RugbyRebels

Donny osmond wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:Great journalism this: Why Is the Killer of British MP Jo Cox Not Being Called a “Terrorist”? https://theintercept.com/2016/06/17/why ... terrorist/

He is being investigated by the counter terrorism team, and the BBC acknowledged the political nature of his crime. I think his mental health issues are preventing a more robust approach by the media. I don't agree with that, but that's my opinion of the coverage thus far.

I actually do agree with it... just like with the Orlando killing, when a psycho loner goes psycho and uses some spurious link to an organisation to justify to themselves, it doesn't necessarily mean that organisation actually had anything to do with them going psycho.

If the media started to treat it as a terrorist attack then every psycho around would see their chance to claim legitimacy for their own idiocy by claiming a link that implies others are/were on their side when really, they're just psycho loners being sad pathetic people.

Dunno if I've explained that very well. Psycho loners should be called out for the pathetic fwced up narcissists that they are, not given a spurious legitimacy by linking them to groups of others.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

rowan wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: He is being investigated by the counter terrorism team, and the BBC acknowledged the political nature of his crime. I think his mental health issues are preventing a more robust approach by the media. I don't agree with that, but that's my opinion of the coverage thus far.

I actually do agree with it... just like with the Orlando killing, when a psycho loner goes psycho and uses some spurious link to an organisation to justify to themselves, it doesn't necessarily mean that organisation actually had anything to do with them going psycho.

If the media started to treat it as a terrorist attack then every psycho around would see their chance to claim legitimacy for their own idiocy by claiming a link that implies others are/were on their side when really, they're just psycho loners being sad pathetic people.

Dunno if I've explained that very well. Psycho loners should be called out for the pathetic fwced up narcissists that they are, not given a spurious legitimacy by linking them to groups of others.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

I believe your point is addressed toward the end of the article, where the writer says he's not asking for the media to leap to conclusions about Cox's killer and label him a terrorist, he's simply noting that the media does this only when the perpetrator is Muslim.

Zhivago wrote:

Len wrote:

UKHamlet wrote:This is the end result of a culture of fear and hate. The guy had mental health issues and was probably wound up with whole EU referendum campaign, which has got very bloody minded. He also has a history of involvement with a far-right Saffer white supremacist group, so a Labour MP who is wholeheartedly Pro-EU, campaigns to admit Syrian refugees and works publicly with the Asian community, is an obvious target for the voices in his head.

He'll be cast as a lone wolf, acting out of madness and there is an element of truth in that, but he didn't act totally in isolation. If the vituperative anti-migrant campaigns of the Brexiters and the main stream media didn't have an effect on his actions then my prick is a bloater. For sure it wasn't the fault of Gove, Johnson and Farage et al, but they created the atmosphere in which he breathed the language of hate. Actions have consequences and while they didn't pull the trigger and shoot her in the face, what they say and what they do opened the door to his madness.

I would say the Farages, Goves and Johnsons are harmless, they want to leave the EU but they haven't based their opinion of where Britain should be around hate and they certainly don't preach it. Its the Britain Firsts and EDL that have created the sort of atmosphere where this type of person is wound up and encourged into madness. Scumbags.

Yeah?

Donny osmond wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:Great journalism this: Why Is the Killer of British MP Jo Cox Not Being Called a “Terrorist”? https://theintercept.com/2016/06/17/why ... terrorist/

He is being investigated by the counter terrorism team, and the BBC acknowledged the political nature of his crime. I think his mental health issues are preventing a more robust approach by the media. I don't agree with that, but that's my opinion of the coverage thus far.

I actually do agree with it... just like with the Orlando killing, when a psycho loner goes psycho and uses some spurious link to an organisation to justify to themselves, it doesn't necessarily mean that organisation actually had anything to do with them going psycho.

If the media started to treat it as a terrorist attack then every psycho around would see their chance to claim legitimacy for their own idiocy by claiming a link that implies others are/were on their side when really, they're just psycho loners being sad pathetic people.

Dunno if I've explained that very well. Psycho loners should be called out for the pathetic fwced up narcissists that they are, not given a spurious legitimacy by linking them to groups of others.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Zhivago wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: He is being investigated by the counter terrorism team, and the BBC acknowledged the political nature of his crime. I think his mental health issues are preventing a more robust approach by the media. I don't agree with that, but that's my opinion of the coverage thus far.

I actually do agree with it... just like with the Orlando killing, when a psycho loner goes psycho and uses some spurious link to an organisation to justify to themselves, it doesn't necessarily mean that organisation actually had anything to do with them going psycho.

If the media started to treat it as a terrorist attack then every psycho around would see their chance to claim legitimacy for their own idiocy by claiming a link that implies others are/were on their side when really, they're just psycho loners being sad pathetic people.

Dunno if I've explained that very well. Psycho loners should be called out for the pathetic fwced up narcissists that they are, not given a spurious legitimacy by linking them to groups of others.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

The definition of terrorism is "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

If you consider the murder with this definition in mind, then it is hard not to call it a terrorist act, as it was clearly extreme violence with a political intent.

Donny osmond wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: I actually do agree with it... just like with the Orlando killing, when a psycho loner goes psycho and uses some spurious link to an organisation to justify to themselves, it doesn't necessarily mean that organisation actually had anything to do with them going psycho.

If the media started to treat it as a terrorist attack then every psycho around would see their chance to claim legitimacy for their own idiocy by claiming a link that implies others are/were on their side when really, they're just psycho loners being sad pathetic people.

Dunno if I've explained that very well. Psycho loners should be called out for the pathetic fwced up narcissists that they are, not given a spurious legitimacy by linking them to groups of others.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

The definition of terrorism is "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

If you consider the murder with this definition in mind, then it is hard not to call it a terrorist act, as it was clearly extreme violence with a political intent.

Which, as Rowan has pointed out, makes it an almost meaningless definition as pretty much every act of violence since man first waved a stick at other men could be considered to have had some political motive.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:Who decides what act of violence is "official" then? What does that even mean?

List some acts of violence that weren't political in nature.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:Who decides what act of violence is "official" then? What does that even mean?

List some acts of violence that weren't political in nature.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Lizard wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Who decides what act of violence is "official" then? What does that even mean?

List some acts of violence that weren't political in nature.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Family violence is not usually political.

Lizard wrote:Oh, and on-pitch fighting in rugby can be non-political violence.

kk67 wrote:

Lizard wrote:Oh, and on-pitch fighting in rugby can be non-political violence.

I've played alongside some PI players who'd disagree.

morepork wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Lizard wrote:Oh, and on-pitch fighting in rugby can be non-political violence.

I've played alongside some PI players who'd disagree.

?

kk67 wrote:

Lizard wrote:Oh, and on-pitch fighting in rugby can be non-political violence.

I've played alongside some PI players who'd disagree.

Donny osmond wrote:Not sure to what extent you're joking here Liz, but Ok random acts of violence between single or small groups of people are generally not political in nature.

The posters above were referring to violence committed between or apparently on behalf of states or countries or groups or movements, which is the context in which I said violence had a political motive. In the bigger context of this thread, was the psychos attack on the nightclub politically motivated? Without knowing the guy personally, most people seem to think not, despite his claims to be linked to Isis. So was it terrorism? IMO not even if you use the definition provided earlier, which is a definition that doesn't make sense to me.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Lizard wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Not sure to what extent you're joking here Liz, but Ok random acts of violence between single or small groups of people are generally not political in nature.

The posters above were referring to violence committed between or apparently on behalf of states or countries or groups or movements, which is the context in which I said violence had a political motive. In the bigger context of this thread, was the psychos attack on the nightclub politically motivated? Without knowing the guy personally, most people seem to think not, despite his claims to be linked to Isis. So was it terrorism? IMO not even if you use the definition provided earlier, which is a definition that doesn't make sense to me.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

In my opinion "terrorism" has become a label which is applied to enemies without much consideration of a precise definition.

One man's brave freedom fighter is another's crazed terrorist.

And while I'm on it, I really don't like the term "lone wolf" to describe a solo perpetrator of violence. It almost glamourises it. Why not call them a "single nutter with a gun"?

Lizard wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Lizard wrote:Oh, and on-pitch fighting in rugby can be non-political violence.

I've played alongside some PI players who'd disagree.

That's why I said "can be", not "is."

Lizard wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Who decides what act of violence is "official" then? What does that even mean?

List some acts of violence that weren't political in nature.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Family violence is not usually political.