Labour MP shot

[The Railway Man]

Surely nobody can deny this is an act of terrorism now?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2016/jun/17/martin-rowson-on-the-killing-of-jo-cox-cartoon?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

Surely we should be refusing to name it Far-Right terrorism incase we offend & alienate those on the political Right who aren't terrorists?

[Merging Cultures]

I believe a terrorist act is defined by overriding motives of a political nature and there are strong indications in the public domain this could be the case here - unlike, say the murder of Jill Dando which would be an example of your later description.

Terroroism is ideological and political in nature, with the aim of trying to change policy through coercion. A one off murder of an MP is not going to change policy as it does not represent a significant ongoing threat to other politicians.

So while his motives may have been to change policy, it was just never going to happen, and his logic was obviously lacking. While some nasty tweets by some idiots in the north will be investigated and they should have the book thrown at them, there isn't an agenda to use violence to force policy change, which is what terrorism is.

[Jimothy]

Terroroism is ideological and political in nature, with the aim of trying to change policy through coercion. A one off murder of an MP is not going to change policy as it does not represent a significant ongoing threat to other politicians.

So while his motives may have been to change policy, it was just never going to happen, and his logic was obviously lacking. While some nasty tweets by some idiots in the north will be investigated and they should have the book thrown at them, there isn't an agenda to use violence to force policy change, which is what terrorism is.

I'm not sure you can not label it terrorism because the man lacked logic. If his intention was to change policy, as unlikely as that may be, he still tried, so it's still an act of terror. I mean you could say the attacks on Paris were extremist Muslim attempting to rid the world of infidels and force all to live in a way they believe. It's never going to happen, so their logic is flawed too, but I was still terrorism.

[Merging Cultures]

I'm not sure you can not label it terrorism because the man lacked logic. If his intention was to change policy, as unlikely as that may be, he still tried, so it's still an act of terror. I mean you could say the attacks on Paris were extremist Muslim attempting to rid the world of infidels and force all to live in a way they believe. It's never going to happen, so their logic is flawed too, but I was still terrorism.

I struggle with a one off event being labeled as terrorism, or the person as a terrorist.

People associating themselves with IS, or similar groups that are inciting violence to coerce political change are terrorists. They strike fear into society and actually could force action by a government, and changes in behaviour by the population.

The Paris attacks were part of a broader narrative, that has ongoing security implications. That is terrorism.

[Jimothy]

Surely we should be refusing to name it Far-Right terrorism incase we offend & alienate those on the political Right who aren't terrorists?

I see the point you're trying to make, but when has anyone ever said we shouldn't label extremist Muslims as terrorist? The point that's always made is the we shouldn't label all Muslims as terrorists, and in this case we shouldn't label all brexiters and all people on the far right right as terrorist. I'm hoping it's going to make some people, who held similar views to this guy, that when they call out all of Islam as terrorist after an attack, it's exactly the same as calling them out as one now.

What is does highlight is that people on all sides of the political spectrum need to think about what they say. If you can label some hate preachers on one side, then people need to realise that some of the things the likes of Farage say or do is borderline hate preaching too, and that can inadvertently have consequences.

[Jimothy]

I struggle with a one off event being labeled as terrorism, or the person as a terrorist.

People associating themselves with IS, or similar groups that are inciting violence to coerce political change are terrorists. They strike fear into society and actually could force action by a government, and changes in behaviour by the population.

The Paris attacks were part of a broader narrative, that has ongoing security implications. That is terrorism.

Omar Mateen has been labelled a terrorist. He apparently followed IS, but wasn't a member, like Tommy Mair with Britains first. He was alone, and I'm not sure what policy or behaviour change he was trying to force by shooting up a gay nightclub, because people will still go to them, and the state won't start banning homosexuality.

He as much a terrorist as Omar Mateen, and I don't see anybody questioning his label.

Either way, terrorist label or not, anyone trying to excuse him through mental health concerns is a joke. He was a hate filled man who murdered someone for their beliefs.

[Thracian]

The man is hate filled terrorist, stop trying to make excuses for him.

