have your damned honour in a concrete cell for the next 30 years of tour life spent behind bars, watching your family move forward without you.

 Frazzled wrote:
That would jive with poor immigrant groups in the US as well - crimes are typically under-reported.

Yeah, and a similar thing happens here with aboriginal groups. Crimes in which aboriginals are the perpetrators are regularly covered, crimes in which they are the victims are only occasionally make the mainstream media.

This is a horrible thing indeed. I don't care if you hate terrorists (I, for one, do), throwing acid on innocent people just because they share a religion with the terrorists is not any kind of solution. If nothing else, it amounts to stooping to the bad guys' level.

As for the acid attack thing, I've heard of them happening before, even in the US. The one or two I've heard about involved a recently broken-off relationship and the ex-boyfriend deciding he wants to scar his former girlfriend for life. Basically proving to the world what a worthless scumbag he is. I'm not sure there's a punishment harsh enough for doing this to another human being, honestly.

How did the acid thrower know the victims are Muslim? Some things are worn to show as much, but not everybody does.

One of these days, they're going to pick on the wrong victim. The woman in the OP is doing this all right. Not letting it show that she is affected, and moving on. I'm sure the scars are more than skin deep, but her posting jokes about it is helping everyone.

He didn't. He just assumed they were Muslims based on their less than pearly white shade of skin colour.

The same thing has happened in the USA with Sikhs being abused or attacked because they wear turbans.

Fething despicable no matter who does it or who the victim is.

This isn't a terrorist attack, and we don actually know the motive.

There is a move to dilute the threat of radical Islam by labelling any attack on a moslem 'terrorism' which is one sided. Much of the crime in the UK is ethnic based, Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population. Asian knife and gun crime is very common yet this violence is not considered terroristic or hate crime even if other ethnicities are targeted.

Just an observation to throw in.


As for acid attacks, they are rare but do happen in the UK. The common factor is that most victims are pretty and female, and most are targeted at the face. It can be very disfiguring and often ends in blindness.

 Orlanth wrote:
This isn't a terrorist attack, and we don actually know the motive.

There is a move to dilute the threat of radical Islam by labelling any attack on a moslem 'terrorism' which is one sided. Much of the crime in the UK is ethnic based, Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population. Asian knife and gun crime is very common yet this violence is not considered terroristic or hate crime even if other ethnicities are targeted.

Just an observation to throw in.


As for acid attacks, they are rare but do happen in the UK. The common factor is that most victims are pretty and female, and most are targeted at the face. It can be very disfiguring and often ends in blindness.

Yeah. It should be life in jail min. Life as in 25-30 not this 12 year lower tariff life.
Or life in jail/deportation if not born here.

Either way. A severe punishment for a brutal and disgusting crime.

 Orlanth wrote:
This isn't a terrorist attack, and we don actually know the motive.

There is a move to dilute the threat of radical Islam by labelling any attack on a moslem 'terrorism' which is one sided. Much of the crime in the UK is ethnic based, Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population. Asian knife and gun crime is very common yet this violence is not considered terroristic or hate crime even if other ethnicities are targeted.

Just an observation to throw in.


As for acid attacks, they are rare but do happen in the UK. The common factor is that most victims are pretty and female, and most are targeted at the face. It can be very disfiguring and often ends in blindness.

I mean

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Terrorism isn't "on race attacking another".

If it turns out to me anti-Muslim violence (which is most will turn out to me judging by the posters ans stuff the suspect shared on facebook) then I would be terrorism (the political aim being "muslims/forgiengers out"). It would be as much terrorism as thoset truck attacks you have had (the jihadi on the bridge and the islamphobe at the mosque).

 Orlanth wrote:
This isn't a terrorist attack, and we don actually know the motive.

There is a move to dilute the threat of radical Islam by labelling any attack on a moslem 'terrorism' which is one sided. Much of the crime in the UK is ethnic based, Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population. Asian knife and gun crime is very common yet this violence is not considered terroristic or hate crime even if other ethnicities are targeted.

Is it a political aim to want to expel all non-white British from the country?

