The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

The media has portrayed a killer of 17 innocent people as a victim!

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Cod3tte
I'm not trying to redefine terrorism.

I'm simply looking at it from a different angle.


Nope, you're definitely strawmanning terrorism lol
Original post by Cod3tte
I'm not trying to redefine terrorism.

I'm simply looking at it from a different angle.


You're trying to twist the definition so it encompasses people you don't like. If a Britain First march were to be considered terrorism then virtually any protest would also have to be considered terrorism. In what way is that helpful?
Cod3tte makes a fair point that directly or indirectly Britain first are planting fear into people especially Muslims and immigrants. Ie. Intimidating women on the burka, putting foreign people who dont know English on camera and humiliating them, chanting and screaming in marches etc.. It leads to their supporters to form extreme negative views and carry out acts of terrorism ie Jox cox murder. I agree with one of the comments where the person said They don't violently behead and force people to adopt their objectives like IS is. Although we can all agree Isis is plain and simple evil. I mean they even kill Muslims, beheadings, burn down mosques. So they're hardly spreading love and peace- Islam. But don't you think britians first is just as bad like the girl said they're intimidating people in their words and extreme views- embedding fear in Muslims, immigrants. But not only that, their views are leading their followers to then harm or in better terms terrorise People. So preaching hatred is terrorising people even tho it may not be physical. But the again as CurlyBen said and as much as I'd like to disagree what good will it do recognising every group with extreme views as terrorist.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Cod3tte
Terrorism :"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

Are there words not violent to ones mind? Isn't it damaging to someone's mind knowing there are people out there who consider less human over their DNA. Don't you think that can tear a person apart?

To other people their marches could be intimidating. Knowing that so many people can get together, just to spread hatred.

Why do Britain First do so? To pursue their political viewpoints, that white British people are superior to everyone else.


Show me just one instance, implicit or explicit, where Britain First have stated this? Or show me one instance where Britain First have encouraged the use of violence in any way shape or form? Go on, I can wait.

Being concerned about mass-immigration and the influence of Islam in the West, does not make one a 'supremacist'.
Original post by erratic_deus
First of all why are ethnic minority offenders not getting any of these nice power points displayed on national television about what they're missing in their lives.

He was a member of a white supremacist group and he killed 17 innocent people and shot several others. This is what we need to know and this is what he should be sentenced on!

Also, I'm autistic, I've been bullied before and I don't have a father but I'm not going to go and shoot anyone for my own problems! I'm not a victim! I have morals and common sense and I am very empathetic.

He is a white male terrorist and needs to be portrayed as such!


His background could imply terrorism, however the motives aren't. He didn't have any known political motives, he's therefore not a terrorist.

His only known political links are white supremacist groups, but even they would discourage killing of whites, hence the above.
100% agree with OP. The media and the idiotic Trump seem rather too keen to highlight the mental and family problems of this sicko. The same happened when that psycho killed 50 odd people in the hotel and was almost portrayed as a loveable old rogue who become a lone wolf! You can be sure that the same degree of sympathy would not be given to black/brown/muslim offenders. A horrified and indignant public would be labelling them terrorist scum and Old Trump would be looking to ban a few more infidel countries from the US of A.

So lets be very clear. This sicko freako scumbag is a terrorist and should be electrocuted viciously.
Original post by APPLICANT2016
100% agree with OP. The media and the idiotic Trump seem rather too keen to highlight the mental and family problems of this sicko. The same happened when that psycho killed 50 odd people in the hotel and was almost portrayed as a loveable old rogue who become a lone wolf! You can be sure that the same degree of sympathy would not be given to black/brown/muslim offenders. A horrified and indignant public would be labelling them terrorist scum and Old Trump would be looking to ban a few more infidel countries from the US of A.

So lets be very clear. This sicko freako scumbag is a terrorist and should be electrocuted viciously.


Chill
Original post by APPLICANT2016
100% agree with OP. The media and the idiotic Trump seem rather too keen to highlight the mental and family problems of this sicko. The same happened when that psycho killed 50 odd people in the hotel and was almost portrayed as a loveable old rogue who become a lone wolf! You can be sure that the same degree of sympathy would not be given to black/brown/muslim offenders. A horrified and indignant public would be labelling them terrorist scum and Old Trump would be looking to ban a few more infidel countries from the US of A.

So lets be very clear. This sicko freako scumbag is a terrorist and should be electrocuted viciously.


I would say that calling someone ‘demented’ constitutes saying they have mental health issues, yet I bet this wasn’t your reaction when Obama chose to describe Micah Johnson as demented. Further to that, the mental health issues of Omar Mateen were widely spoken about by the media. You’re ignoring that with a few exceptions, virtually all mainstream US news outlets are left leaning and the party line of the left in the US is to mollycoddle ethnic minorities.

With regard to Nikolas being a terrorist: the only people who think that are people who don’t understand the law. The reason he isn’t a terrorist is because, as of this moment, there was no effort to influence to government which is essentially a pre requisite of terrorism. It’s what separates Stephen Paddock and Mohamed Atta; one just wanted to kill people, the other wanted to push a holy war and influence a governments foreign policy. Now, if you can find examples of non white people charged with terrorism offences but seemingly lacking the above ‘influence’ element then we can discuss why that might be, until then refrain from ignorantly assuming it’s down to race
Original post by k.n.h.
Chill

I am chilled but youve missed the point completely. If you haven’t been able to notice the different reactions from the public, the media and the politicians when the guilty person in this type of attack is a black or a muslim compared to a white person - then you’re living in cloud cuckoo land 😃

Please find me one source where this madman has been called a terrorist or where his race and religion have been mentioned?

Now go back to an attack involving a black/muslim. For example the London car attack. Find me a source that didn’t clarify his race and religion. Or that didn’t call him a terrorist. Or that tried to question his mental health or called him a lone wolf?

Final point that is causing some confusion. A terrorist is defined as someone who uses violence for a political reason. I would argue that the reasons in the US mass shooting cases are far more sinister and linked to racism, perversion etc. They do have a reason political or not. All terrorists are sick whatever race and deservee equal condemnation and severe punishment.

Chill.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Cod3tte
Terrorism :"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

Are there words not violent to ones mind? Isn't it damaging to someone's mind knowing there are people out there who consider less human over their DNA. Don't you think that can tear a person apart?

To other people their marches could be intimidating. Knowing that so many people can get together, just to spread hatred.

Why do Britain First do so? To pursue their political viewpoints, that white British people are superior to everyone else.


There are more active black hate groups in America per head of population than white

Attachment not found
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by looloo2134
There are more active black hate groups in America per head of population than white



why
Original post by APPLICANT2016
I am chilled but youve missed the point completely. If you haven’t been able to notice the different reactions from the public, the media and the politicians when the guilty person in this type of attack is a black or a muslim compared to a white person - then you’re living in cloud cuckoo land 😃

Please find me one source where this madman has been called a terrorist or where his race and religion have been mentioned?

Now go back to an attack involving a black/muslim. For example the London car attack. Find me a source that didn’t clarify his race and religion. Or that didn’t call him a terrorist. Or that tried to question his mental health or called him a lone wolf?

Final point that is causing some confusion. A terrorist is defined as someone who uses violence for a political reason. I would argue that the reasons in the US mass shooting cases are far more sinister and linked to racism, perversion etc. They do have a reason political or not. All terrorists are sick whatever race and deservee equal condemnation and severe punishment.

Chill.


Quote from earlier in the thread:

Original post by k.n.h.
No one's excusing him of doing anything bad and being a mass murderer, he's just not fully confirmed of being a terrorist as his motives aren't definitely known. And those certain people of colour you're referring to, if they were regarded as terrorists, it means they caused damage due to a fully known political or religious motive. If there is a case if someone was labelled a terrorist incorrectly, please link that case.
Original post by k.n.h.
Quote from earlier in the thread:


Ah i see - thats fine then. Muslims are terrorists as they have a political cause. This nice young man and the lovely Paddock had no political cause. They just wanted to kill iinnocent people for pleasure and they only did it cos they have mental health issues (probably caused by their muslim shop keeper giving them the wrong change) and they’ve lost a loved one. And of course killing people for pleasure and fun doesn’t deserve a label. Thats only for those brownies.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by APPLICANT2016
Ah i see - thats fine then. Muslims are terrorists as they have a political cause. This nice young man and the lovely Paddock had no political cause. They just wanted to kill iinnocent people for pleasure and they only did it cos they have mental health issues (probably caused by their muslim shop keeper giving them the wrong change) and they’ve lost a loved one. And of course killing people for pleasure and fun doesn’t deserve a label. Thats only for those brownies.


Sigh. In 2016 Micah Xavier Johnson shot and killed 5 white police officers, stating that he wanted to kill white people. He was a member of a black nationalist organisation, as well as liking several dubious Facebook pages. Nobody deemed him a terrorist.
Original post by Andrew97
Sigh. In 2016 Micah Xavier Johnson shot and killed 5 white police officers, stating that he wanted to kill white people. He was a member of a black nationalist organisation, as well as liking several dubious Facebook pages. Nobody deemed him a terrorist.


He wasn’t portrayed as a loveable old grandad with mental problems either. Paddock was.


Let me make it clear. Anyone who takes an innocent life deliberately is the scum of the earth. I just wish they were all dealt with similarly.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by APPLICANT2016
Ah i see - thats fine then. Muslims are terrorists as they have a political cause. This nice young man and the lovely Paddock had no political cause. They just wanted to kill iinnocent people for pleasure and they only did it cos they have mental health issues (probably caused by their muslim shop keeper giving them the wrong change) and they’ve lost a loved one. And of course killing people for pleasure and fun doesn’t deserve a label. Thats only for those brownies.


As I've previously mentioned in this thread, it's only the last 15 or 20 years that talk of terrorists didn't imply a white man with an Irish accent. If there was an explosion in the UK the speculation would centre on whether it was the work of the IRA, because the vast majority of bombs were the work of Irish terrorists. Nowadays, most organised violence is unfortunately carried out supposedly in the name of Islam, hence speculation about attacks tends to centre on that possibility.

No one is trying to argue that acts like this shooting is anything other than evil. However, it's not particularly useful to refer to apply the label of terrorism to all mass shootings, just as it's not useful to call to all rapists paedophiles. In part the reason for identifying lone wolf attacks as such is because it's unlikely there will be further related attacks, which can be the case with terrorist incidents.
Original post by CurlyBen
As I've previously mentioned in this thread, it's only the last 15 or 20 years that talk of terrorists didn't imply a white man with an Irish accent. If there was an explosion in the UK the speculation would centre on whether it was the work of the IRA, because the vast majority of bombs were the work of Irish terrorists. Nowadays, most organised violence is unfortunately carried out supposedly in the name of Islam, hence speculation about attacks tends to centre on that possibility.

No one is trying to argue that acts like this shooting is anything other than evil. However, it's not particularly useful to refer to apply the label of terrorism to all mass shootings, just as it's not useful to call to all rapists paedophiles. In part the reason for identifying lone wolf attacks as such is because it's unlikely there will be further related attacks, which can be the case with terrorist incidents.


I agree with all you have said to be fair.

It's extremely frustrating that whenever this kind of attack happens, the immediate thought is that muslims are involved. Also, when it is a terrorist attack by ISIS, why do a lot of people look at innocent muslims with hate and blame them also? Why don't people actually look at the root cause and question our foreign policies where we are bombing other countries and creating these idiots to think they can become martyrs! (PS : islam strictly forbids suicide so these crazy suicide bombers are not following Islam).

Does every white person feel that they should share the blame for the shootings in the USA? Of course not. Similarly, lets not blame Islam/muslims for the actions of a tiny minority.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by APPLICANT2016
I agree with all you have said to be fair.

It's extremely frustrating that whenever this kind of attack happens, the immediate thought is that muslims are involved. Also, when it is a terrorist attack by ISIS, why do a lot of people look at innocent muslims with hate and blame them also? Why don't people actually look at the root cause and question our foreign policies where we are bombing other countries and creating these idiots to think they can become martyrs! (PS : islam strictly forbids suicide so these crazy suicide bombers are not following Islam).

Does every white person feel that they should share the blame for the shootings in the USA? Of course not. Similarly, lets not blame Islam/muslims for the actions of a tiny minority.


As far as I'm aware, no one has tried to link school shootings to Muslim extremism? The unfortunate reality is that most organised violence these days is done in the name of Islam. You can argue that they're not true Muslims, but there's no doubt that's what they claim to be. It's far from my area of expertise but as far as I'm aware there's no consensus on what a true Muslim is, hence much of the violence in places like Afghanistan is between different strands of Islam. Questioning foreign policy is fine, but suggesting it's the root cause of Muslim extremism is tenuous at best (and verging on victim blaming at worst). Is it fair to blame all Muslims for the acts of those extremists? Of course not, but people are inclined to distrust those who are different from them, particularly when they have negative experiences of those people (either first hand or at a distance). That cuts all ways - other examples would include treating all white people as racist, or all men as sexual predators.
Original post by CurlyBen
As far as I'm aware, no one has tried to link school shootings to Muslim extremism? The unfortunate reality is that most organised violence these days is done in the name of Islam. You can argue that they're not true Muslims, but there's no doubt that's what they claim to be. It's far from my area of expertise but as far as I'm aware there's no consensus on what a true Muslim is, hence much of the violence in places like Afghanistan is between different strands of Islam. Questioning foreign policy is fine, but suggesting it's the root cause of Muslim extremism is tenuous at best (and verging on victim blaming at worst). Is it fair to blame all Muslims for the acts of those extremists? Of course not, but people are inclined to distrust those who are different from them, particularly when they have negative experiences of those people (either first hand or at a distance). That cuts all ways - other examples would include treating all white people as racist, or all men as sexual predators.


1. It is beyond any doubt that suicide bombing is totally forbidden in Islam and people who do this are brainwashed or crazy or evil or all three.


2. How can we ignore foreign policy? Are we denying that bombing muslim countries and our forces parking there does not create terrorists?
It does not make it acceptable but to deny it being a root cause is hiding from the truth.
This is why gun laws need to changed. If people can access weapons so easily is it's to see why so many killings occur. They need to stop making so stupidly easy for people to build up an arsenal of guns. It makes them a danger to everybody no matter other factors.

Sure, sometimes other thins come into play but without such easy access to guns they wouldn't be able to actually do anything like that as easily. There needs to be restrictions on who can actually buy guns and how many.

Action needs to be taken to prevent things like this from happening again. And no - the solution isn't to give everyone a gun so they can fire back. It needs to be to remove the availability of such weapons. Gun shootings are seemingly happening so frequently in American schools but the right action never seems to taken.

Also, I get that sometimes things can set people in a volatile way and they cause damage. But that boy should never be presented as a victim form his actions. He had a choice and choose to murder his fellow students. If he never had access to a gun, would he have been able to carry out the attack? Almost certainly not. People need to start taking action to prevent future attacks instead of just picking up the pieces when it happens.

Gun law needs to change; how many dead children will it take before those in charge realise this.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you