The Student Room Group

Why isn't the murder of Jo Cox being broadcasted as a TERRORIST ATTACK?

Scroll to see replies

Because Islam is a political ideology.
Original post by littlenorthernlass
I've always thought that terrorists were foreigners trying to influence other countries...


Terrorism is the use of violence, or threatened use of violence, in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim.

The terrorist in this case was motivated by the ideology held by groups such as Britain First rather than the ideology of Islamism held by Islamic terrorists which is probably where your understanding of terrorism comes from.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Maddass911
So, as we all know Mrs Cox, 41, was shot and stabbed in the street as she headed to a scheduled constituency surgery on Thursday. A 52 year old man has been arrested.

So my question to all you guys is why isn't the media broadcasting this as a terrorist attack? We all remember the murder of Lee Rigby and also the Leyton tube station knife attack.

As you all know the attackers in the above mentioned attacks were Muslim. So, is it that for a attack to be shown as a terrorist attack the attacker has to be a muslim.

Also I dont know if this is true but apparantly the scum who murdered Mrs Cox shouted 'Britain First'. Can't that be related to what the muslims shout 'Allah Akbar'??


Label it what you like simple fact is a mentally ill person (fact) who happened to support a far right South African group and a neo nazi group (fact) killed a politician that was out spoken on helping migrants (fact)

You can label him a nutter, terrorist or an extremist and you wouldn't be wrong.

But

Who cares? It doesn't change what he's done or why he did it. It's over. He doesn't belong to a group who do these things


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by paul514
Label it what you like simple fact is a mentally ill person (fact) who happened to support a far right South African group and a neo nazi group (fact) killed a politician that was out spoken on helping migrants (fact)

You can label him a nutter, terrorist or an extremist and you wouldn't be wrong.

But

Who cares? It doesn't change what he's done or why he did it. It's over. He doesn't belong to a group who do these things


Posted from TSR Mobile


That is the key point. It isn't necessary to attach the label "terrorist". We use that label either to change trivial acts into very serious wrongs or to attach exceptional law and order responses to serious crime.

The killing is inevitably a serious crime anyway but it is not one that requires a law and order response different to that for any non-political murder.
That's no true it is being investigated as a terrorist attack and counter-terrorism police are investigating the suspects links to far right political groups :tongue:
Original post by nulli tertius
That is the key point. It isn't necessary to attach the label "terrorist". We use that label either to change trivial acts into very serious wrongs or to attach exceptional law and order responses to serious crime.

The killing is inevitably a serious crime anyway but it is not one that requires a law and order response different to that for any non-political murder.


That guy who stabbed people in the Tube in Leytonstone was widely broadcast as a terrorist attack and the Met Police treated it as such. It was clear almost from the outset that he was a loner with chronic mental health difficulties.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Terrorism is the use of violence, or threatened use of violence, in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim.

The terrorist in this case was motivated by the ideology held by groups such as Britain First rather than the ideology of Islamism held by Islamic terrorists which is probably where your understanding of terrorism comes from.


I'm finding it hard to grasp how someone who kept neo-Nazi books and gear at home and shouted 'Britain First' when carrying out a vicious attack on an MP calculated to kill is not a "terrorist".
Original post by Fullofsurprises
That guy who stabbed people in the Tube in Leytonstone was widely broadcast as a terrorist attack and the Met Police treated it as such. It was clear almost from the outset that he was a loner with chronic mental health difficulties.


I am certainly not saying "don't" but in context it is unimportant and there is a danger of one obsessing about this detail when it really doesn't matter.
Anti-Muslim conspiracy theory is strong here
Original post by littlenorthernlass
I've always thought that terrorists were foreigners trying to influence other countries...


Most recent terrorist attacks that have happened in the West have been undertaken by individuals who are citizens of the nations and were born and raised in the nation.
Original post by The Epicurean
Most recent terrorist attacks that have happened in the West have been undertaken by individuals who are citizens of the nations and were born and raised in the nation.


Well said,habibi
Original post by Jebedee
Because Islam is a political ideology.