If the answer is yes, then that makes this attack terrorism.

 feeder wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
This isn't a terrorist attack, and we don actually know the motive.

There is a move to dilute the threat of radical Islam by labelling any attack on a moslem 'terrorism' which is one sided. Much of the crime in the UK is ethnic based, Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population. Asian knife and gun crime is very common yet this violence is not considered terroristic or hate crime even if other ethnicities are targeted.

Is it a political aim to want to expel all non-white British from the country?

If the answer is yes, then that makes this attack terrorism.

It makes it hate crime.

And if you get an Asian gang who knifes non-Asians, is that not terrorism then by your argument? It isn't handled that way, and yes this happens quite a bit.

 Orlanth wrote:


As for acid attacks, they are rare but do happen in the UK. The common factor is that most victims are pretty and female, and most are targeted at the face. It can be very disfiguring and often ends in blindness.

Interestingly, looking at acid attacks worldwide they are more "gender-neutral" then one might suspect.

Wikipedia wrote:
A 2007 literature review analyzed 24 studies in 13 countries over the past 40 years, covering 771 cases.[12] In the cases studied, men were more frequently victims in every country, with the exception of Bangladesh and Taiwan, with a male/female ratio ranging from 0.15:1 in Bangladesh to 6.14:1 in the UK. However, according to the London-based charity Acid Survivors Trust International 60 percent of acid attacks are on women, and acid assaults are grossly under-estimated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_throwing#Gender

 Orlanth wrote:
This isn't a terrorist attack, and we don actually know the motive.

There is a move to dilute the threat of radical Islam by labelling any attack on a moslem 'terrorism' which is one sided. Much of the crime in the UK is ethnic based, Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population. Asian knife and gun crime is very common yet this violence is not considered terroristic or hate crime even if other ethnicities are targeted.

Wrong. Asian make up 7% of the population and 6% of the prison population.

Your greater point on it not being terrorism is also bit confused. You are right that inter-racial crime isn't automatically a hate crime or terrorism, but you then use that to conclude that this isn't a terror attack, as if no other factor could exist that would make it a hate crime. We have no such information right now, however given police originally ruled out any ethnic or religious motivation, but then reversed that it's pretty likely that they have some information that has not yet been revealed.

So yeah, if instead of saying 'this isn't a terrorist attack', you could have said 'we haven't yet been given proof that it's a terrorist attack', then you'd have made a good point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
And if you get an Asian gang who knifes non-Asians, is that not terrorism then by your argument? It isn't handled that way, and yes this happens quite a bit.

If the motivation is to cause fear in a population, then it is terrorism. If the motivation is out of hate for another ethnicity it is a hate crime. If the motive is anything else, then it isn't terrorism or a hate crime, even if the victim belongs to another group.

Your data is incrrect.
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04334#fullreport

Asians take up 8% of the prison population. Also those identifying as Moslem make up 15%.

Also I am unconfused as to the nature of the attack, the default is not to make a claim of an crime being a terrorist incident, and it is correct t say that it is not if the police do not identify the attack as such. Such claims are normally made very quickly.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It's the same culture/attitude where you restore family 'honour' by murdering your own kids because they married the wrong person. There is no understanding it, its psychotic and cruel, and based on a need for total control, usually over women.

The families and communities involved in such barbaric behaviour close ranks and are uncooperative with authorities. Look at some other stats. How else is it that something like 20,000 girls a year at at risk of FGM in the UK and 130,000 in Britain are suffering from the operation, yet I don't believe any prosecution have ever been made in the UK?

Of course this was done by John Tomlin against Islams. So that's hardly anything unique to islam. Westerners are just as capable of doing it.

 Orlanth wrote:
Your data is incrrect.
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04334#fullreport

Asians take up 8% of the prison population.

I had 6%, but this newer report says 8%. Fair play, so that means a group that is 7% of the population is 8% of the prison population. Now I've conceded I used an old figure and instead of Asians being 1% under-represented they're actually 1% over-represented. Now, are you going to concede that 7% of the population being 8% of the prison population is absolutely nothing at all like yout statement "Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population".

