Great article: "Terrorism or not? Controversy over the qualification of the murder of Jo Cox"

[frandie2b]

This is an article from lemonde.fr, n°1 french newspaper. I'll try to translate it as good as I can.

http://www.lemonde.fr/referendum-su...ox-provoque-la-polemique_4953136_4872498.html


"It is time to describe the murder of Jo Cox as what it is: the far right terrorism," said the columnist of the conservative newspaper The Telegraph Juliet Samuel, Friday, June 17 And she is not alone, in UK, to be surprised by the reluctance of the media and politicians to describe as "terrorist" assassination of the MP from West Yorkshire, Thursday, June 16, in front of a library where she held her election times. The suspect, Thomas Mair, 52, was charged with homicide Saturday, June 18.

While the links of the suspect, with the extreme right are at the heart of the investigation by the British police, US journalist Glenn Greenwald, who had participated in the revelations of Edward Snowden on monitoring the NSA and GCHQ in 2013 , expressed surprise on the Intercept about "absolute contrast with the near incident that took place in the UK in 2010, when a British MP Stephen Timms, was brutally stabbed and nearly killed by a woman." The reporter said that at that time all the British media had all qualified following the attack a "terrorist". The difference ? It is "obvious" to him: "The aggressor Timms was Muslim from Bangladesh, while the suspect in the murder of Cox ... is not. "

" Mental disorders "
In the UK, according to the 2000 Terrorism Act, an act, to be qualified as terrorist should be, "calculated to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the population in order to advance a political cause, religious or ideological. "

As outlined in the Financial Times by columnist Robert Shrimsley, "it is striking that [the two largest British tabloids] The Sun and The Daily Mail, two media outlets that are not exactly known for their prudent and discreet coverage of news, have both underlined that the suspect was a "crazy solo" or "solo with a mental illness liabilities". "




"Why are white gunmen called" mentally ill "? "
Friday, the people of Charleston (South Carolina) just commemorated the first anniversary of the shooting that killed nine people in a church frequented by the black community. At the time, the killer, Dylan Roof, openly racist, was described as "fanatical" and his mental illness had also been put forward. In the Washington Post, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Anthea Butler, asked: "The color of shooters are called" terrorists "and" thugs. " Why are white gunmen called "mentally ill"? "

 

[PrinceOfPain]

I think if a white guy shouted "Allahu Akbar!" he'd be called a terrorist. people need to stop throwing race at every problem.

I think the dude could be described as a terrorist, but "terrorist" has sort of become synonymous with "Islamic extremist".

 

[berimBOWLoh]

white ppl arent capable of terrorism. too much good in them. perhaps revolution or mental illness but not terrorism.

it is known.

 

[frandie2b]

I think if a white guy shouted "Allahu Akbar!" he'd be called a terrorist. people need to stop throwing race at every problem.

I think the dude could be described as a terrorist, but "terrorist" has sort of become synonymous with "Islamic extremist".

In this case race is a problem. If an arab or muslim commits a crime, all of the newspaper are going to call him a terrorist, because nowadays terrorism = radical islam.

What this guy did is the definition of terrorism. The Charleston killing was the definition of terrorism. But no medias won't call them terrorism because it doesn't make sense, they're neither arabs or muslims.

 

[Dayman1984]

White people are very clearly capable of terrorism. It's unfortunate that people will use this incident to deflect and distract from a much larger and much more frequent problem though.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

In this case race is a problem. If an arab or muslim commits a crime, all of the newspaper are going to call him a terrorist, because nowadays terrorism = radical islam.

What this guy did is the definition of terrorism. The Charleston killing was the definition of terrorism. But no medias won't call them terrorism because it doesn't make sense, they're neither arabs or muslims.

Muslim isn't a race. A white Muslim would still be called a terrorist.
I'm not sure a non-Muslim Arab would be called a terrorist.. do you have evidence of that? At worst, he'd be assumed to be Muslim (because that's a relatively fair assumption) and then people would be confused when it came out that he wasn't.

 

[frandie2b]

Muslim isn't a race. A white Muslim would still be called a terrorist.
I'm not sure a non-Muslim Arab would be called a terrorist.. do you have evidence of that? At worst, he'd be assumed to be Muslim (because that's a relatively fair assumption) and then people would be confused when it came out that he wasn't.

