"Death to Traitors, Freedom for Britain".

Unless they are White Muslims it has rarely happened since 9/11. Here are just a couple of sources of many which show the reluctance to call even him a terrorist. Many times he is a "gunman" or a "mass murderer":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/12196616/Dont-call-Anders-Breivik-a-terrorist-he-is-a-sad-fantasist-leading-an-army-of-one.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/27/breivik-not-terrorist-insane-murderer

So how come you can easily find countless newspaper articles in Google referring to Brevik as a terrorist? But then again you knew that since you'd have been on Google to find the article you posted. Very dishonest!

Because that was when we started to have an unspoken criteria that had to be satisfied before labelling someone a terrorist.

On the other hand when it's a Muslim, he or she is labelled as terrorist immediately. No one debates the use of the label or waits for a trial or psychiatric report.

The simple fact is there have been very few terrorist attacks by whites in recent years.

Incorrect, the majority of European terrorist attacks are carried out by (mainly white) separatist organisations such as ETA.

No, 9/11 saw the beginning of the era when virtually all major terrorist attacks were carried out in the name of Islam. Terrorism seems to work in eras where there's a different threat.

Are people not bringing up the Orlando shooters mental health? When women with Down syndrome were used to carry explosives was there medical condition not publicised to show it wasn't there fault?

The simple fact is there have been very few terrorist attacks by whites in recent years. It's very easy to make an offence fit terrorism (in law) when it's carried out by a Muslim because all you really need to do is tie them to some sort of organisation. There are no white groups that are using the murder of civilians to further their cause so calling a white person a terrorist is going to be more difficult and would probably take longer; a newspaper wouldn't want to label someone a terrorist where they can sued.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Terrorist attacks in the West were carried out in the name of Islam, correction..

Most articles I have seen about the Orlando shooter still refer to him as a terrorist, which is justified, but the same treatment should be extended to all terrorists..

In the UK perhaps, in the USA where the Orlando attacks happened White supremacists in the recent years have shot up Black churches and synagogues. Many of those groups are very violent, or do advocate violence in one way or another.

Why is this a correction? It's exactly what I said.Posted from TSR Mobile

The same thing is extended to all terrorists.Posted from TSR Mobile

An attack such as Dylann Roof was not terrorism. It was racially motivated murder which falls under hate crime. It's quite difficult using examples from the US when talking about terrorism, they don't have a nailed down definition like we doPosted from TSR Mobile

You said "virtually all major terrorist attacks were carried out in the name of Islam", implying that this was the same worldwide.

Then why the debate on whether or not White Christian terrorists are terrorists which never happens in the case of Middle Eastern Muslims (or Muslims in general)?

Wouldn't the same apply to an attack motivated by homophobia? The Orlando attacks happened in the US as well.