HAPPENING

>>130543428
I really don't see the big deal

>>130544959
>flag related

>>130544959
The big deal is this:
If you can classify a Hate Crime as Terrorism that can lead to Hate Speech being considered Terrorism.
You'll have censorship, things like that.
And classifying something as "Terror" gives the Government MASSIVE power when it comes to undermining your rights.
Having Hate Crimes as Terror means you can get years long prison sentences for something inconsequential you said or feel.
That's the big deal.

File: 1496086535687.jpg (300KB, 1500x1004px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 1500x1004px

>>130543428
allah is truly with us
cry some moar kuffar

>>130543428
Have you read 1984?

>>130547369
I have.

>>130546750
its hard to believe that lunging a van into a crowd of people, echoing past actual terror attacks in yurop, is not terrorism, just because the guy who did it was white

>>130547866
Was the man trying to use violence and fear of violence to push a political agenda?
No. Than not Terrorism.
He just wanted to kill a bunch of Muslims, that's called a Hate Crime.
There are distinctions like this for a reason, and that reason is being eroded away.

>>130548110
Attacking people because of their religion can be encompassed within acting to persue political, religious or ideological aims.

>>130546750
If just saying something is hate crime in your country then that's a whole other pile of shit

But what that man did can be concidered as both hate crime and terrorism and I don't realy see why the judge needs to pick one.

>>130548110
he said "im going to kill all muslims" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/19/finsbury-park-mosque-latest-terror-attack-london-live/) which yeah sounds like a hate crime, however the distinction you speak about serves no purpose when 2 near identical violent acts have to be legally distinct due to the stated motivations by the perpetrator

by your logic, a mudslime only needs to say "i whate white people" before he blows himself up for it to NOT be a terror attack anymore

>>130543428
>Welcome to 1984
yay

>>130546750
>If you can classify a Hate Crime as Terrorism that can lead to Hate Speech being considered Terrorism.

How exactly?

>>130548962
terrorism is to instill fear into the populace.

a hate crime is to kill a distinct part of the populace

File: confirmed.jpg (83KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1280x720px

CLINTON GIVES ISIS MONEY
CERNOVICH CONFIRMED ON INFOWARS

>>130549244
ABSOLUTE BOOTLICKER CERNOV*CH

>>130549173
those aren't mutually exclusive

>>130548832
This attack didn't happen because the guy hates muslims specifically for their religion.

This was a retaliation against a group who have already thrown a punch. The religion is just that group's identification.

>>130543428
>I'm not with Muslim immigrants
TERRORISM!
>I want to preserve our British heritage
TERRORISM!
>The government is becoming tyrannical
TERRORISM!
>It's getting violent in London
TERRORISM!
>We should have free speech in the UK
TERRORISM!

>>130549173
both things can be accomplished by the same action
like i said, following the modus operandi of past terror acts to commit a hate crime is party the reason for that

>>130549022
Because Hate Speech is already a crime you retarded bong

>>130543428
Is it a trial by jury? Nullification time.

>>130549510
>Because Hate Speech is already a crime you retarded bong
You're the retard for thinking hate crime, aka thought crime, is real.
A good Jew lawyer can easily argue this in court for you, if you can afford it.
Only stupid poor people go to jail.
Thank God I'm white and rich.

>>130549465
Unless the guy was certain that the people he was going to run over were people who had carried out previous terrorist attacks, it was because of their religion.

>>130549510
No shit.

However I don't see how hate speech suddenly becomes terrorism just because both of these offenses happened in the same event.

>>130548832
>>130548892
>>130548962
>>130549022

You must take the motivations for the crime into account.
Was this man doing this to push legislation through?
Was he doing it to usher in the destruction of the country?
Is he motivated by a political ideology which will be furthered by such acts?
Was he connected to Foreign Entities and groups hell bent on destroying society?
If the answer is NO than it's a Hate Crime
If the answer is YES, than it's terrorism.
No let's consider Islamic Terror Attacks on Britain by British citizens.
Are they motivated by hate and hate alone?
If they hate all Brits than that means they hate the Muslim Brits at his local Mosque too. But they don't so they can't be said to hate all Brits.
If they hate all whites that means they also hate Whites that convert to Islam. But they don't.
In fact, they don't need to hate AT ALL in order to carry out such attacks.
They do it because they believe it's their duty to due so and that that duty is bigger than them.
Do you see the distinction, lads?