Over the last few days we've heard how he had a broken relationship with his mum and lived alone, as though that was enough to label him mentally ill. I had a broken relationship with my late father and I live alone, but I'm not going out shooting mps who are supporting leaving the EU.

He might not be right in the head, but let's be honest, anyone who thinks that it's right to pick up a firearm and kill one or a thousand people isn't right in the head. At the end of the day he had a belief, and fueled by hate of someone who disagreed with him decided he needed to kill someone to further his cause.

 

You should read more - even Sky News referred to a man called Mair having help from an organatision dedicated to helping people with mental problems.

 

And where/how exactly have I made excuses for anyone?

 

It's the making of excuses for clearly dangerous or reactionarily unbalanced people - in court or by experts in other situations - that puts people in such dreadful danger and I clearly refer to that.

 

For me it is a great pity our society so often fails to take nececessary action before it's too late.

 

If they had done, Jo Cox would probably still be alive whether she was killed by "a terrorist", "a man with delusional mental problems" or the kind of person who might well be both because it's seemed to me for a long time, that the two things go together.   

[Jimothy]

You should read more - even Sky News referred to his having help from an organatision dedicated to helping people with mental problems.

And where/how exactly have I made excuses for anyone?

It's the making of excuses for clearly dangerous or reactionarily unbalanced people - in court or by experts in other situations - that puts people in such dreadful danger and I clearly refer to that.

For me it is a great pity our society so often fails to take nececessary action before it's too late.

If they had done, Jo Cox would still be alive whether she was killed by "a terrorist", "a man with delusional mental problems" or the kind of person who might well be both because it's seemed to me for a long time, that the two things go together.

Lots of people have help, they don't pick up a gun and kill someone because they believe in something they don't.

Unless he spent his days in straight jacket, rocking in the corner of a padded room, I'm not sure having a few people help you through a few emotional struggles as a reason to find reason for him doing what he did. Despite seeing people, they clearly felt he was stable enough to be part of society, so what more are you suggesting could be done?

Whatever his "troubles" he killed for hate. I think Alex Brooker made a good point last night. We're always careful what we say in front of kids because they're easily led, but we need to understand there are easily led adults too. There's been a lot of hate thrown around recently, I don't think we can underestimate the effect in this case.

[Thracian]

It's the double standard as mentioned earlier in the thread, FC. The one that people try to deny exists.

 

 

 

What sort of wacko would deny that anyone who committed the kind of crime that killed Jo Cox was "hate-filled"? 

 

Is it even up for debate?

[Merging Cultures]

Omar Mateen has been labelled a terrorist. He apparently followed IS, but wasn't a member, like Tommy Mair with Britains first. He was alone, and I'm not sure what policy or behaviour change he was trying to force by shooting up a gay nightclub, because people will still go to them, and the state won't start banning homosexuality.

He as much a terrorist as Omar Mateen, and I don't see anybody questioning his label.

Either way, terrorist label or not, anyone trying to excuse him through mental health concerns is a joke. He was a hate filled man who murdered someone for their beliefs.

Read what you are saying.

Omar Mateen followed IS. He isn't alone. IS have an agenda to promote violence against western culture to try and force their way of life on everybody. They want to use violence to coerce governments into political change. The very definition of terrorism.

Every time someone like Mateen commits a violent act against unsuspecting people, they instil fear in people. When they lose their life or are jailed, they are seen as martyrs, there are people who step up and continue the violence to create more fear and put further pressure on Government for change.

Tommy Mair follows Britain First. Britain First do not have an agenda of violence to coerce governments into political change. No one is ready to take over his violent agenda. There is no more fear, no pressure on Government for change.

He certainly was hate filled, why he was hate filled doesn't matter. But to prevent such murders in the future, the reasons why he was hate filled needs to be understood. The same with the Mateen's, Rigby killers etc. So it is worthwhile discussing mental health, socioeconomic exclusion, indoctrination and other concerns.

[Thracian]

He might not be right in the head, but let's be honest, anyone who thinks that it's right to pick up a firearm and kill one or a thousand people isn't right in the head. At the end of the day he had a belief, and fueled by hate of someone who disagreed with him decided he needed to kill someone to further his cause.

 

Yes, I'm all for honesty and have read about a lot of people like the ones you mention these last few years - everywhere from Iraq to Nigeria and in all sorts of other directions besides. 

 

If you want a sample, just ask and I'll send you a link. If you can find anything worse in the annals of human shame by all means let me know.

 

So much for having different beliefs! 

[Jimothy]

Read what you are saying.

Omar Mateen followed IS. He isn't alone. IS have an agenda to promote violence against western culture to try and force their way of life on everybody. They want to use violence to coerce governments into political change. The very definition of terrorism.

Every time someone like Mateen commits a violent act against unsuspecting people, they instil fear in people. When they lose their life or are jailed, they are seen as martyrs, there are people who step up and continue the violence to create more fear and put further pressure on Government for change.

Tommy Mair follows Britain First. Britain First do not have an agenda of violence to coerce governments into political change. No one is ready to take over his violent agenda. There is no more fear, no pressure on Government for change.

He certainly was hate filled, why he was hate filled doesn't matter. But to prevent such murders in the future, the reasons why he was hate filled needs to be understood. The same with the Mateen's, Rigby killers etc. So it is worthwhile discussing mental health, socioeconomic exclusion, indoctrination and other concerns.

I was going reply directly, but I had just read this article and thought it summed it up pretty well.

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/17/why-is-the-killer-of-british-mp-jo-cox-not-being-called-a-terrorist/

[Jimothy]

Yes, I'm all for honesty and have read about a lot of people like the ones you mention these last few years - everywhere from Iraq to Nigeria and in all sorts of other directions besides.

If you want a sample, key in Conservativetribune.com Muslim Slaughterhouse. The video's well down the page. If you can find anything worse in the annals of human shame by all means let me know.

Or are you "hatred" references merely selective, according to your own views?

No I'm looking for some balance in the use of reference to hatred and terrorism, something you seem to struggle with.

Anyone who kills for their beliefs is as bad as another, whether they are white, black, Christian, Muslim or even a member of the bloody Monster Raving Loony party.

[leicsmac]

What sort of wacko would deny that anyone who committed the kind of crime that killed Jo Cox was "hate-filled"?

Is it even up for debate?

Not that. I'm talking about the double standard that means people who kill in the name of one ideology are all unflinching, sociopathic terrorists all linked together in one vast network of hate and obvious political goals, while people who kill in the name of another are all mentally ill nutjobs who aren't associated with each other and really don't do things to push a political agenda.

Sorry for having to spell it out again even though it was covered earlier in this thread.

[leicsmac]

No I'm looking for some balance in the use of reference to hatred and terrorism, something you seem to struggle with.

Anyone who kills for their beliefs is as bad as another, whether they are white, black, Christian, Muslim or even a member of the bloody Monster Raving Loony party.

And this is what I've been trying to say this whole thread.

But people simply refuse to see the equivalence.

[Thracian]

No I'm looking for some balance in the use of reference to hatred and terrorism, something you seem to struggle with.

Anyone who kills for their beliefs is as bad as another, whether they are white, black, Christian, Muslim or even a member of the bloody Monster Raving Loony party.

 

Whatever you think I might struggle with, I don't willingly avoid the truth and live in denial. Turn up the link and see what "shameful" can be. I'm sure you'll recover.

 

I opposed the Iraq war vehemently and unambiguously. I've never sanctioned the killing or harming of anyone, anywhere. I've changed my faith because the manipulating of people through man-made religion came to disgust me.

 

 I might be passionate but I've no problem realising that you'll never find balance in people who are coerced into following anyone else's doctrine.  

 

It's not just killing people that's "bad". It's seeking to control their minds by whatever means, instilling them with fear, claiming the truth of something when the truth isn't really known.

 

"Bad" is manipulating people for your own ideological and other purposes, taking advantage of them, denying them free choice, free movement, free thought, even free love and forcing or persuading them to impose your views on others.

 

"Bad" is failing to recognise evil in people through a refusal to open your eyes...the sort of bad that likely got Jo Cox killed, and so many others in different scenarios.

 

.  

[Merging Cultures]

Not that. I'm talking about the double standard that means people who kill in the name of one ideology are all unflinching, sociopathic terrorists all linked together in one vast network of hate and obvious political goals, while people who kill in the name of another are all mentally ill nutjobs who aren't associated with each other and really don't do things to push a political agenda.

Sorry for having to spell it out again even though it was covered earlier in this thread.

In the case of terrorists who align themselves with IS, they clearly are linked together under a vast network of hate. And IS have a clear agenda to eradicate our culture through violence. There can't be denying that. They are also actively recruiting, indoctrinating and educating people into their network with the soul purpose of having them commit violence.

There is hatred with the Britain First types of people, but there is not an agenda of violence. They'd be quickly locked up if they promoted that. Therefore, anyone acting violently is acting on their own. They may want to push a political agenda, but it's absolutely useless. For that to be effective, there has to be an ongoing threat. This was a one off event, there is no state of fear around this. Britain First are not recruiting people to commit murder, they don't promote violence nor condone it as a means to meet their political aims (at least publicly of course).

[Jimothy]

Whatever you think I might struggle with, I don't willingly avoid the truth and live in denial. Turn up the link and see what "shameful" can be. I'm sure you'll recover.

I opposed the Iraq war vehemently and unambiguously. I've never sanctioned the killing or harming of anyone, anywhere. I've changed my faith because the manipulating of people through man-made religion came to disgust me.

I might be passionate but I've no problem realising that you'll never find balance in people who are coerced into following anyone else's doctrine.

It's not just killing people that's "bad". It's seeking to control their minds by whatever means, instilling them with fear, claiming the truth of something when the truth isn't really known.

"Bad" is manipulating people for your own ideological and other purposes, taking advantage of them, denying them free choice, free movement, free thought, even free love and forcing or persuading them to impose your views on others.

"Bad" is failing to recognise evil in people through a refusal to open your eyes...the sort of bad that likely got Jo Cox killed, and so many others in different scenarios.

.

You're willingly avoiding the truth that a white non Muslim man could be a terrorist and that his politically motivated killing could be anything other than down to his mental problem. I read no further than paragraph one after you said that.

You've got where people like me and Mac stand on this totally backwards, as you seem to think we're trying to defend all these other atrocities, when we're just asking the media to be a little more balanced in their reporting and not jump to label one type a terrorist whilst trying their hardest to not give that label to others. You think we're in denial that these things happen? Where have we given that impression? You're the one in denial if you think you're not making excuses for Jo Cox's killer by highlighting his mental issues above his political ideology, something you wouldn't afford to Omar Mateen for example.

[leicsmac]

In the case of terrorists who align themselves with IS, they clearly are linked together under a vast network of hate. And IS have a clear agenda to eradicate our culture through violence. There can't be denying that. They are also actively recruiting, indoctrinating and educating people into their network with the soul purpose of having them commit violence.

There is hatred with the Britain First types of people, but there is not an agenda of violence. They'd be quickly locked up if they promoted that. Therefore, anyone acting violently is acting on their own. They may want to push a political agenda, but it's absolutely useless. For that to be effective, there has to be an ongoing threat. This was a one off event, there is no state of fear around this. Britain First are not recruiting people to commit murder, they don't promote violence nor condone it as a means to meet their political aims (at least publicly of course).

 

In those two specific cases, I agree with you. However, you and I both know the issue extends farther than that and the generalisations I have quoted pop up whenever there are such events. It manifests itself in a different attitude by both individuals and the media towards the perpetrators of those events, based on what their (supposed) ideology is. This thread and the Omar Mateen thread show some pretty good examples, as I have said earlier.

 

For further response, Facecloth directly above explains my stance much more succinctly than I.

[Merging Cultures]

In those two specific cases, I agree with you. However, you and I both know the issue extends farther than that and the generalisations I have quoted pop up whenever there are such events. It manifests itself in a different attitude by both individuals and the media towards the perpetrators of those events, based on what their (supposed) ideology is. This thread and the Omar Mateen thread show some pretty good examples, as I have said earlier.

