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

No, fully agree it's not a huge leap, but the direct connotations of do alter somewhat depending on which phrase was uttered - but we'll almost certainly never know which it actually was.

It has since emerged that he was a member of various far right organisations around the world, but over a huge number of years, as well as being in treatment for mental health.

Potentially a number of influences, but given what's emerged so far (hefty pinch of salt with this statement, obviously) I'd be very surprised if this was, as some seem to think, a 'directed' attack.

I don't think terrorism should fall on technicalities or semantics. If you're attack is politically motivated, as this was then that should be described as terrorism.

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.

.

It's not about not liking his politics, it's about killing someone because of your beliefs.

Sleeping with someones wife is not a political belief.
I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve her.

This man murdered someone because of his far right beliefs. When one kills in the name of Islam we do not hesitate to kill it terrorism, yet when one kills in the name of the far-right, people like you refuse to call it terrorism.

Stop looking for semantics and technicalities and accept it for what it was, a terrorist attack.

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'??

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation]^[3] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious[, racial]^[4] or ideological cause.

If he did yell ''Britain first'' and was motivated by far-right politics it was a terror attack, we have to be sure first.

Its been approximately 24 hours. They have to investigate and look at the evidence before bringing charges.



Still have to investigate. they still investigated in the Lee Rigby case, although soldiers were an obvious political target. MP's less so.

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?

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.

it was a terror attack. After killing Jo Cox, a man tackled him to the ground, and having a gun on him he got up and ignored the man. He chose not to shoot the man and only had Jo as a target. Pretty obvious that he was targetting her due to his political view.

Yes how dare the media portray an attack done in the name of Isis as terrorism

I don't think the CIA dug anything up which connected him to ISIS, and if that's true then he wasn't actually affiliated to any terrorist groups.

He made phone calls stating it was for Isis.

But they couldn't find anything which told them he had an official affilitation with ISIS. And if his verbal statement was enough to make him a terrorist, then Jo Cox's killer (who supposedly shouted "Britain First" is also a terrorist because he was acting in the name of an ideology.

Bear in mind the Orlando guy was also most likely a closet homosexual and the pressure could have mentally destablised him.