>>130550084
i dont believe 2 near identical crimes need to be legally distinct because of motivation

had it been a targeted attack, ok. but he didnt even care who was running over, he just wanted to hit as many people as possible near a mosque. this is the modus operandi of terror attacks, and he should be considered a terrorist

>>130549812
>However I don't see how hate speech suddenly becomes terrorism
It doesn't. This happens inch by inch.
And what we're seeing now, is the first inch.
And you know the ol saying, "Give em an inch, they take a mile"

>>130549510

mohammed is a pedophile who fucks goats.

nope, this isnt a crime.

>>130549812
>he thinks everything will happen at once

Its a slow creep, 50 years ago would you seriously believe there wasnt a hate speech law

>>130550084
>Is he motivated by a political ideology
Yes
>which will be furthered by such acts?
It doesn't need to further anything to be terrorism, it just needs to be in the persuit of political, religious or ideological aims.

>>130550469
Motivation is the KEY DISTINCTION man.
If you take Motivation out of the mix, that means when you're arrested for using /pol/ your excuse of "I wasn't trying to hurt anyone" isn't taking into account.
They'll say: Hate Crimes are Terrorism. Hate Speech leads to Hate Crimes. Therefor, Hate Speech is effectively Terrorism.
When they use that excuse it won't amtter that youn were never gonna blow yourself up in a crowd.
And hey, this guy posted on a Hate Website, so now the Authorities can get surveillance warrants and the like EXTREMELY EASILY.
Do you recognize the slope we're on?

im glad the government now recognizes our political aims

purge muslims from the west and all non whites

>>130551027
>>Is he motivated by a political ideology
>Yes
Explain with direct connections.
Political Beliefs which lead to hate doesn't mean he was Politically motivated as I demonstrated above.

>>130551052
I see the slope you are trying to push. According to you the ONLY THING that matters is self-stated motivation, not what can be implied from said self-state motives, what can be learned of the perpetrator, the form of the crime, and its effects on society.

I just dont buy it

>>130551483
OK, don't buy it and fuck off.

>>130551286
The persuit to "kill all Muslims" is ideological, and him supposedly shouting that gives off that killing 'all' Muslims is his motivation, regardless of how absurd his aim was.
That's as simple as it is.

>Political Beliefs which lead to hate doesn't mean he was Politically motivated
Ideological belief which results in violence clearly pins the ideological belief as the motivation

>>130551774
ok just let me blow up this car bomb after i drive it into a crowded mall with my cousin/brother-in-law mohammed. before doing it i said i just hate all christians so its in no way a terror attack, but just a hate crime. its not MEANT to make the population cower in fear or even make a political point, you see? doesnt matter if it does!

>>130551483
Alright, I feel I'm wasting my time trying to convince you in particular, but I'll tear down your argument anyways in case anyone else is influenced by it
> According to you the ONLY THING that matters is self-stated motivation not what can be implied from said self-state motives
As you'll note I already explained how logic and deductive reasoning can be used to infer motivaion - see "Islamic Terrorism commited by Brits"
>what can be learned of the perpetrator
How is that relevant in distinguishing between a hate crime and terrorism?
>the form of the crime
So if it looks like Terror it is Terror? Stabbing on the Subway Station now automatically deemed terror?
>and its effects on society
You're implying if ppl get scared it didn't matter if that wasn't his intention. I disagree. On that logic if a Terrorist is motivated to cause fear in society, blows himself up killing civilians, but there is no fear felt by society at large, it wasn't terror.