I have a problem with the word "race", and I agree that muslims are not a race, but if Muslims are not a race, than which group is? Some people might immediately point to Black people, and say, “that is definitely a race. Look at their skin color.” But, to be exact, Black people are not a race either. Neither, for that matter, are White people.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

I have a problem with the word "race", and I agree that muslims are not a race, but if Muslims are not a race, than which group is? Some people might immediately point to Black people, and say, “that is definitely a race. Look at their skin color.” But, to be exact, Black people are not a race either. Neither, for that matter, are White people.

So people who bitch about Christians are racists?

 

[Islam Imamate]

We should wait for more details to emerge before we call him a terrorist.

Its usually easier with Muslims because there's a certain phrase they tend to shout when they commit their acts of terrorism. If this shooter really did say "Britain first" as was reported by certain witnesses initially it would certainly seem to be terrorism.

 

[IDL]

The goal of a terrorist is to create terror in the wider population to advance whatever political or ideological objective they have which is why it is about attacking the civilian populations.

Not sure if taking out a politician falls under this category or not. It would be a pretty watered down interpretation when compared to something like the unibomber, the paris attack, the Orlando shooting, etc but under some interpretations it could probably fit.

But like Kafir-Kun already said there isn't really much to go on in terms of this assassination yet so it could only really be discussed in a general or hypothetical sense.

 

[IDL]

We should wait for more details to emerge before we call him a terrorist.

Its usually easier with Muslims because there's a certain phrase they tend to shout when they commit their acts of terrorism. If this shooter really did say "Britain first" as was reported by certain witnesses initially it would certainly seem to be terrorism.

A witness was interviewed on camera saying that he did not hear the shooter yell anything like 'Britain First'

It's possible that it was added for propaganda purposes and considering the political context this would make some sense, but given conflicting information it would take some sorting.

 

[threelions]

I must have missed all those Large Far Right terrorist groups demanding their followers in the UK go out and kill people.

 

[Kalmah]

A witness was interviewed on camera saying that he did not hear the shooter yell anything like 'Britain First'

At least two witnesses have stated that's what he was shouting. Regardless, he gave his name as "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain", when he appeared in court. That alone seems to corroborate what the witnesses have said.

 

[IDL]

At least two witnesses have stated that's what he was shouting. Regardless, he gave his name as "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain", when he appeared in court. That alone seems to corroborate what the witnesses have said.

If he did give his name as that in court then yeah it's pretty clear he's trying to play politics.

Such a bizarre thing to do to try to gain sympathy for that view unless he just lost it.

 

[7437]

If he did give his name as that in court then yeah it's pretty clear he's trying to play politics.

Such a bizarre thing to do to try to gain sympathy for that view unless he just lost it.

Extremists are not exactly known for being rational.

 

[MicroBrew]

I have a problem with the word "race", and I agree that muslims are not a race, but if Muslims are not a race, than which group is? Some people might immediately point to Black people, and say, “that is definitely a race. Look at their skin color.” But, to be exact, Black people are not a race either. Neither, for that matter, are White people.

Black (Negroid) and White (Caucasoid but more specifically European Caucasoids) are races. Muslim isn't because you CAN NOT convert into being Black or White while you can convert to Islam or leave Islam.

-
I refrain from using the term "terrorist" because of how it is abused and politically biased but if one defines a "terrorist" as a persn engagin in violence to further a political cause then this guy would fit the bill. What must be kept in mind is that this guy is a lone case ; he is not affiliated with any religion or larger political group or religion. It is totally different from Islamists engaging in violence to further Islamic domination and or further the goals of Jihadi organizations.

 

[Byron Carter]

Everyone agrees Timothy McVeigh is a terrorist. And he's white.

No one seriously thinks James Holmes, Adam Lanza, or the Collumbine shooters were terrorists, do they?

When you have borderline issues, like the guy who shot the congress-woman, or this nutjob.. where yeah, politics may have played a part - or it simply could have been an act of desperation... It's not racism to not immediately label something when you aren't sure. It's just common fucking sense.

"Terrorism", and "Hate Crime" are both subjective labels.