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

Umm they announced almost instantly that it was a 'muslim terror attack' in Lee Rigby's case without any investigation. They could have done the same here, but they haven't and they won't as he is not muslim... I mean they arrested him right after right? surely they would have questioned him by now.

Umm they announced almost instantly that it was a 'muslim terror attack' in Lee Rigby's case without any investigation. They could have done the same here, but they haven't and they won't as he is not muslim... I mean they arrested him right after right? surely they would have questioned him by now.

Why would he have to be a Muslim to be a terrorist??? A terrorist is somebody who uses 'violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims'. Nowhere in that definition does it say that you have to be a certain ethnicity or religion to be a terrorist. Thomas Mair is a far-right extremist who murdered Jo Cox shouting 'Britain First', so for political aims. He is the definition of a terrorist. Also I can't believe you just excused a horrific act of terrorism against an innocent woman just because he's 'going through a tough time'??? That's really sickening to be honest.

Muslamics are told to commit terrorist attacks by their holy scriptures, Thomas Mair follows no such thing so hes motives are not linked to his religion. His reason is therefore probably something to do with his conditions, he is an innocent soul tat needs help. If he was following orders from the Kooran it would be a different story. So Muslim attack therefore equals terrorism and other attacks have different reasons.

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.

The same people who disclaimed and minimised Omar Mateen's terrorist connections, and really pushed the mental illness angle, and who are now taking precisely the opposite position only 5 days later, want consistency?

Give me a break

Yes I want consistency, from both sides.

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".

So you accept that Mateen was a terrorist and that Islamic extremism and his ISIS ideological beliefs were highly relevant to his actions?

Because certain sections of the media don't want to admit that fascism isn't all sunshine and rainbows.

umm isnt it obvious, the man wasnt muslim so therefore it wasnt a terror act. The media are corrupt lol

The media is what controls our opinions and future governments. They have labelled us Muslims as terrorists...sadly but when it is a white male presumably christian the guy has a mental disorder. The 52 year old was radicalized by the political party giving us a concluding answer that it was a act of terrorism. The media only like to label Muslims bad in our present society. Not much we can do but voice our opinions as the oppressed.

There's more than one motive?

Let's be honest,if it was a Muslim they would've already declared it a terrorist attack. Anyway wasn't this guy politically motivated and part of right wing extremist groups?

Here's an example, relevant to the classification of terrorism.


The media classify the Orlando Shootings as a terrorist attack, because the perpetrator was a Muslim.But what about the Charleston Church Shootings? It was a racial attack on African-Americans yet the media doesn't classify this as a terrorist attack. Why? The perpetrator wasn't Muslim, he was White. Both of these attacks are orchestrated to achieve a political aim, which follows its formal definition. Why was THIS not the case with the latter?

Of course you can. Saying 'put Britain first' is clearly indicative of a politically held opinion and belief.

Because the media is controlled by Zionists that's why

I really hope you read all of this and educate yourself.

1. 'Muslamics are told to commit terrorist attacks by their holy scriptures'. This is completely incorrect, there is nothing in the Quran telling Muslims to commit acts of terrorism. Islam is a peaceful religion, but so-called Islamic extremists completely twist the religion into something it isn't. They are not influenced to be violent by anything in their holy scriptures. I'd like to see your evidence from the Quran that it tells Muslims to be terrorists?.

I'm afraid your victim complex doesn't correlate with reality. Firstly, the IRA were considered the poster boys in this country for terrorism for decades. Secondly, you might recall for example the Muslim guy who tried to behead that person in the tube station in Leytonstone. It was clear he was mentally ill and so the media portrayed him as such and did not call it a terrorist attack.

Besides, if this imagined agenda against Muslims in the media actually existed, do you think loads of them would do that cringe-worthy thing they do of calling ISIS "the so-called Islamic State" in an effort to make people think they have nothing to do with Islam? Do you think they would participate in the cover up of the constant rape and sex-trafficking of thousands of girls well-under 16 across the country by gangs made up exclusively of Muslims just because the perpetrators were Muslim?

Plus look at the Orlando shooting for example. The dominant narrative is to talk about guns and much of the media has been trying to push a view that somehow the homophobic stance pushed by the Christian right in America is to blame.....even though the shooter declared allegiance to ISIS, his local mosque invited imams as guest speakers who state that all gays must die and the guy's Afghan father having similar views. Basically everything possible to distance it and him from Islam and from Muslims. Yeah, looks like there's an anti-Muslim agenda here.

Finally, here are articles describing white supremacist Anders Brevik as a terrorist:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/20/breivik-terrorist-like-al-qaida

https://www.rt.com/news/334435-breivik-inhumane-treatment-rejected/

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/15/europe/norway-anders-breivik-lawsuit/

http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/anders-behring-breivik-will-have-to-live-with-conditions-in-his-tiny-cell/news-story/f048a8fc71bd51905dc2bdcab7fb6730

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14260297

Even the Daily Mail which apparently is wayciss according to people:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3559599/Norway-says-appeal-against-Anders-Breivik-court-ruling-decided-mass-killer-s-solitary-confinement-inhuman.html

Even on TV:

https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10153590173691939/

Why was I able to find all these in 30 seconds in the first couple of pages in Google if the media do not label white people as terrorists? Why are there countless more that I didn't link? B b b bb but muh victimhood.