>>130552140
>Ideological belief which results in violence clearly pins the ideological belief as the motivation
I said DIRECT CONNECTION, that's an INDIRECT CONNECTION
If I'm a Conservative and I decide I want to kill a bunch of Liberals, it's only terrorism if my aim in killing Liberals was to CHANGE SOCIETY as in the GOP shooter.
If I'm just resentful and hateful towards them, but don't expect to change society with my actions, that's a Hate Crime.

>>130546750
>>130543428
Next step: Thought Police

>>130553071
>I said DIRECT CONNECTION, that's an INDIRECT CONNECTION
Don't really care.
>if my aim in killing Liberals was to CHANGE SOCIETY
Again, it doesn't need to be done in the hope of creating change in society.

>>130552735
You aren't actually tearing down anything, just make sure we realize you believe self-stated motivations are paramount to categorize a crime. There are several problems with this:

1. People can just lie
2. People can be purposefully deceitful about their motivations
3. People can be just not articulated enough to know why they are really doing something

>On that logic if a Terrorist is motivated to cause fear in society, blows himself up killing civilians, but there is no fear felt by society at large, it wasn't terror.

That is why its important to take more than just a single factor into account when determining what kind of crime was commited.

The "motivations only" thesis not only gives you an incomplete picture of the facts, but it lends itself to be exploited by people seeking the benefits of being trialed as hate criminals

>>130548110
This is the problem with trying to use motivating factors to decide punishment. Either something was intentional or accidental and, if intentional, either it was planned or spontaneous. Writing laws to look any further in categorizing crime is a mistake as it guarantees men will not be treated equally under the law.

>>130553626
>Again, it doesn't need to be done in the hope of creating change in society.
How?
I hope you realize that the distinctions I'm pointing out are the ones used by Intelligence Departments in order to distinguish, find, and stop planned Terror attacks.

>>130554174
I disagree and so does pretty much every State with a decent Judicial System.
Motivation is a key distinction (but not only) in deciding what the charges are and what the punishment shall be.
It's why there are different degrees of murder.

>>130554453
>Terrorism Act 2000, Section 1:
>(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 [F1 or an international governmental organisation] 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 [F2, racial] or ideological cause.

The act in London was the use of action to intimidate the public or a section of the public. Nowhere here does it say that a terrorist act MUST result in social change.

>>130554154
Shitpost.
You're offering the same arguments I already addressed.
If you're serious about wanting an answer to those questions please refer to my past posts.

>>130555014
>>(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government
>>>>(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
That's literally the argument I've been making in this thread man.
If the attack wasn't designed to "influence, intimidate.., for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause" than it wasn't Terrorism.
That's my whole fricken point.
So thanks for that.

>>130555014
>The act in London was the use of action to intimidate the public or a section of the public.
It may have been and if it was it was terror.
BUT you, as the Prosecutor need to PROVE it was. The Burden of Proof is on you.
I'll act as Defense, here's my argument:
The Defendant wanted to kill Muslims. That was his only intention and that's what he did.
Any intimidation felt by the public was not taken into consideration by the defendant when he planned and executed his attack.
Therefor, I state it was NOT an act of Terror.

Your turn, and remember, The Burden of Proof is on you.

>>130555450
But it was to intimidate.

>>130556423
>Any intimidation felt by the public was not taken into consideration by the defendant when he planned and executed his attack.
Nah he just shouted "kill all muslims" for the memes.

>>130555074
>its a shitpost because i dont know how to reply
well said. at least you admit it

>>130555450
"i want to kill ALL X" sounds like its meant to influence, intimidate all groups of X for the purpose of advancing a political, religous or ideological cause

>>130556423
not "muslims", but "all the muslims". defend his intention to not intimidate muslims then

>>130556878
""i want to kill ALL X"
Implies his hateful intentions.
If he said, "Whites should kill all Muslims" I would concede your point.

>>130543428
>>London attacker being charged under Terrorism Laws.

bullshit, he will be released due to being jew.

screencap this post.