Also I am unconfused as to the nature of the attack, the default is not to make a claim of an crime being a terrorist incident, and it is correct t say that it is not if the police do not identify the attack as such. Such claims are normally made very quickly.

Your confusion stems from your statement that this isn't being labelled a terror attack, and then going in to little chat about how inter-ethnic hate crime isn't automatically hate crime. Which is true, but pointless as police have stated this is being investigated as a hate crime based on the specific merits of the case and evidence they have of Tomlin's motive, and it's status as a hate crime is unrelated to any point on terrorism. Mixing up that last group of things is what left your thinking on this so confused.

 sebster wrote:

Also I am unconfused as to the nature of the attack, the default is not to make a claim of an crime being a terrorist incident, and it is correct t say that it is not if the police do not identify the attack as such. Such claims are normally made very quickly.

Your confusion stems from your statement that this isn't being labelled a terror attack, and then going in to little chat about how inter-ethnic hate crime isn't automatically hate crime. Which is true, but pointless as police have stated this is being investigated as a hate crime based on the specific merits of the case and evidence they have of Tomlin's motive, and it's status as a hate crime is unrelated to any point on terrorism. Mixing up that last group of things is what left your thinking on this so confused.

I am not mixing anything up. The OP claimed this was a terror attack, I challenged that.

It is way too easy to get your hands on acid.

Drain Bleach will do the trick.

Squirt it into a glass, and you've got a handful of life-wrecker ready to go.

The thing about nasty stuff like acid being easy to get hold of is that if someone really wants to get hold of something "nasty" there usually is a way to do it. (See the success of the war on drugs, for example.)

The trick is how to prevent people from wanting to do nasty things in the first place.

A wide range of house hold chemicals will do nasty stuff to the skin.

And these are regular super market products, bleach, cleaners etc. Your average house will contain least one, and a good few other things toxic when swallowed.

It's a terrible thing, that if somebody wants to throw that gak in someone's face there's little you can do to stop them.

 Orlanth wrote:
I am not mixing anything up. The OP claimed this was a terror attack, I challenged that.

Which could have been achieved by saying 'neither police or any other government agency has said this is a terror attack'. Instead you went in to a thing about hate crimes and asian knife attacks. Which is why I said you had a point, but buried it with in amidst a bunch of other really weird stuff.

And of course, you've just sidestepped the issue of you claiming "Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population" when the actual figures are 7% and 8%. No effort to admit your error. Come on, be honest, I admitted I used an old prison figure of 6%, now if you're an honest person you should be happy to stay that your claim was wrong, and the Asian prison population is almost completely proportionate with their prison population.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
It's a terrible thing, that if somebody wants to throw that gak in someone's face there's little you can do to stop them.

They were at least very fortunate that they had access to first world medical facilities to minimise the damage. These attacks are much more common in Pakistan, and with much poorer medical facilities the consequences are often a lot more severe, and any kind of reconstructive plastic surgery is near impossible, unless an NGO decides makes an individual their cause du jour.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
I am not mixing anything up. The OP claimed this was a terror attack, I challenged that.

Which could have been achieved by saying 'neither police or any other government agency has said this is a terror attack'. Instead you went in to a thing about hate crimes and asian knife attacks. Which is why I said you had a point, but buried it with in amidst a bunch of other really weird stuff.

Actually its relevant to the broader topic as seen in the UK media. There is a larger issue of what to do about extremism and non-integration and it repeatedly follows a pattern of underreporting, and a police reluctance to deal with ethnic crimes because it might disturb the multi cultural balance. We see the end result in Birmingham (Trojan Horse schools) and Rotherham (blind eye to large scale child sex crimes), and those are just the issues that hit the headlines, others are still buried under hearsay.
On the other hand when one unaffiliated crazy drives a van into Finsbury Park mosque there are immediate larger questions as to is enough done to challenge the 'far right', like as if there were neo-Nazis everywhere. I see this as an attempt to divert attention from more pressing social problems and to kick the can down the road.

 sebster wrote:

And of course, you've just sidestepped the issue of you claiming "Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population" when the actual figures are 7% and 8%. No effort to admit your error. Come on, be honest, I admitted I used an old prison figure of 6%, now if you're an honest person you should be happy to stay that your claim was wrong, and the Asian prison population is almost completely proportionate with their prison population.

