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

This is why the shooting of Jo Cox isn't seen as a 'terrorist attack.' watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of people on this forum seem to be arguing that MP Jo Cox's slaying by Thomas Mair was an act of terror. Their justification given for this is that he killed for his political beliefs. He was a supporter of the far right, possibly yelled something to the effect of "put Britain first," and later implied in court that Cox was a traitor.

    However, killing someone because of your political beliefs is not necessarily always going to be 'terrorism.' It's not that simple, and there isn't even a universally agreed upon definition. Indeed, Mair isn't actually facing terror charges, so the Crown evidently doesn't even see this as an act of terror either (not just the papers).

    What occurred last week was the targeted assassination of a politician by a perhaps politically motivated but mentally ill individual acting on his own behalf. Lee Harvey Oswald's shooting of John F. Kennedy suddenly springs to mind, which I bet most of you don't think of as a terrorist attack.

    People are also making comparisons between Cox's murder and the attack in Orlando, and arguing that it seems we are reluctant to call anyone but Muslims terrorists. Yes, it is true some sources called the Orlando attack a terror attack before ISIS were in the picture. Nevertheless, the shooting was different in nature. Importantly, it was an attack on the public by a man who was on a terror watch list and acting in the name of a widely known terrorist organisation.

    Concerning the supposed double standard of white non-Muslims not being called terrorists, consider Anders Breivik (he was called a terrorist and faced terror charges), the IRA (perhaps outdated, but are still regarded as terrorists today), and anti-abortion terrorism in the US (which is also regarded as a form of terrorism and is indeed called this in the news). Secondly, not all Muslims who kill people are called terrorists. They, like people in other demographics, commit murder, and most of the time they are simply regarded as murderers. But these are crimes that don't make big headlines. Secondly, honour killings, for example, involve people killing for religious (usually Islamic) reasons - these are not widely called acts of terror, even in Western nations.

    'Terrorism' these days is usually regarded as something more systematic, organized and catastrophic to the public than a lone, deluded gunman taking out a politician. Hence Islamist attackers are more often regarded as terrorists.

    TL;DR: not every politically motivated murder is a 'terrorist attack,' not every mass shooting is a 'terrorist attack,' and not every Muslim that kills someone gets called a terrorist.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's the start of a revolution
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'm gonna bump this...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    "This is why we have double standards"
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  2016-06-19-20-00-36-1027952908.jpg
Views: 117
Size:  6.5 KB
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    A lot of people on this forum seem to be arguing that MP Jo Cox's slaying by Thomas Mair was an act of terror. Their justification given for this is that he killed for his political beliefs. He was a supporter of the far right, possibly yelled something to the effect of "put Britain first," and later implied in court that Cox was a traitor.

    However, killing someone because of your political beliefs is not necessarily always going to be 'terrorism.' It's not that simple, and there isn't even a universally agreed upon definition. Indeed, Mair isn't actually facing terror charges, so the Crown evidently doesn't even see this as an act of terror either (not just the papers).

    What occurred last week was the targeted assassination of a politician by a perhaps politically motivated but mentally ill individual acting on his own behalf. Lee Harvey Oswald's shooting of John F. Kennedy suddenly springs to mind, which I bet most of you don't think of as a terrorist attack.

    People are also making comparisons between Cox's murder and the attack in Orlando, and arguing that it seems we are reluctant to call anyone but Muslims terrorists. Yes, it is true some sources called the Orlando attack a terror attack before ISIS were in the picture. Nevertheless, the shooting was different in nature. Importantly, it was an attack on the public by a man who was on a terror watch list and acting in the name of a widely known terrorist organisation.

    Concerning the supposed double standard of white non-Muslims not being called terrorists, consider Anders Breivik (he was called a terrorist and faced terror charges), the IRA (perhaps outdated, but are still regarded as terrorists today), and anti-abortion terrorism in the US (which is also regarded as a form of terrorism and is indeed called this in the news). Secondly, not all Muslims who kill people are called terrorists. They, like people in other demographics, commit murder, and most of the time they are simply regarded as murderers. But these are crimes that don't make big headlines. Secondly, honour killings, for example, involve people killing for religious (usually Islamic) reasons - these are not widely called acts of terror, even in Western nations.

