"Put Britain First" - Right Wing Extremism on the rise

[Guest]

We aren't even sure there was a political goal. From what I read the claim that he uttered 'Britain First' has not been confirmed and at least one witness says it was made up: http://www.lbc.co.uk/jo-cox-witness-says-no-one-shouted-britain-first-132375

Well, fair enough, facts to follow, as they often do in these cases. But if first impressions are true, then he fits my definition.

[marcus]

Terrorism is using violence to achieve political objectives

The attack looks to be political. If it is confirmed that he did say "Britain First", are you willing to step up and accept that Tommy Mair is a terrorist?

[eyeball]

Nutjobs and terrorists are not mutually exclusive. One can be both. In fact, I think to be a terrorist you pretty much have to be a nutjob as well.

Unless you're a freedom fighter, then it's all good.

[Guest]

Unless you're a freedom fighter, then it's all good.

Well, obviously, if one is fighting for freedom that's different. As long as they don't deliberately hurt people who don't deserve it, and as long as the feedom is one I wholeheartedly approve of, I think it's good.

[kactus]

Well, obviously, if one is fighting for freedom that's different. As long as they don't deliberately hurt people who don't deserve it, and as long as the feedom is one I wholeheartedly approve of, I think it's good.

That's an interesting point! Some people see Palestinians who are fighting against their occupation as 'freedom fighters' whereas others will see them as terrorist. It is all a matter of perspective and motivation....

In the case of the killer of Jo Cox I don't regard his act as terrorism but rather someone who is clearly a 'nutjob'. They should have known better as he was reported to have had some psychological problems. That is a fact that we know.

[-TSS-]

Doesn't anyone notice any double standards regarding this news-story as compared to the reporting of the Orlando-massacre?

[Guest]

Doesn't anyone notice any double standards regarding this news-story as compared to the reporting of the Orlando-massacre?

I don't. Why don't you enlighten us.

Edited June 17, 2016 by bcsapper

[eyeball]

Well, obviously, if one is fighting for freedom that's different. As long as they don't deliberately hurt people who don't deserve it, and as long as the feedom is one I wholeheartedly approve of, I think it's good.

Unfortunately people who live in a democracy are ultimately responsible for their governments actions so be careful of what you approve of.

[Hudson Jones]

I don't. Why don't you enlighten us.

To me, it seems like you're in denial. Why is Dylan Roof not called a terrorist, but the guy named Omar is?

Videos are fun to watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB5GI7MBcL8

Edited June 18, 2016 by Charles Anthony
video link

[TimG]

Why is Dylan Roof not called a terrorist, but the guy named Omar is?

Because Roof was not acting on behalf of any political group that took credit for his actions (he was disowned by everyone that he claimed association with). ISIL claimed responsibility for Omar. That makes it terrorism. Terrorism requires more than the fantasies of a single deluded person. Edited June 17, 2016 by TimG

[Hudson Jones]

Because Roof was not acting on behalf of any political group that took credit for his actions (he was disowned by everyone that he claimed association with). ISIL claimed responsibility for Omar. That makes it terrorism. Terrorism requires more than the fantasies of a single deluded person.

You don't have to be part of a specific organization. Whether ISIL was happy about Omar's attack or not makes no difference in what terrorism is. It also makes no difference that CIA and FBI have already said that there is no link between ISIL and Omar.

Dylan Roof made a political statement by going after a group of innocent black people he didn't know. He's not the only person who hates them blacks.

Here is the meaning of terrorism, just in case you want to use your ISIL line again to try to tell us they are different:

ter·ror·ism

noun

1. the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Hudson Jones

[TimG]

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Individuals cannot pursue political aims on their own. They need a political group who supports their use of violence before their use violence can be considered to be in pursuit of political aims. This is because for terrorism to be effective people must believe that more attacks will come unless the group gets it way. Without the sponsoring group there is no threat of future attacks which means it can't be terrorism.

You asked as question. I gave you the answer. You may not like it because it undermines your talking point but it appears that most other people seem to intuitively understand terrorism in the way I define it. If there was some white supremacy group came out and claimed responsibility for Roof's attack people would have reacted differently.

Edited June 18, 2016 by TimG

[Hudson Jones]

Individuals cannot pursue political aims on their own. They need a political group who supports their use of violence before their use violence can be considered to be in pursuit of political aims.

Why not? Is there some rule that says that?

You asked as question. I gave you the answer. You may not like it because it undermines your talking point but it appears that most other people seem to intuitively understand terrorism in the way I define it.

You can give an answer, but your answer is wrong based on the real definition of terrorism. I don't care if you want to define terrorism as something different than what it actually is.

Dylann Roof wanted to murder black people at a black church in order to advance his anti-black agenda as well as to intimidate a civilian population – the latter goal being a key factor.

In your attempt to continue excusing your double standards and inconsistency, you are also avoiding responding to what CIA has said about Omar Mateen's connection to ISIS, which is:

CIA has not found any link between Orlando killer and Isis, says agency chief

John Brennan told the Senate intelligence committee Thursday that CIA has no evidence of a connection between Omar Mateen and the Islamic State

[TimG]

Why not? Is there some rule that says that?

for terrorism to be effective people must believe that more attacks will come unless the group gets it way. Without the sponsoring group there is no threat of future attacks which means it can't be terrorism.

It makes no sense to call Roof's acts terrorism because there is no group out there promising more attacks.

It also makes no difference whether ISIL knew specially what Omar was planning. The fact is ISIL is actively recruiting 'Omars' around the world via the Internet and that is why Omar's attack comes with the threat of future attacks which makes it terrorism.

Edited June 18, 2016 by TimG

[Guest]

To me, it seems like you're in denial. Why is Dylan Roof not called a terrorist, but the guy named Omar is?

At least read the post I responded to. It spoke of "this story". Meaning the murder of the British MP.

Edited June 18, 2016 by bcsapper

[poochy]

for terrorism to be effective people must believe that more attacks will come unless the group gets it way. Without the sponsoring group there is no threat of future attacks which means it can't be terrorism.

It makes no sense to call Roof's acts terrorism because there is no group out there promising more attacks.

It also makes no difference whether ISIL knew specially what Omar was planning. The fact is ISIL is actively recruiting 'Omars' around the world via the Internet and that is why Omar's attack comes with the threat of future attacks which makes it terrorism.

There is no point in engaging in this discussion, the entire thread is just another troll/deflection post, the op knows very well what the differences are, but for some reason is compelled to play this little game over and over. For some other reason it is being allowed, over and over, it seems that terrorism, or mass murders committed by a group of people sharing similar beliefs, or who affiliate themselves with self affirmed terrorist groups simply cannot actually be called terrorism because other people sometimes kill people.

No intelligent person actually believes that, but they are willing to pretend to believe it to deflect away from reality and use the people who are dumb enough to believe it to further that goal. How many posts did the op make on the Orlando shooting thread...as many as you would expect, suddenly one man shoots a British politician and now he has concerns! Perhaps everyone already realizes this and is just having some fun. Personally I think allowing this obvious nonsense in a place where organic thread drift gets threads locked is pretty damn stupid.

Anyway, watch out for Israel, and the huge numbers of right wing terrorists in the UK, they may have literally killed one person and bothered some immigrants. More than one hundred injured, half of them fatally, homophobia, mental illness, the gun made him do it, etc. Or, you ignore it all together and start this thread.

[-1=e^ipi]

I think if Michael Zehaf-Bibeau is considered a terrorist, then the guy that killed Jo Cox should be considered a terrorist.

But does the attack actually classify as terrorism? The main problem is that there is no consistent definition of terrorism.

Terrorism usually involves violent acts to achieve a political purpose, but so many things would satisfy these two requirements. For example, a war due to a trade embargo or some petty squabble between monarchs would be considered terrorism (so a lot of the European wars would be considered terrorism). How about someone assassinating Hitler during the 2nd world war? Would that count as terrorism?

I've often seen 2 more conditions put on terrorism:

1. The targets must be civilians. So attacking enemy soldiers in war does not classify as terrorism.

2. The attacks must be performed by non-state actors.

For 1, do MPs classify as regular civilians or not? In the case of Zehaf-Bibeau, he targeted a soldier and MPs (who were arguably responsible for Canada being at war with ISIS, which was a group Zehaf-Bibeau identified with). Similarly, for this attack, Jo Cox was an MP.

For 2, does ISIS could as a non-state actor? Given that ISIS controls a large amount of territory, enacts and enforces laws, collects taxes, has a standing army, etc. they satisfy the definition of a state. If one accepts condition 2, then does this mean that ISIS is not a terrorist group? If ISIS is a terrorist group, then for consistency condition 2 should not be part of a correct definition of terrorism. However, this means that the fact that the guy that killed Jo Cox was not operating as part of a non-state actor should not be used to argue that the guy classifies as a terrorist.

[Guest]

I think if Michael Zehaf-Bibeau is considered a terrorist, then the guy that killed Jo Cox should be considered a terrorist.

But does the attack actually classify as terrorism? The main problem is that there is no consistent definition of terrorism.

Agreed. If it is shown that the killer of Jo Cox did actually shout "Britain First" I would be more inclined to describe him as terrorist than the Orlando shooter. His motive seems to have been a religion inspired hatred of homosexuals with connections to ISIS as an afterthought.

[eyeball]

I'm reminded of Dubya's 'Let freedom reign'. Maybe he meant rain.

[Argus]

Nationalism is on the rise across Europe. That's undeniable. I believe it's been driven by arrogant politicians (same as in the US) who keep pushing a Utopian agenda and ignoring those harmed by it, and, in many cases, disdain anyone who is even mildly uncomfortable with their social messages. Open immigration within western Europe was one thing, but when extended to eastern Europe led to floods of people moving west. Now the elites have tried to extend it to the Muslim world, and that was a step too far. Now all kinds of people much closer to the center are looking around for someone to push back against this sort of thing and the only parties they're seeing that are willing to do so are often on the far right, so they're turning to them.

Stoked by anti-immigrant fear and fury, the Brexit campaign to pull Britain out of Europe, writes Mark MacKinnon, is just one symptom of an angry nationalism baring its teeth across the continent.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/fo-brexit-0617/article30508571/

Edited June 18, 2016 by Argus

[eyeball]

The utopian agenda and arrogant politicians Argus refers to were all too apparent and were warned about 15 years ago and he's just finally noticing now. This is why we deserve what's happening.

Right-wingers and Muslims are turning towards fascists for precisely the same reason.

[BC_chick]

Agreed. If it is shown that the killer of Jo Cox did actually shout "Britain First" I would be more inclined to describe him as terrorist than the Orlando shooter. His motive seems to have been a religion inspired hatred of homosexuals with connections to ISIS as an afterthought.

In case you are still unsure about the motives of the murderer, when asked to state his name he responded 'death to traitors freedom for Britain'.

Hope that removes any doubt for you now.

[jacee]

Nationalism is on the rise across Europe. That's undeniable. I believe it's been driven by arrogant politicians (same as in the US) who keep pushing a Utopian agenda and ignoring those harmed by it, and, in many cases, disdain anyone who is even mildly uncomfortable with their social messages. Open immigration within western Europe was one thing, but when extended to eastern Europe led to floods of people moving west. Now the elites have tried to extend it to the Muslim world, and that was a step too far. Now all kinds of people much closer to the center are looking around for someone to push back against this sort of thing and the only parties they're seeing that are willing to do so are often on the far right, so they're turning to them.

Stoked by anti-immigrant fear and fury, the Brexit campaign to pull Britain out of Europe, writes Mark MacKinnon, is just one symptom of an angry nationalism baring its teeth across the continent.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/fo-brexit-0617/article30508571/

"Nationalism"?

Call it what it really is, Argus:

It's 'WHITE Nationalism' ... aka white supremacy.

It is political.

It is organized.

And when crimnal acts are carried out in its name, it is terrorism.

.

[BC_chick]

--but she has left behind a ghastly racist world in which the UK and US media and politicians have come together so that the very dictionary definition of the word "terrorism" has been exclusively coded to mean "Muslim."

Agreed.

[BC_chick]

Doesn't anyone notice any double standards regarding this news-story as compared to the reporting of the Orlando-massacre?

I wish I could post this image (I'm on iPad), but a friend had posted the difference between the subway Muslim killer on the front page of a British newspaper with bloody hands, with the caption of "bloody hands, hatred in his eyes" contrasted with Mair who is pictured subdued with the caption of "timid gardener with mental turmoil".