The Student Room Group

How the Jo Cox and Orlando acts of terror are similar

The left will use the Jo Cox killing against the right, just as the right used Orlando against the left. But this is odd, because while the Jo Cox killer was certainly an ultra-conservative headcase, the Orlando shooter was no liberal headcase. No, in fact he was ultra-conservative as well, but simply a brand of ultra-conservative that is bizarrely mollycoddled by the left: the radical Islamist brand. Really, although these two stains on humanity may have been at odds with each other, they were very similar. Both a couple headcases committing terrorist attacks in the name of authoritarian, totalitarian ultra-conservative beliefs.

The world needs less of these people, and if you value liberalism you should stand against such intolerance.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Writing something moderate and reasonable won't get you much attention on here I realise. Has to display that hardcore allegiance with the most monolithic sections of the left or right wing.
Reply 2
Original post by KingBradly
Writing something moderate and reasonable won't get you much attention on here I realise. Has to display that hardcore allegiance with the most monolithic sections of the left or right wing.


Good points King!
Original post by KingBradly
The left will use the Jo Cox killing against the right, just as the right used Orlando against the left. But this is odd, because while the Jo Cox killer was certainly an ultra-conservative headcase, the Orlando shooter was no liberal headcase. No, in fact he was ultra-conservative as well, but simply a brand of ultra-conservative that is bizarrely mollycoddled by the left: the radical Islamist brand. Really, although these two stains on humanity may have been at odds with each other, they were very similar. Both a couple headcases committing terrorist attacks in the name of authoritarian, totalitarian ultra-conservative beliefs.

The world needs less of these people, and if you value liberalism you should stand against such intolerance.


Do you honestly think that the left "mollycoddle" Islamic extremists? Are you kidding me?
Uurgh, let's refrain from calling it a terrorist attack. He hasn't even been charged with anything along those lines (Cox's killer).

He was some lone lunatic who killed a politician because of radical delusions he had. It was an assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald-style. It wasn't like the IRA or al-Quieda set off a car bomb...

A lot of murderers and assassins have agendas - social, political or religious. But that doesn't automatically make what they do acts of terror. We're throwing the word out too often. Even the Orlando shooting was barely a terrorist attack, if you ask me.
Reply 5
Original post by george_c00per
Do you honestly think that the left "mollycoddle" Islamic extremists? Are you kidding me?


A section of the left would love it if people ignored Islamic extremism.


Original post by Dandaman1
Uurgh, let's refrain from calling it a terrorist attack. He hasn't even been charged with anything along those lines (Cox's killer).

He was some lone lunatic who killed a politician because of radical delusions he had. It was an assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald-style. It wasn't like the IRA or al-Quieda set off a car bomb...

A lot of murderers and assassins have agendas - social, political or religious. But that doesn't automatically make what they do acts of terror. We're throwing the word out too often. Even the Orlando shooting was barely a terrorist attack, if you ask me.


I think if the intention is to terrorize, which it very much seems to be, then it can be considered a terrorist attack.

Funny how a viewpoint which doesn't pander to either side of the political spectrum will bother people from both sides. If something manages to lightly annoy people from opposing sides of an argument, I believe it's usually got some truth to it.
Original post by KingBradly
A section of the left would love it if people ignored Islamic extremism.


Which "section", may I ask?
Original post by Dandaman1
Uurgh, let's refrain from calling it a terrorist attack. He hasn't even been charged with anything along those lines (Cox's killer).

He was some lone lunatic who killed a politician because of radical delusions he had. It was an assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald-style. It wasn't like the IRA or al-Quieda set off a car bomb...

A lot of murderers and assassins have agendas - social, political or religious. But that doesn't automatically make what they do acts of terror. We're throwing the word out too often. Even the Orlando shooting was barely a terrorist attack, if you ask me.

He was a terrorist. His attack on an MP was a direct attack against democracy; indeed, both attacks were against democracy and freedom.

Attacks do not need to be organised and part of a group agenda to be considered terror.
Reply 8
Original post by george_c00per
Which "section", may I ask?


Even Obama refused to make a connection between the Orlando killer and extremist Islam.
If you spend all your time arguing about how a word should be defined you are, in general, wasting yourself and everyone else's time.

If we say that 'terrorism' means 'an attack as part of a movement or organisation to instil fear as a means to a political end', neither was a terrorist attack.

If we say that it means 'a politically motivated attack' and nothing more, then probably both were 'terrorist attacks', but that rather reduces the meaning of the word 'terrorism'.

Whilst one may, in my view, be more useful than the other, each is as correct as the other, making the argument over whether an attack was 'terrorism' or not a complete waste of time.

Either way, it can certainly be said that they were similar attacks: lone nutjobs taking it upon themselves to attack people they hated. Beyond that there's not much point in arguing about it.
Reply 10
Original post by TimmonaPortella
If you spend all your time arguing about how a word should be defined you are, in general, wasting yourself and everyone else's time.

If we say that 'terrorism' means 'an attack as part of a movement or organisation to instil fear as a means to a political end', neither was a terrorist attack.

If we say that it means 'a politically motivated attack' and nothing more, then probably both were 'terrorist attacks', but that rather reduces the meaning of the word 'terrorism'.

Whilst one may, in my view, be more useful than the other, each is as correct as the other, making the argument over whether an attack was 'terrorism' or not a complete waste of time.