    'Terrorism' these days is usually regarded as something more systematic, organized and catastrophic to the public than a lone, deluded gunman taking out a politician. Hence Islamist attackers are more often regarded as terrorists.

    TL;DR: not every politically motivated murder is a 'terrorist attack,' not every mass shooting is a 'terrorist attack,' and not every Muslim that kills someone gets called a terrorist.
    What do you mean exactly by treated?
    You can treat it as a terrorist attack.
    I do not.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    TL;DR: not every politically motivated murder is a 'terrorist attack,' not every mass shooting is a 'terrorist attack,' and not every Muslim that kills someone gets called a terrorist.
    True. The guy who travelled to Scotland to shoot the shopkeeper for religious reasons wasn't labelled a "terrorist".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    A lot of people on this forum seem to be arguing that MP Jo Cox's slaying by Thomas Mair was an act of terror. Their justification given for this is that he killed for his political beliefs. He was a supporter of the far right, possibly yelled something to the effect of "put Britain first," and later implied in court that Cox was a traitor.

    However, killing someone because of your political beliefs is not necessarily always going to be 'terrorism.' It's not that simple, and there isn't even a universally agreed upon definition. Indeed, Mair isn't actually facing terror charges, so the Crown evidently doesn't even see this as an act of terror either (not just the papers).

    What occurred last week was the targeted assassination of a politician by a perhaps politically motivated but mentally ill individual acting on his own behalf. Lee Harvey Oswald's shooting of John F. Kennedy suddenly springs to mind, which I bet most of you don't think of as a terrorist attack.

    People are also making comparisons between Cox's murder and the attack in Orlando, and arguing that it seems we are reluctant to call anyone but Muslims terrorists. Yes, it is true some sources called the Orlando attack a terror attack before ISIS were in the picture. Nevertheless, the shooting was different in nature. Importantly, it was an attack on the public by a man who was on a terror watch list and acting in the name of a widely known terrorist organisation.

    Concerning the supposed double standard of white non-Muslims not being called terrorists, consider Anders Breivik (he was called a terrorist and faced terror charges), the IRA (perhaps outdated, but are still regarded as terrorists today), and anti-abortion terrorism in the US (which is also regarded as a form of terrorism and is indeed called this in the news). Secondly, not all Muslims who kill people are called terrorists. They, like people in other demographics, commit murder, and most of the time they are simply regarded as murderers. But these are crimes that don't make big headlines. Secondly, honour killings, for example, involve people killing for religious (usually Islamic) reasons - these are not widely called acts of terror, even in Western nations.

    'Terrorism' these days is usually regarded as something more systematic, organized and catastrophic to the public than a lone, deluded gunman taking out a politician. Hence Islamist attackers are more often regarded as terrorists.

    TL;DR: not every politically motivated murder is a 'terrorist attack,' not every mass shooting is a 'terrorist attack,' and not every Muslim that kills someone gets called a terrorist.

    Incorrect.

    (Original post by Carpe Diem Jay)
    Name:  2016-06-19-20-00-36-1027952908.jpg
Views: 117
Size:  6.5 KB


    Exactly. It;s not a terrorist attack because according to the media, only ethnic minorities can be terrorists.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Esoteric-)
    Exactly. It;s not a terrorist attack because according to the media, only ethnic minorities can be terrorists.
    Then why are most mainstream media souces describing it as "political extremism"?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Are you really trying to justify the malicious attack she endured? She was murdered brutally in broad day light whilst on duty.
    Offline

    15
    OK let me just put this out there.

    Before ISIS almost every Muslim that used to commit a crime were quickly associated to either the Taliban or Al-Qaida by the media.

    Now those names are ALMOST outdated and like history....

    And so the one that is mostly spoken about now are ISIS.....sooooo......do I have to say it?.......now almost any Muslim that will commit a crime will be very likely to be associated with....ISIS....by the media..hence terrorism.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Bloody amazing, tired of the Muslims who are crying out inequality, racism and double standards whenever they get called a terrorist.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The guys who beheaded Lee Rigby were not charged with terrorism either iirc. (Not that i agree with either)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samina_ay)
    Are you really trying to justify the malicious attack she endured? She was murdered brutally in broad day light whilst on duty.
    Err, no. What on Earth gave you the impression that I was trying to justify it??
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with all of your points except your main one. I think this guy was a terrorist.

    Mair wasn't really interested in Cox, but what she represented. I think the purpose of the attack seems to have been to intimidate all those who stand for what she represented. Attacks on presidents are different. They're usually done with the purpose of simply getting rid of the president. But this likely was not Mair's motive; rather, he wanted to initiate a conflict, and intimidate those he wanted to have a conflict with. I'd say that's terrorism.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    A lot of people on this forum seem to be arguing that MP Jo Cox's slaying by Thomas Mair was an act of terror. Their justification given for this is that he killed for his political beliefs. He was a supporter of the far right, possibly yelled something to the effect of "put Britain first," and later implied in court that Cox was a traitor.

    However, killing someone because of your political beliefs is not necessarily always going to be 'terrorism.' It's not that simple, and there isn't even a universally agreed upon definition. Indeed, Mair isn't actually facing terror charges, so the Crown evidently doesn't even see this as an act of terror either (not just the papers).

    What occurred last week was the targeted assassination of a politician by a perhaps politically motivated but mentally ill individual acting on his own behalf. Lee Harvey Oswald's shooting of John F. Kennedy suddenly springs to mind, which I bet most of you don't think of as a terrorist attack.

    People are also making comparisons between Cox's murder and the attack in Orlando, and arguing that it seems we are reluctant to call anyone but Muslims terrorists. Yes, it is true some sources called the Orlando attack a terror attack before ISIS were in the picture. Nevertheless, the shooting was different in nature. Importantly, it was an attack on the public by a man who was on a terror watch list and acting in the name of a widely known terrorist organisation.

    Concerning the supposed double standard of white non-Muslims not being called terrorists, consider Anders Breivik (he was called a terrorist and faced terror charges), the IRA (perhaps outdated, but are still regarded as terrorists today), and anti-abortion terrorism in the US (which is also regarded as a form of terrorism and is indeed called this in the news). Secondly, not all Muslims who kill people are called terrorists. They, like people in other demographics, commit murder, and most of the time they are simply regarded as murderers. But these are crimes that don't make big headlines. Secondly, honour killings, for example, involve people killing for religious (usually Islamic) reasons - these are not widely called acts of terror, even in Western nations.

    'Terrorism' these days is usually regarded as something more systematic, organized and catastrophic to the public than a lone, deluded gunman taking out a politician. Hence Islamist attackers are more often regarded as terrorists.

    TL;DR: not every politically motivated murder is a 'terrorist attack,' not every mass shooting is a 'terrorist attack,' and not every Muslim that kills someone gets called a terrorist.
    you mean the conspired shambles of an assassination committed by multiple shooters and planned by the CIA to be honest this killing has a huge amount of the same issues within it with paper and tv confusing stories more and more it is looking rather like the pm could have done this to distract everyone from the referendum and make the leave campaign look evil i mean it has no real holes in it so it is quite plasible
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samina_ay)
    Are you really trying to justify the malicious attack she endured? She was murdered brutally in broad day light whilst on duty.
    No, clearly not. What a horrible bit of sensationalist hyperbole. Been reading too much Comment is Free?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    I agree with all of your points except your main one. I think this guy was a terrorist.

    Mair wasn't really interested in Cox, but what she represented. I think the purpose of the attack seems to have been to intimidate all those who stand for what she represented. Attacks on presidents are different. They're usually done with the purpose of simply getting rid of the president. But this likely was not Mair's motive; rather, he wanted to initiate a conflict, and intimidate those he wanted to have a conflict with. I'd say that's terrorism.
    You're in his head already?

    Attacks on presidents can be done for all sorts of reasons - political motives among them. These actions are assassins of politicians, usually by lone lunatics, as it was with Jo Cox Go, God rest her soul.

    Keep calling him a terrorist all you like, but the Crown, the police, the papers, and I (the absolute authority on everything, I'll have you know) don't seem to agree with you.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Exactly the point I was trying to make earlier today.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Not every muslim that kills someone is called terrorist? By 'not every' you probably mean 1% or even less. Face it, there are double standards. Whenever there is a white 'attacker' on the rampage they almost always seem to get diagnosed with some 'mental health' condition.

    There is clearly some islamophobia and racism in this thread.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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

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