Was This In Fact A Terrorist Attack?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2817653/Army-cadet-15-burned-aerosol-lighter-sold-Remembrance-Day-poppies-Manchester-city-centre.html

/// The offender, described as black or Asian, 5ft 8in tall and wearing a dark hooded top, walked off from the bus stop by the Manchester Gallery opposite George Street without saying a word. ///

/// Police said that he appeared to be under the influence of alcohol and was staggering. ///

/// 'At this stage of our inquiries, we're keeping an open minded as to what motivated the offender to commit such an act. ///

What drunken or drugged man specifically carries around an aerosol and lighter, so as to inflict this kind of vicious attack on a young boy selling poppies on behalf of our fallen heroes?

[andy-hughes]

It depends on your definition of a terrorist.

In that it was designed to terrify a child, then yes, it was an act of terrorism, but as to it being an act designed to frighten the wider population, I suggest that is doubtful.

It sounds like a stupid drunken lout playing at being a Jihadist and picking on an innocent child who is unlikely to mix it in the way that a grown man might.

He needs to be arrested and given a prison term to confirm that this sort of bullying is not tolerated.

[douglas9401]

It sounds at least every bit as racist and insulting as mouth breathers draping bacon on the door handles of a mosque.
Can we rely on the courts to act even handedly should this thug be brought before them?.

[Eve]

It's horrific, there were a lot of cadets out around town yesterday selling poppies.

I would imagine there are a fair amount of CCTV cameras around there as it's near a major junction and tram tracks up to the main bus station and not far from the Town Hall and new Cenotaph site, in fact not far from where the Milliband photo was taken on Friday giving money to a beggar.

I really hope that they catch him and that it is an isolated incident with so many of our armed forces, service veterans, cadets and volunteers generally out at this time of year.

[Gromit]

It is most odd. There are no bus stops on George Street Manchester. It isn't on a bus route.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?output=classic&;dg=brw

[BlackadderV]

It did say 'opposite' George Street, not 'on' George Street.

[Eve]

It says opposite George Street so I am guessing he was on Princess Street at a bus stop there maybe, down the side of the Art Gallery. A few buses go down that way.

[Gromit]

// walked off from the bus stop by the Manchester Gallery opposite George Street //

Manchester Art Gallery is on Moseley Street, which is on the MetroLink route and does not have bus stops. George Street has no bus stops.
Either the Mail has screwed up on its Manchester geography, or the poor lad was confused about where he was.

[Eve]

I think they mean the side of the Gallery Gromit as it is on the corner of Mosley Street and Princess Street and there are bus stops down there (Witch Way, 50, buses going up Upper Brook Street etc...), I'm guessing he was on Princess Road with the nearest landmark being the side of the Art Gallery but facing towards George Street which runs across Princess Road parallel to Moseley Street.

[Eve]

Sorry, "which runs across Princess Street (not Road) parallel to Moseley Street".

[Gromit]

You may well be right Eve. Not sure why they didn't just say he was on Princess Street, it is a main road, whereas George Street is more of a side Street.

[Baldric]

If, as they say, he was under the influence (of whatever) he might have thought he was attacking a Regular Soldier rather than a Cadet, but who can really speculate accurately on the motive?

[anotheoldgit]

Some people will go to any amount of trouble in their quest to have a go at the Mail, even if in the end it is they who have got it wrong and not the Mail.

But even so, does it matter where the boy was, it has no bearing whatsoever on this horrific attack, or indeed the question.

[sp1814]

AOG

You asked whether this was a terrorist attack.

From the evidence presented, I think not.

Firstly, Islamic extremists who have thus far been involved in terrorist atrocities are rarely drunk, y'know...because Islamic extremists don't get boozed up in the middle of the day. That a massive no-no Koran-wise.

Secondly, as far as I am aware, aerosol cans have never been high up on the list of weaponry used by terrorists. It may be a new direction they are taking, but with the easy availability of knives, I would be surprised if your average Jahidist would even consider, a large can of L'Oreal Superhold as a primary means of attack.

Lastly - if it were indeed a proper terrorist attack, the poor lad would have been killed.

Terrorists kill people.

They don't singe them, then wander off.

I hope

a) the lad in question makes a full recovery.
b) the perpetrator is caught and brought to justice
c) this story doesn't put off any other cadets from selling poppies
d) that this 'terrorist angle' is swiftly put to bed.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// You asked whether this was a terrorist attack. ///

/// From the evidence presented, I think not. ///

Terrorist : An individual who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve a result.

From the definition, I think so.

You make many points some valid others not, but you give no explanation why a person goes out with a lighter and aerosol can, and then targets a young poppy selling cadet?

Hardly the actions of your average drunk.

/// They don't singe them, then wander off. ///

I think that this remark trivialises the seriousness of this vicious attack.

[sp1814]

AOG

The definition of a terrorist that you have provided is too broad.

It would encompass many violent acts of intimidation, which patently aren't 'terrorism' (eg. one neighbour threatening to punch his neighbour's lights out if he keeps parking in his space).

You asked who got out with a lighter and an aerosol can?

A 'huffer', who smokes.

[sp1814]

Also, my comment about the injuries to the boy is not meant to trivialise the attack, but to put it into context of what I see as a terrorist attack.

9/11, 7/7, Lockerbie, Anders Breivik and Lee Rigby are to me, acts of terrorism.

The story you have posted doesn't seem to have the same hallmarks.

[sp1814]

Sorry

Used a 'not well known' colloquialism there.

A huffer is someone who gets high by sniffing aerosol cans or glue.

That's the first conclusion I reached when I read the story, because I know a bit about Edinburgh and VSA (volatile substance abuses) is still a bit of a problem up there. It was the description of the attacker looking 'drunk' that made me think of it.