Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jenderekuality)
    I am not joking, check the news, his name is Thomas Mair and he isn't part of the islamists, so there is clearly a reason for it, hes probably just going through a tough time.
    Why would he have to be a Muslim to be a terrorist??? A terrorist is somebody who uses 'violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims'. Nowhere in that definition does it say that you have to be a certain ethnicity or religion to be a terrorist. Thomas Mair is a far-right extremist who murdered Jo Cox shouting 'Britain First', so for political aims. He is the definition of a terrorist. Also I can't believe you just excused a horrific act of terrorism against an innocent woman just because he's 'going through a tough time'??? That's really sickening to be honest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozziess)
    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.
    The Rigby killer was on camera explaining the motivation for the attack.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by ozziess)
    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.
    They have charged him with murder.
    Just like leeg Rigby.
    Just like the Lyronstone attack.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tagliatilly)
    Why would he have to be a Muslim to be a terrorist??? A terrorist is somebody who uses 'violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims'. Nowhere in that definition does it say that you have to be a certain ethnicity or religion to be a terrorist. Thomas Mair is a far-right extremist who murdered Jo Cox shouting 'Britain First', so for political aims. He is the definition of a terrorist. Also I can't believe you just excused a horrific act of terrorism against an innocent woman just because he's 'going through a tough time'??? That's really sickening to be honest.
    Muslamics are told to commit terrorist attacks by their holy scriptures, Thomas Mair follows no such thing so hes motives are not linked to his religion. His reason is therefore probably something to do with his conditions, he is an innocent soul tat needs help. If he was following orders from the Kooran it would be a different story. So Muslim attack therefore equals terrorism and other attacks have different reasons.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I can agree it was a case of lone-wolf 'terrorism' since it was politically motivated.

    However I would hope that people recognise it as the lone attack of one mentally ill (albeit racist and bigoted) guy.

    Some of the worst people on the Remain campaign will want to use it to tar all Leavers as just as bad. That's an intellectually hollow argument.
    Just as we are expected to be mature and smart enough to know that one man's Islamic terrorism doesn't make all Muslims guilty by association, this man's attack is in no way an indictment of all white people.


    Let her family and friends mourn, let the rest of us take this as a harsh lesson that political violence isn't cool, and then let's all get on with our lives while Jo's family try to rebuild theirs.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jenderekuality)
    Muslamics are told to commit terrorist attacks by their holy scriptures, Thomas Mair follows no such thing so hes motives are not linked to his religion. His reason is therefore probably something to do with his conditions, he is an innocent soul tat needs help. If he was following orders from the Kooran it would be a different story. So Muslim attack therefore equals terrorism and other attacks have different reasons.

    I really hope you read all of this and educate yourself.

    Ok let's address this bit by bit:
    1. 'Muslamics are told to commit terrorist attacks by their holy scriptures'. This is completely incorrect, there is nothing in the Quran telling Muslims to commit acts of terrorism. Islam is a peaceful religion, but so-called Islamic extremists completely twist the religion into something it isn't. They are not influenced to be violent by anything in their holy scriptures. I'd like to see your evidence from the Quran that it tells Muslims to be terrorists?
    2. 'Thomas Mair follows no such thing so hes motives are not linked to his religion'. It's true that his motives are not linked to religion, BUT his motives are linked to far-right politics. So he has been influenced not by a religion but by violent political ideologies such as those of Nazis and Britain First. He even shouted 'Britain First' as he murdered Jo Cox, so that was clearly his motive for the attack. He also gave his name as 'Death to traitors, freedom to Britain' in court this morning. Therefore his motives are not personal, and he wasn't 'following orders from the Kooran' as you said, but he WAS following orders from far-right violent political groups.
    3. 'he is an innocent soul tat needs help'. Whoa... what exactly is your idea of 'innocent'??? I don't call stabbing and shooting an innocent married mother of 2 'innocent'. An innocent person is somebody who is 'not guilty of crime or offence' - and Thomas Mair is certainly guilty of this. It also means someone who is 'free from moral wrong' - I don't see how anyone could think that he could be free from moral wrong after murdering an innocent woman. Murder is certainly morally wrong.
    4. 'So Muslim attack therefore equals terrorism and other attacks have different reasons'. As I said in my post before, terrorism is 'the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims'. And as you can see from my previous points, Thomas Mair was indeed using 'violence' for his far-right 'political aims'. Therefore, Thomas Mair is a terrorist.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Everyone just feels strongly about the fact that she was murdered and the work she did and stuff I'm sure the fact that it was also a terrorist attack will be dealt with by the media as time goes on. Indeed there's talk of it today in light of his court case.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    We want consistency, people would not hesitate to call an attack by an Isis supporter terrorism but there appears to be hesitation to call an attack inspoter Britain first members terrorism.
    The same people who disclaimed and minimised Omar Mateen's terrorist connections, and really pushed the mental illness angle, and who are now taking precisely the opposite position only 5 days later, want consistency?

    Give me a break
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    The same people who disclaimed and minimised Omar Mateen's terrorist connections, and really pushed the mental illness angle, and who are now taking precisely the opposite position only 5 days later, want consistency?