Either way, it can certainly be said that they were similar attacks: lone nutjobs taking it upon themselves to attack people they hated. Beyond that there's not much point in arguing about it.


I mean, touchè, but this hardly has much to do with the main point I was making in my OP.
Original post by KingBradly
I mean, touchè, but this hardly has much to do with the main point I was making in my OP.


Sorry, I wasn't particularly aiming that at you. Your OP was entirely sensible and substantive. Some posters have made comments like those I was criticising, though, and I think sometimes it needs to be pointed out when a discussion is headed in a completely pointless direction.
Original post by george_c00per
Do you honestly think that the left "mollycoddle" Islamic extremists? Are you kidding me?


Yes (though by "left" I simply am referring to what other people generally use that word to refer to.)

(A bit harsh but the first thought that came to mind) you clearly haven't met enough people (a bit biased here, and I have a small sample size and this is arbitrary. But I think it's easily extrapolate-able to the rest of the population that is young in this country.)

I've mentioned this before and I'll mention it again; many people reduce terrorists and extremists to mere "delinquents". I don't think they actually comprehend the severity of what they'd do, or they feel responsible or they'd try shoulder the pain and guilt of the world on them, seemingly obnoxious to the well-being of those around them.

Original post by IFoundWonderland
He was a terrorist. His attack on an MP was a direct attack against democracy; indeed, both attacks were against democracy and freedom.

Attacks do not need to be organised and part of a group agenda to be considered terror.


How was the assassination of this MP a direct attack against our democracy?

How were both attacks attacks against our democracy?

I think you need to look at the intent.

Original post by TimmonaPortella
If you spend all your time arguing about how a word should be defined you are, in general, wasting yourself and everyone else's time.

If we say that 'terrorism' means 'an attack as part of a movement or organisation to instil fear as a means to a political end', neither was a terrorist attack.

If we say that it means 'a politically motivated attack' and nothing more, then probably both were 'terrorist attacks', but that rather reduces the meaning of the word 'terrorism'.

Whilst one may, in my view, be more useful than the other, each is as correct as the other, making the argument over whether an attack was 'terrorism' or not a complete waste of time.

Either way, it can certainly be said that they were similar attacks: lone nutjobs taking it upon themselves to attack people they hated. Beyond that there's not much point in arguing about it.


No, semantics are important; otherwise it'd be misleading.

(p.s. I know you didn't say they were unimportant, but I don't therefore think it's right to criticise or disincline/deter him and/or his efforts.)
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by XcitingStuart


No, semantics are important; otherwise it'd be misleading.


It's important that you define your words clearly. Arguing over which is the 'right' definition, on the other hand, gets you nowhere.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
It's important that you define your words clearly. Arguing over which is the 'right' definition, on the other hand, gets you nowhere.


I'm pretty sure "acts of terror"/"terrorism" are supposed to instill "terror", or fear.

I'm pretty sure the act requires intent to instill fear (just by my understanding of the English language and that word's usage.)


Whilst one may, in my view, be more useful than the other, each is as correct as the other, making the argument over whether an attack was 'terrorism' or not a complete waste of time.

Either way, it can certainly be said that they were similar attacks: lone nutjobs taking it upon themselves to attack people they hated. Beyond that there's not much point in arguing about it.


I wouldn't say each is as correct as each other; I'd say the meaning with the more frequent usage is correct (where the meanings are mutually exclusive / conflict), and I'm not against drawing a line somewhere.

Depending on the reasonings of said attacks, there is a point in discussing and arguing about it.
And again saying they are "acts of terror" / "direct attacks against our democracy" (like another user did) usw. usf. are misleading.
Reply 15
How exactly are you going to stand against this intolerance? By changing your display picture on Facebook? By going for a march holding a rainbow sign? How about euthanising people with mental health issues? Or banning all political and religious ideologies that can result in radicalism?

The problem isn't with the system, the problem is with people. Freedom allows good people to do good things, and bad people to do bad things. You can't have it one way or the other.
Reply 16
Original post by FCB
How exactly are you going to stand against this intolerance? By changing your display picture on Facebook? By going for a march holding a rainbow sign? How about euthanising people with mental health issues? Or banning all political and religious ideologies that can result in radicalism?

The problem isn't with the system, the problem is with people. Freedom allows good people to do good things, and bad people to do bad things. You can't have it one way or the other.



I've no idea what point you are trying to make. Disregarding whatever you're trying to say about "freedom", killing people is highly illegal.

A good start would be if people who call themselves 'liberals' actually felt some kind of attachment to, urm, liberalism. As it stands, it sometimes seems like they'd willfully allow any kind of ultra-conservative tyranny to rule society, as long as those enforcing it were ever critcised or shown in a bad light by right-wing media sources.
Original post by KingBradly
The world needs less of these people


This

... I for one would like everything to stop throwing fancy words / ideologies / political stances around and at the end of the day appreciate that there is more good to come from working together to eliminate ***** from the world
Reply 18
Original post by Mathemagicien
Aren't you describing libertarianism, not liberalism?


Any kind of liberalism that isn't the so-called liberalism that authoritarian leftists haven't hijacked the name of.
Reply 19
Original post by KingBradly
Any kind of liberalism that isn't the so-called liberalism that authoritarian leftists haven't hijacked the name of.


Do you read your posts before you click submit, or do you just enjoy trying to sound edgy?

Quick Reply

Latest