Terrorism is a crime of motive. Axel Rudakubana's motive was that he wanted to kill as many people as possible, and he thought a Taylor Swift dance workshop would be a great place to find the weakest people possible, who couldn't stop him.
That's horrific, and he fully deserves to rot in prison for the rest of his life, but part of the legal definition in the UK is that terrorism must be an action that pursues a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause. Rudakubana didn't have any cause like that; he just wanted to bathe in blood.
We could rewrite the laws and extend the definition of terrorism, sure, but if terrorism just becomes synonymous with any violence, why even have the word anymore? We already have names for violent crimes.
No, it's the source that determines whether he's a terrorist. What I personally trust doesn't matter here. If the police find that his motive was political, religious, racial, or ideological, they charge it as terrorism. If they find that his motive was something else, they don't.
And if all violence is terrorism, then there's no need to ever use the word terrorism.
Now, you might argue that there is no need to ever use the word terrorism - and you wouldn't get much argument from me. If you murder someone and get sent to prison for life, does it really matter how we label the murder? It's the same prison either way.
They're the people who had access to Rudakubana. Skepticism is a good thing, but in this case, if you ascribe any other motive to him, you're literally just making shit up for fun.
In October 2024, Rudakubana was charged under the Biological Weapons Act 1974 and Terrorism Act 2000 for possession and production of ricin and a PDF copy of a military study of an al-Qaeda training manual.
Edit: Just a propos of nothing, he was referred several times to the Prevent program, who also determined that he "had no motive" and so took no action. They could have prevented this horrific act but because he didn't make spicy facebook posts, they did nothing instead.
Terrorism is a crime of motive. Axel Rudakubana's motive was that he wanted to kill as many people as possible, and he thought a Taylor Swift dance workshop would be a great place to find the weakest people possible, who couldn't stop him.
That's horrific, and he fully deserves to rot in prison for the rest of his life, but part of the legal definition in the UK is that terrorism must be an action that pursues a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause. Rudakubana didn't have any cause like that; he just wanted to bathe in blood.
We could rewrite the laws and extend the definition of terrorism, sure, but if terrorism just becomes synonymous with any violence, why even have the word anymore? We already have names for violent crimes.
Mindreader?
No, months of interviews with detectives and forensic psychologists, who then reported their findings to the press.
months of interviews with UK police who have for 50 years searched for any reason to ignore and downplay muslim crimes?
THAT’s literally the source you trust.
The same source that called him a Welsh Choirboy, that refused to publish that he had an Al Queada manual and Ricin?
edit: and the same police that was busy attending a gay pride march when the stabbings happened
So far since he's been on this board I've only seen him whine about Christianity and spew apologetics for mohammadans and pedophiles.
No, it's the source that determines whether he's a terrorist. What I personally trust doesn't matter here. If the police find that his motive was political, religious, racial, or ideological, they charge it as terrorism. If they find that his motive was something else, they don't.
And if all violence is terrorism, then there's no need to ever use the word terrorism.
Now, you might argue that there is no need to ever use the word terrorism - and you wouldn't get much argument from me. If you murder someone and get sent to prison for life, does it really matter how we label the murder? It's the same prison either way.
Imagine trusting government employees in britbongistan, of all places.
Ah, experts, the people we need to trust. GOT IT!
They're the people who had access to Rudakubana. Skepticism is a good thing, but in this case, if you ascribe any other motive to him, you're literally just making shit up for fun.
What the fuck are you even talking about?
In October 2024, Rudakubana was charged under the Biological Weapons Act 1974 and Terrorism Act 2000 for possession and production of ricin and a PDF copy of a military study of an al-Qaeda training manual.
Look at his post history, he's a MGTOW faggot who denounces whites and Christians all day.
Probably a jeet.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/26072585.met-police-accused-airbrushing-stabbing-third-man/
He stabbed THREE non- jewish people before this incident.
(2 some years prior. 1 on the same day)
Were any of those part of this “terrorisms” attack?
https://www.thenational.scot/news/26072585.met-police-accused-airbrushing-stabbing-third-man/
Whose blood, specifically?
The finding of the police was that he wanted to bathe in any blood, and preferred soft targets.
Source?
Edit: Just a propos of nothing, he was referred several times to the Prevent program, who also determined that he "had no motive" and so took no action. They could have prevented this horrific act but because he didn't make spicy facebook posts, they did nothing instead.