    Give me a break
    Yes I want consistency, from both sides.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Yes I want consistency, from both sides.
    So you accept that Mateen was a terrorist and that Islamic extremism and his ISIS ideological beliefs were highly relevant to his actions?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I'm finding it hard to grasp how someone who kept neo-Nazi books and gear at home and shouted 'Britain First' when carrying out a vicious attack on an MP calculated to kill is not a "terrorist".
    Because certain sections of the media don't want to admit that fascism isn't all sunshine and rainbows.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    So you accept that Mateen was a terrorist and that Islamic extremism and his ISIS ideological beliefs were highly relevant to his actions?
    Of course.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Because certain sections of the media don't want to admit that fascism isn't all sunshine and rainbows.
    I think the message has gone out from the government not to call this 'terrorism'. The reason must be that the organised Right do not want to be attacked for fermenting a racist atmosphere, even when that is precisely what they have been doing - the current Tory Party is essentially in alliance with UKIP and the hard Right, either directly, or by not challenging them. The media have instantly and compliantly obeyed with a mentality that can only be described as 'sheeplike'.

    Note that the police think differently - Mair is being given the full terrorist process, including the special court arrangements and the whole caboodle.

    Another thing spectacularly noticeable about this so far by its absence is a proper discussion about any possible conspiracy role by Britain First or other parts of the far right. The media seem strangely silent on it. It's almost as if they are considered hands-off organisations.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Hi I'd like to use the death of another person to further my own beliefs....


    That's what some people on this thread are doing


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozziess)
    umm isnt it obvious, the man wasnt muslim so therefore it wasnt a terror act. The media are corrupt lol
    (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.
    I'm afraid your victim complex doesn't correlate with reality. Firstly, the IRA were considered the poster boys in this country for terrorism for decades. Secondly, you might recall for example the Muslim guy who tried to behead that person in the tube station in Leytonstone. It was clear he was mentally ill and so the media portrayed him as such and did not call it a terrorist attack.

    Besides, if this imagined agenda against Muslims in the media actually existed, do you think loads of them would do that cringe-worthy thing they do of calling ISIS "the so-called Islamic State" in an effort to make people think they have nothing to do with Islam? Do you think they would participate in the cover up of the constant rape and sex-trafficking of thousands of girls well-under 16 across the country by gangs made up exclusively of Muslims just because the perpetrators were Muslim?

    Plus look at the Orlando shooting for example. The dominant narrative is to talk about guns and much of the media has been trying to push a view that somehow the homophobic stance pushed by the Christian right in America is to blame.....even though the shooter declared allegiance to ISIS, his local mosque invited imams as guest speakers who state that all gays must die and the guy's Afghan father having similar views. Basically everything possible to distance it and him from Islam and from Muslims. Yeah, looks like there's an anti-Muslim agenda here.

    Finally, here are articles describing white supremacist Anders Brevik as a terrorist:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-like-al-qaida

    https://www.rt.com/news/334435-breiv...ment-rejected/

    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/15/eu...eivik-lawsuit/

    http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/...c2bdcab7fb6730

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14260297

    Even the Daily Mail which apparently is wayciss according to people:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-inhuman.html

    Even on TV:

    https://www.facebook.com/Channel4New...3590173691939/

    Why was I able to find all these in 30 seconds in the first couple of pages in Google if the media do not label white people as terrorists? Why are there countless more that I didn't link? B b b bb but muh victimhood.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    There's more than one motive?

    Let's be honest,if it was a Muslim they would've already declared it a terrorist attack. Anyway wasn't this guy politically motivated and part of right wing extremist groups?
    This didn't happen when the mentally ill Muslim guy who tried to behead that person in Leytonstone (of the "you ain't no Muslim, Bruv" fame), even though he was found to have photos of terrorists and terrorist victims on his phone and that he allegedly did it in revenge for UK's actions in Muslim countries, shouting "you attack our land, our Muslim land."

    He was insane and the media portrayed him as such as opposed to going with the terrorist angle.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Yeah! And why didn't they call Anders Brevik or the IRA terrorists? What's that? They did? Idiot.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Of course you can. Saying 'put Britain first' is clearly indicative of a politically held opinion and belief.
    Indeed. Just because he was mad doesn't mean it wasn't a terrorist attack. He targeted this person on the basis of her political views being the antithesis of his. Whether he shouted the name of the group Britain First is neither here nor there. In court today he gave his name as "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain" for goodness sake.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ~scorpio~)
    Because the media is controlled by Zionists that's why
    Here we go. There's always one isn't there?

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tagliatilly)
    I really hope you read all of this and educate yourself.

    1. 'Muslamics are told to commit terrorist attacks by their holy scriptures'. This is completely incorrect, there is nothing in the Quran telling Muslims to commit acts of terrorism. Islam is a peaceful religion, but so-called Islamic extremists completely twist the religion into something it isn't. They are not influenced to be violent by anything in their holy scriptures. I'd like to see your evidence from the Quran that it tells Muslims to be terrorists?.
    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_o...rorist_attacks

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

    All religions are bad.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 23, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.