And far right extremists aren't following a particular political Ideology?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by nulli tertius
I am certainly not saying "don't" but in context it is unimportant and there is a danger of one obsessing about this detail when it really doesn't matter.


It points to the way the media and the authorities choose to spin things and that does matter. For whatever reason, there appears currently to be a conspiracy of the main media and the government to not properly address right wing terror, or the rise of the far right, or the racist agendas that have been allowed to dominate regular politics under a Tory government that at least partly kowtows to its hard-right wing, including the UKIP wing of the Tory Party, that plays the racism card every chance it gets.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
It points to the way the media and the authorities choose to spin things and that does matter. For whatever reason, there appears currently to be a conspiracy of the main media and the government to not properly address right wing terror, or the rise of the far right, or the racist agendas that have been allowed to dominate regular politics under a Tory government that at least partly kowtows to its hard-right wing, including the UKIP wing of the Tory Party, that plays the racism card every chance it gets.


Hands over tin foil hat
It certainly does have terroristic elements, but it pisses me off that the only reason people like you are pushing this so hard is because you want to deflect attention from Islamic terrorism and to obfuscate the fact it is by far the greatest terrorist threat and the source of the most violence by far
Original post by Thutmose-III
It certainly does have terroristic elements, but it pisses me off that the only reason people like you are pushing this so hard is because you want to deflect attention from Islamic terrorism and to obfuscate the fact it is by far the greatest terrorist threat and the source of the most violence by far


It's nothing to do with Islamic terrorism, nor does it detract from such.

We want consistency, people would not hesitate to call an attack by an Isis supporter terrorism but there appears to be hesitation to call an attack inspoter Britain first members terrorism.


Accepting that there is far right terrorism in no way, shape or form detracts from the fact that there is islamic terrorism.
I was rather curious about what Britain First themselves had to say on the incident, and looking at this video they seem more concerned about their name being tarnished (if it isn't already) and trying to disprove the 'lies' in the media, than the tragedy itself.
https://www.facebook.com/OfficialBritainFirst/videos/1060748277403766/
Original post by nulli tertius
That is the key point. It isn't necessary to attach the label "terrorist". We use that label either to change trivial acts into very serious wrongs or to attach exceptional law and order responses to serious crime.

The killing is inevitably a serious crime anyway but it is not one that requires a law and order response different to that for any non-political murder.

Why does Islamic or IRA attacks require that label then?

All we ask is for consistency. If an attack an inspired by a view of Islam, or Christianity/Irish nationalism we would call it terrorism. Why is there any hesitation about calling an attack inspired by the far right terrorism?
(edited 7 years ago)
He just gave his name as 'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain' in court so I think we can safely say he was using violence for political aims which is LITERALLY WHAT TERRORISM IS. And the reason it is actually important to be calling him a terrorist is that if a so-called Muslim (I say so-called because no real Muslim would commit an act of terrorism) had stabbed and shot a British MP and shouted 'Allahu akbar' (an equivalent to 'Britain First' I suppose) everyone would obviously label him as a terrorist. To be honest we just need consistency. Either we call everyone who commits acts of terrorism a terrorist, or we don't call anybody a terrorist. You can't pick and choose based on someone's ethnicity.
Original post by Maddass911
So, as we all know Mrs Cox, 41, was shot and stabbed in the street as she headed to a scheduled constituency surgery on Thursday. A 52 year old man has been arrested.

So my question to all you guys is why isn't the media broadcasting this as a terrorist attack? We all remember the murder of Lee Rigby and also the Leyton tube station knife attack.

As you all know the attackers in the above mentioned attacks were Muslim. So, is it that for a attack to be shown as a terrorist attack the attacker has to be a muslim.

Also I dont know if this is true but apparantly the scum who murdered Mrs Cox shouted 'Britain First'. Can't that be related to what the muslims shout 'Allah Akbar'??


Because there isn't a significant amount of oil under England. We only call people terrorists when we have an objective motive for potential gains.
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest