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.
So basically the UK police with a long established history of ignoring leftwing violence and Muslim terrorism get to decide your opinion. Terrorism isn't violence, it's the posts on social media that make our minority groups look bad that is terrorism. /s
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.
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.
I just saw his defense of the jeet kidnapper
Why would I whine about Christianity? Religion is suited only for drooling retards, but that's not a whine - it's a simple observation.
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.
So basically the UK police with a long established history of ignoring leftwing violence and Muslim terrorism get to decide your opinion. Terrorism isn't violence, it's the posts on social media that make our minority groups look bad that is terrorism. /s
Then shut up. Don't post. The government can advocate just fine for itself, it doesn't need unthinking parrots on message boards.
Do you not understand how democracy works?
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.