You should look at the link provided, it provides some interesting data. I didn't want to specifically single out Moslems as that is not the only integration issue, it is a lo wider than that and includes most cultural groups in he UK. This was as you pointed out an error, Moslem population in the UK is just over 5.4% (2016 Office for National Statistics data), the prison population is 15% moslem (see linked document). Ths might have been what my source implied. Oh andthanks for etting me to double check that.

So, I can't help but feel that disputing the "terror" part is just pointless pedantry and semantic nonsense.

Terror has been used as a pretty generic label for politically motivated crime and is broadly applied by Western nations. Sure, it is somewhat distinguishable from racial/hate crimes in that hate crimes are more likely to be the actions of individuals without political goals, but the methods are largely similar and there is overlap when certain ethnic groups are associated with particular politics. So it's not entirely false to label anti-Muslim crimes as terror attacks, especially if we accept the label for lone wolf terror attacks committed by brown people not associated with any terror group. Critiquing right-wing extremist violence seems particularly disingenuous in this context as racial violence is a firm political component of right wing racial identity groups.

From a broader perspective, it's the problem of trying to punish crimes harder because of motives instead of focusing on the fact that the acts themselves are already inherently horrible. Maiming someone is reprehensible whether it's because of race, and argument, or a stranger picked at random- none of these motives make it any better!

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
This isn't a terrorist attack, and we don actually know the motive.

There is a move to dilute the threat of radical Islam by labelling any attack on a moslem 'terrorism' which is one sided. Much of the crime in the UK is ethnic based, Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population. Asian knife and gun crime is very common yet this violence is not considered terroristic or hate crime even if other ethnicities are targeted.

Just an observation to throw in.


As for acid attacks, they are rare but do happen in the UK. The common factor is that most victims are pretty and female, and most are targeted at the face. It can be very disfiguring and often ends in blindness.

I mean

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Terrorism isn't "on race attacking another".

If it turns out to me anti-Muslim violence (which is most will turn out to me judging by the posters ans stuff the suspect shared on facebook) then I would be terrorism (the political aim being "muslims/forgiengers out"). It would be as much terrorism as thoset truck attacks you have had (the jihadi on the bridge and the islamphobe at the mosque).

Did you learn the difference between connotative and denotative meanings in highschool? I sure remember that.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
This isn't a terrorist attack, and we don actually know the motive.

There is a move to dilute the threat of radical Islam by labelling any attack on a moslem 'terrorism' which is one sided. Much of the crime in the UK is ethnic based, Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population. Asian knife and gun crime is very common yet this violence is not considered terroristic or hate crime even if other ethnicities are targeted.

Just an observation to throw in.


As for acid attacks, they are rare but do happen in the UK. The common factor is that most victims are pretty and female, and most are targeted at the face. It can be very disfiguring and often ends in blindness.

I mean

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Terrorism isn't "on race attacking another".

If it turns out to me anti-Muslim violence (which is most will turn out to me judging by the posters ans stuff the suspect shared on facebook) then I would be terrorism (the political aim being "muslims/forgiengers out"). It would be as much terrorism as thoset truck attacks you have had (the jihadi on the bridge and the islamphobe at the mosque).

Did you learn the difference between connotative and denotative meanings in highschool? I sure remember that.

Your point being what exactly?

The reasoning behind the hate crime laws is that everyone is at X% risk of violent crime, and members of "hated" minorities are at risk of X+y% risk of violent crime.

There's also an element that hate crimes are deliberately more horrible -- no ordinary criminal decides to pour acid on you "just because", although they might attack you with a hammer or something.

From these two angles, the policy of defining and punishing certain types of crimes by their motive is perfectly reasonable.

 Redcruisair wrote:


This is madness.

No: