The Student Room Group

The extremist culture that led to the murder of Jo Cox

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Wōden
I would think not, considering he apparently fired several shots. A single shot firearm is relatively easy to improvise, but a repeating one is more complicated, beyond the engineering skills of the average person. Besides, some witnesses have said it looked like an old WW1 pistol.


Revolver.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Exactly how would that neighbour know if he had a political motive? You think far right crazies go around saying "I'm a Nazi"? He ordered hundreds of pounds worth of Nazi literature from America.

Why are you trying to defend and obfuscate that with such obvious dishonesty?

It has absolutely nothing to do with the EU referendum leave campaign.


I never said it did. Why would you associate the leave campaign with Nazis? Hmmm
Original post by Wōden
I would think not, considering he apparently fired several shots. A single shot firearm is relatively easy to improvise, but a repeating one is more complicated, beyond the engineering skills of the average person. Besides, some witnesses have said it looked like an old WW1 pistol.


You don't know much about firearms, do you? A single shot firearm can easily be reloaded. I grew up with a single shot .22lr rifle and I could reload that in around a second. Fire, pull open the bolt, place the round in, close the bolt. Very simple and quick.

The witness said there was about four to five seconds between shots. He also specifically used the word homemade, I commented about that yesterday on reddit saying "Thank goodness he only had a shoddy, homemade firearm". That was long before these SPLC documents were released.

With the sort of firearm shown in the SPLC document, once you fire it you pull back the bare firing pin, pull the cartridge out with your fingernail, push another one in, close the mechanism and fire again

@DiddyDec


But none of that really matters because it's so laughable that far right members on this board are trying to discredit those documents by saying he had a different gun. The receipt proves the Nazi literature went to his name at his address.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Thutmose-III
You don't know much about firearms, do you? A single shot firearm can easily be reloaded. I grew up with a single shot .22lr rifle and I could reload that in around a second. Fire, pull open the bolt, place the round in, close the bolt. Very simple and quick.

The witness said there was about four to five seconds between shots. He also specifically used the word homemade, I commented about that yesterday on reddit saying "Thank goodness he only had a shoddy, homemade firearm". That was long before these SPLC documents were released.

With the sort of firearm shown in the SPLC document, once you fire it you pull back the bare firing pin, pull the cartridge out with your fingernail, push another one in, close the mechanism and fire again

@DiddyDec


But none of that really matters because it's so laughable that far right members on this board are trying to discredit those documents by saying he had a different gun. The receipt proves the Nazi literature went to his name at his address.


What is funny is you think I'm far right.

Is questioning evidence a far right agenda?

I'm discrediting anything, I'm merely saying I don't think that homemade weapon documented was used. Also I don't see why using a homemade weapon is some how better than a normal one. The potential damage at point blank would be the same, especially considering that the most common round in the UK is a 12 bore.
Reply 44
Original post by Thutmose-III
You don't know much about firearms, do you? A single shot firearm can easily be reloaded. I grew up with a single shot .22lr rifle and I could reload that in around a second. Fire, pull open the bolt, place the round in, close the bolt. Very simple and quick.

The witness said there was about four to five seconds between shots. He also specifically used the word homemade, I commented about that yesterday on reddit saying "Thank goodness he only had a shoddy, homemade firearm". That was long before these SPLC documents were released.

With the sort of firearm shown in the SPLC document, once you fire it you pull back the bare firing pin, pull the cartridge out with your fingernail, push another one in, close the mechanism and fire again

@DiddyDec


But none of that really matters because it's so laughable that far right members on this board are trying to discredit those documents by saying he had a different gun. The receipt proves the Nazi literature went to his name at his address.


I wasn't trying to discredit anything, I have no horse in this race, I was simply trying to make some sense of the event as it happened. I wrote that comment long before any of these neo-nazi and homemade gun documents came to light. At the time, some of the early reports I saw implied he had fired several shots in rapid succession, which to me suggested a semi-automatic pistol or revolver. In light of this recent evidence, it seems I may have been wrong about that and it may well have been homemade. We will have to wait and see I guess.

Not that it really matters one way or the other. Homemade or not, it doesn't change the fact that a woman is now dead thanks to the actions of this *******.
Original post by Thutmose-III
When you shout "Breaking point" over and over again, you don’t get to be surprised when someone breaks. When you present politics as a matter of life and death, as a question of national survival, don’t be surprised if someone takes you at your word. You didn’t make them do it, no, but you didn’t do much to stop it either.

Sometimes rhetoric has consequences. If you spend days, weeks, months, years telling people they are under threat, that their country has been stolen from them, that they have been betrayed and sold down the river, that their birthright has been pilfered, that their problem is they’re too slow to realise any of this is happening, that their problem is they’re not sufficiently mad as hell, then at some point, in some place, something or someone is going to snap. And then something terrible is going to happen.

This Spectator article does not engage with the truth of those claims. If those claims are true and the response proposed is that no one be allowed to talk about them for fear of possible consequences then we are living in East Germany. It amounts to the abolition of democracy.

Worse, it's selective. No one said after the London Riots that Labour should not be allowed to talk about income inequality any more, because clearly it inflames and justifies violence.
Original post by Chakede
becuase she was a Prominent Remain campaginer and he shouted Britain first before shooting her in cold blood.

She was not a prominent Remain campaigner. Practically no one in the general public had heard of her before she was assassinated.

She was one of the few MPs in favour of admitting lots of refugees from Syria and one of the most staunchly in favour of doing so. I suspect that is why she was shot.

Bear in mind that obsessive political extremists rarely take their goals and worldview from the morning news. They have a few issues they care about that they have stewed over for many years. Shooting her now is obviously a terrible move for someone who wanted Brexit to happen, doing no real damage to Remain while giving them a lot of reflected emotional sympathy. It might even swing them the victory just as their campaign was beginning to disintegrate. If it was about Brexit, it doesn't make sense full stop. If it was about Syria, there's no reason he couldn't have waited until after the referendum and shot her then. Most likely he wasn't thinking about the referendum campaign at all.
(edited 7 years ago)
not so different from your rhetoric of "islam made this man kill, bla bla bla"
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Well said! It is exactly this atmosphere of hate that has been engendered by people like Farage and Boris that has created the conditions for this murder.

Things are going to get worse too - there will be more.

Cameron doesn't know what he's doing - he's opened the magic fascist box and out of it are pouring the rag tag army of sleazy creeps that lie in wait to exploit working class people's anger during a deep and prolonged recessionary situation and the growing disparity of wealth and interests between the poor and the rich.


When Muslims blow people up you say that it is the fault of society for upsetting them.

When the far right - and neither Boris nor Farage are part of the far right, this fellow's reading list was pro-Apartheid literature not a best-selling biography of Churchill - shoots someone you say that it is the fault of society for allowing the far right to exist at all.

Which is it? If attacks should result in the suppression of the culture of the attackers (which isn't wholly unreasonable of course) then we also need to suppress Islam. For that matter, we need to suppress your own class war rhetoric which has inspired millions of political murders.
Right wing politics nowadays seems to paint liberals/lefties as 'destroying British society'

I don't see how a patriotic Brit is any different from one of these radical Muslims you always criticise
Original post by alevelstresss
Right wing politics nowadays seems to paint liberals/lefties as 'destroying British society'

I don't see how a patriotic Brit is any different from one of these radical Muslims you always criticise


The difference is they're against destroying British society.

This man is certainly a murderer and probably also a terrorist but he probably isn't also a traitor, unlike a British citizen who murders a British soldier to try to bring about the defeat of the British army in a foreign country.

There is some difference, and the latter is in fact worse.
Original post by Observatory
The difference is they're against destroying British society.

This man is certainly a murderer and probably also a terrorist but he probably isn't also a traitor, unlike a British citizen who murders a British soldier to try to bring about the defeat of the British army in a foreign country.

There is some difference, and the latter is in fact worse.


YEh because murdering an elected member of Parliament isn't an attack on the societal views of Britain.

hahaha. I love how the nut job Right wing will try to justify anything.
Original post by DorianGrayism
YEh because murdering an elected member of Parliament isn't an attack on the societal views of Britain.

hahaha. I love how the nut job Right wing will try to justify anything.


What I have said no more justifies what he did than saying it is worse to murder five than three people justifies murdering three people.
Original post by Observatory
What I have said no more justifies what he did than saying it is worse to murder five than three people justifies murdering three people.


A guy that shoots, stabs and kicks a woman on the floor is better than a Muslim that cuts a soldiers throat and runs around with it because the former is a patriot.

Sorry, I shouldn't say Right Wing. I should just say extremists like yourself.

The reality is that people like you would justify homicidal Muslim maniacs if you were born elsewhere.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Observatory
The difference is they're against destroying British society.

This man is certainly a murderer and probably also a terrorist but he probably isn't also a traitor, unlike a British citizen who murders a British soldier to try to bring about the defeat of the British army in a foreign country.

There is some difference, and the latter is in fact worse.


Well in these 'radical Islamists' it could be argued that they are against destroying and/or slandering Islam.
Original post by alevelstresss
Well in these 'radical Islamists' it could be argued that they are against destroying and/or slandering Islam.


Lol. Beat me to it.

Muslim extremists use exactly the same sort of justification for their behavior.
Original post by DorianGrayism
A guy that shoots, stabs and kicks a woman on the floor is better than a Muslim that cuts a soldiers throat and runs around with it because the former is a patriot.

Sorry, I shouldn't say Right Wing. I should just say extremists like yourself.

The reality is that people like you would justify homicidal Muslim maniacs if you were born elsewhere.

Bomber Harris killed women and children who were enemies of this country, in order to defeat those enemies. Lord Haw Haw broadcast pro-Nazi propaganda. I do not think Bomber Harris is worse than Lord Haw Haw and that is not an extremist position.
Original post by alevelstresss
Well in these 'radical Islamists' it could be argued that they are against destroying and/or slandering Islam.


Yes, my point being that Britain and Islam aren't causes of equal value, that the British cause is superior to that of a dysfunctional alien religion.
Original post by Observatory
Yes, my point being that Britain and Islam aren't causes of equal value, that the British cause is superior to that of a dysfunctional alien religion.


But its not a 'British' cause

its a nationalistic cause which is skeptical of other cultures, skeptical of immigration and refugees, critical of other races and centred around hate and self-preservation and isolationism

not very different to the islamic one, except its vaguer because the scriptures were written some 1500 years ago
Original post by Observatory
Bomber Harris killed women and children who were enemies of this country, in order to defeat those enemies.


Lol. Sounds like the justification for a suicide bombing

Quick Reply

Latest