Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

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

Scroll to see replies

your*

Original post by KimKallstrom

Here we go. There's always one isn't there?

No not Jews, Zionists. There is a difference.

Reply 102

Evilstr99

Original post by KimKallstrom

Yeah! And why didn't they call Anders Brevik or the IRA terrorists? What's that? They did? Idiot.

I'm sorry, but it appears I have burst your bubble. It is absolutely unnecessary for you to call me an "Idiot" especially when what I said which was a relative comparison was true. The Government proclaimed the IRA as a terrorist organisation back in the 80s, the peak of the Troubles. That was the time where they used the term in a more appropriate and contextual manner. I understand about Breivik as he committed the attack to achieve a political aim, that's perfectly fine as that follows the guidelines for terrorism. You need to realise that I only made a comparison between a recent Muslim attack and a racial attack, I don't need to go so far to mention many more.

Let's end this here, this unfortunate argument shouldn't carry on longer for no PARTICULAR reason other than stating our opinions on this matter.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 103

tagliatilly

Original post by LordPenguinz

Islam is a religion of peace, get a grip mate.
Just have a look at these two sources alone and if they don't persuade you then nothing will. You're either mad or a Muslim, which is basically mad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV710c1dgpU

All religions are bad.

'Islamist terrorist attacks' are not actually committed by real Muslims though are they? They're committed by complete nutters who give themselves that label, but they are not really Muslims. If you call yourself a Muslim but you murder innocent people, YOU ARE NOT A MUSLIM. Just like the KKK aren't Christians. And no I'm not a Muslim, I'm an atheist.

Reply 104

slaven

Original post by Evilstr99

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?

Because minorities are more likely to comit a terrorist attack. The perpetrator of Orlando comiteed a more larger scale of death tool than the Charleston Church Shootings. Also the guy from the Orlando was doing on behave of ISIS while the Charlestone was a lone wolf.

Reply 105

QE2

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'??

Of course it is terrorism. Uncostitutional violence in pusuit of an ideological agenda. The mental health of an individual does not alter this.
What else could it be?

Who is saying that it is not terrorism (apart from the Sun and the Mail)?

That's so true omfg

Original post by Evilstr99

But the Chalreston attack was terrorism. Anders Brevik's attack was terrorism. Timothy McVeigh was terrorism.

I don't understand this "why aren't they called terrorism" argument.
They are.

Reply 108

hovado

Original post by slaven

Also the guy from the Orlando was doing on behave of ISIS while the Charlestone was a lone wolf.

The aim was to form one-man cells which would carry out "spectacular" attacks every "5 - 12 years" before taking over Europe in "50 - 100 years", according to Breivik's manifesto. There would be no small assaults, only bloodstained atrocities, in order to achieve maximum psychological impact.

Reply 109

QE2

Original post by Maddass911

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.

But the perpetrators of these two cases were charged with murder and attempted murder respectively, not terrorism offences.

I'm confused about the point that you are attempting to make.

Reply 110

QE2

Original post by AneebMalik

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.

Show me a mainstream media source that claims that all "Muslims are terrorists". Everything I read seems to go out of its way to stress that extremists only represent a small and marginal minority.

Mair is clearly a terrorist as his actions were ideologically motivated and aimed to further that ideological agenda.

Just because someone is mentally ill, it doesn't mean that they can't be a terrorist. In fact, you have to have mental issues to be able to do some of that stuff. If you were thinking rationally, you wouldn't do it!

Reply 111

QE2

Original post by Cal-lum

However I totally agree regarding media bias - the Muslim faith being branded radical,

But it is. Radical and extreme. What else would you call an ideology that permits or advocates slavery, sex slaves, wife-beating, gender discrimination, torture, punishing sexual and religious preference with death, and religious expansionism.

If a political party started tomorrow with that manifesto, it would be banned as an extremist group.

Reply 112

QE2

Original post by Dandaman1

Then if I shoot my neighbour because I don't happen to like his politics, I'm a terrorist. But if I shoot him because I don't happen to like something else about him, I'm not a terrorist... The line seems rather insignificant and difficult to differentiate, if you ask me.

If you killed someone because you didn't like their politics, it would be murder, not terrorism.

If you killed them because as a means of furthering your own political agenda, it would be terrorism.

Terrorism involves a criminal and spectacular use of force to intimidate the public and/or authorities for the purpose of achieving political goals.

It does not have to be "spectacular" - although I wouldn't call repeatedly shooting and stabbing a member of parliament in public, while shouting political slogans, "subtle".
And I'm sure that other MPs who spend much of their time in highly public and open environments, are now feeling more than a little intimidated.
So, by your own definition, it was terrorism.

Reply 113

hovado

Original post by QE2

Show me a mainstream media source that claims that all "Muslims are terrorists".

Does Breitbart count?

Reply 114

Catholic_

Terrorist attacks are considered as bombs going of....plus Muslims have their fair share of privileges so hush/

Reply 115

Rk2k14

To anyone with half a brain it was clear he was a terrorist.

End of.

Reply 116

Joep95

Original post by hovado

Does Breitbart count?

Where have they said all of them are terrorists?

Reply 117

GettingReal

Allah Akbar means God the greatest so I dont think either of them could be equated to this.

Reply 118

hovado

Original post by joecphillips

Where have they said all of them are terrorists?

No idea i try not to read it, that stuff will make you pyschotic. All the far right loonies round here that try to push the all muslims are terrorist stuff quote it constantly though so must be something there.

Reply 119

nulli tertius

Original post by QE2

If you killed someone because you didn't like their politics, it would be murder, not terrorism.

If you killed them because as a means of furthering your own political agenda, it would be terrorism.

It does not have to be "spectacular" - although I wouldn't call repeatedly shooting and stabbing a member of parliament in public, while shouting political slogans, "subtle".
And I'm sure that other MPs who spend much of their time in highly public and open environments, are now feeling more than a little intimidated.
So, by your own definition, it was terrorism.

You are drawing a distinction that doesn't exist in English law

This is the definition of terrorism.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1

I should mention that there are no proscribed organisations connected with non-NI UK politics but not all the ones concerned with foreign politics are Muslim. There are Catholic, Sikh and Hindu proscribed organisations. At one time there was a suggestion that the Animal Liberation Front be proscribed but nothing came of it.

There is no such crime as terrorism in English law. There are various terrorist offences some of which are not crimes unless done in furtherance of terrorism. others are just more serious when done in furtherest of terrorism. If done in furtherance of terrorism, the police have additional powers and sentencing guidelines dictate harsher sentences.

However where serious offences are committed the substantive offences e.g murder, conspiracy to cause explosions, kidnapping etc are charged