For further response, Facecloth directly above explains my stance much more succinctly than I.

As usual, we tend to agree.

[Thracian]

You're willingly avoiding the truth that a white non Muslim man could be a terrorist and that his politically motivated killing could be anything other than down to his mental problem. I read no further than paragraph one after you said that.

You've got where people like me and Mac stand on this totally backwards, as you seem to think we're trying to defend all these other atrocities, when we're just asking the media to be a little more balanced in their reporting and not jump to label one type a terrorist whilst trying their hardest to not give that label to others. You think we're in denial that these things happen? Where have we given that impression? You're the one in denial if you think you're not making excuses for Jo Cox's killer by highlighting his mental issues above his political ideology, something you wouldn't afford to Omar Mateen for example.

 

 

I've not avoided any truth - it is you that have twice denied yourself access to the debate. I have made no excuses for anyone. Opining that someone had a history of being mentally unbalanced may seem like an "excuse" in your mind but it isn't in mine.

 

And then you insult me by volunteering my view on Omar Mateen!

 

What the hell do you know about my opinion on Mateen?

 

You don't even have the respect to view something that might challenge your outlook on the subject in question so quite why we'd move onto  Mateen I've no idea and nor do I have any opinion on your views about "other attrocities." How would I?

 

The only clue I have is that you avoid evidence on the subject, but that might be a one-off choice or you might have perfectly good reasons that I have no knowledge of. Hardly sufficient either way for me to know how you think.   

 

If you want to ask a civil question I'll answer it, but don't put words in my mouth. I'm not some impressionable acolyte. And you can keep your gang warfare too. Mac is quite capable of speaking for himself. 

[Thracian]

Lots of people have help, they don't pick up a gun and kill someone because they believe in something they don't.

 

 

 

You're not even right about this. There are all sorts of examples of people having help for mental problems but still reacting badly at some later date and killing or attacking people.

 

Here's one that came immediately to mind:   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5044116/Paranoid-schizophrenic-released-into-community-to-murder.html

 

I'm sure I could turn up other gun and misplaced hatred killings by the mentally unbalanced but my point about mental imbalance is that sufferers don't always react rationally. Quite the contrary. And that reaction can be caused by all sorts of things we might not know about.

 

In the case of Jo Cox it's important to hear the evidence before jumping to conclusions.  My comments on the subject have nothing to do with colour, religion or specific beliefs. I've no idea why Obih went crazy but whatever the reason he was clearly unbalanced at the time and had such a history of mental imbalance the tragedy should never have happened.         

[Itsthejoeker]

Mentally ill? The only thing I've read is that he had OCD.

 

Nazi ****.

[Fox92]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/18/bernard-carter-kenny-jo-cox-mine-rescue-service-veteran-lofthouse?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

 

 

A man who risked his life to try to save Jo Cox is a veteran of the mines rescue service that operated when the area in which the Labour MP was killed was at the centre of the coal industry.

 

78 next week and got stabbed while trying to rescue her. Top man. Hope he gets some recognition, especially at his age.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

You're not even right about this. There are all sorts of examples of people having help for mental problems but still reacting badly at some later date and killing or attacking people.

 

Here's one that came immediately to mind:   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5044116/Paranoid-schizophrenic-released-into-community-to-murder.html

 

I'm sure I could turn up other gun and misplaced hatred killings by the mentally unbalanced but my point about mental imbalance is that sufferers don't always react rationally. Quite the contrary. And that reaction can be caused by all sorts of things we might not know about.

 

In the case of Jo Cox it's important to hear the evidence before jumping to conclusions.  My comments on the subject have nothing to do with colour, religion or specific beliefs. I've no idea why Obih went crazy but whatever the reason he was clearly unbalanced at the time and had such a history of mental imbalance the tragedy should never have happened.

I think you are giving the 'mental health issues' in this case too much weight in your argument here - when there are indications that rational planning was very much part of this and there is a full awareness of the acts he has carried out.

Truth is we only have very little detail of the mental health issues - far too little to label them as a huge contributing factor, even if we'd all agree it requires a degree of 'craziness' to do any of the acts that have been discussed.