Jo Cox, Labour MP, killed - fatal gunshot & stab wounds

[777Sloan]

.

 

[Gadarene]

It's pretty clear this was a Brexit issue right?
http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/18/jo-co...raitors-freedom-for-britain-in-court-5952238/

I LOVE the "he's mentally ill" thing. A muslim extremist CANNOT be mentally ill. But a Britain first supporter MUST be if he's going to kill someone.

It's perverse that the so called ISIS/Hezbollah/Al-Queda (nevermind the hatred that exists between each of these groups) extremist wasn't dismissed as mentally ill with such speed and conviction.

It depends on what side you're on really, right? Both denying that extremist Islamist violence has anything to do with, er, Islam and opposing Brexit are, in general terms, progressive causes.

So there are others who are quite happy to dismiss the motivations of the Orlando shooter and take the motivations of Cox's killer at face value, so there are hypocrites all round here.

Personally, I don't see any reason to think their personal ideologies weren't a significant motivating factor.

But equally, I'm not going to claim they're the only factor involved - and equally I don't believe in guilt by association to the point where we start trying to restrict those points of view just because a couple of loonies went off on one in part because of them.

 

[Gadarene]

There is much about this story which does not add up . Contradictions everywhere .

Not really, there are still guns available in the UK, just not much in the way of semi/full autos and small concealable weapons. Or it might have been grandfathered when older legislation came in.

 

[Goonie]

In one view, it is certainly of value to critically reflect and explore potential possibilities.

In another, it is understandable some may be upset with what those tragic, yet conceivable, possibilities might be.

As I have noted before, until the said what he did in the court hearing, i did wonder about the whole "'Britain first" shooting during the incident, a witness apparently withdrawing claim. Yes it is on first glance 'convenient'. But more convenient would be if they just rigged the result for remain. Faked a poll or two saying remain would win, then Thursday, astonishing remain wins. I'm not a fan of conspiracies

 

[Gadarene]

As I have noted before, until the said what he did in the court hearing, i did wonder about the whole "'Britain first" shooting during the incident, a witness apparently withdrawing claim. Yes it is on first glance 'convenient'. But more convenient would be if they just rigged the result for remain. Faked a poll or two saying remain would win, then Thursday, astonishing remain wins. I'm not a fan of conspiracies

It is not however outside the realm of possibility that the remain camp will now shamelessly capitalise on this shooting. Indeed that already seems to be happening as recently the Brexit campaigners have started infighting because Farage's recent immigration ad supposedly is creating a climate of hatred or somesuch nonsense.

 

[Gadarene]

Just to reiterate the point about current state of UK gun laws:

http://www.purdey.com/guns-rifles/new-guns-for-sale/

Here is a shop in Mayfair (for the uninitiated, that is right smack bang in Central London) that has (frankly rather snazzy) guns for immediate sale.

This is a thing. I'll give you all time to find your socks that have just blown off.

 

[Goonie]

It is not however outside the realm of possibility that the remain camp will now shamelessly capitalise on this shooting. Indeed that already seems to be happening as recently the Brexit campaigners have started infighting because Farage's recent immigration ad supposedly is creating a climate of hatred or somesuch nonsense.

I did say 'first glance' the fact is that it is a grenade thrown into the debate and will effect both sides both negatively and positively. The fact is that a pro-remain candidate has been murdered by a far right loner with mental issues(as far as I can see) the campaign's cannot ignore it.

 

[Gadarene]

I did say 'first glance' the fact is that it is a grenade thrown into the debate and will effect both sides both negatively and positively. The fact is that a pro-remain candidate has been murdered by a far right loner with mental issues(as far as I can see) the campaign's cannot ignore it.

Why? Would Remain supporters put up with being judged by the loopiest of their supporters? No. This is the same old hypocrisy being recycled, and it is being done over the body of the victim.

 

[Goonie]

Why? Would Remain supporters put up with being judged by the loopiest of their supporters? No. This is the same old hypocrisy being recycled, and it is being done over the body of the victim.

Pardon? Same old hypocrisy? Judged by loopiest of supporters? Clarification.

 

[777Sloan]

.

 

[Goonie]

Perhaps it may not be so much about rigging votes and poll statistics that the desired voting outcome be guaranteed, so much as it may be about planting seeds appealing to emotion, so that the public become more accepting of what that result be.

A public that is not as fond of a particular side due to it having been successfully painted in a negative light, justified or otherwise, tends to be more inclined to accept the opposing party, regardless of actual behind the scenes rigging.

In other words, it may often be more about influencing public perception and popular opinion at a psychological level. Whatever one does behind the scenes need not be of issue, if kept hidden, and the public be generally accepting of "official" results.

As I say, this case seems to be as much about mental illness as his far right politics. But if this was a conspiracy where is the evidence of his UKIP membership? As a conspiracy it has problems, the more likely explanation is that it is what it seems, a tragic incident that has thrown the result of this referendum further into doubt.

 

[Oafman]

It is not however outside the realm of possibility that the remain camp will now shamelessly capitalise on this shooting

It's what she would have wanted...

 

[Sistrin]

If you weren't so far up your own behind you'd have understood that I meant that the people who ran to get in the way of the bullet should have been more afraid of the gun.

This from someone who just a few days ago claimed never to have heard of MSNBC. And was then proven...wrong.

The Brits have a habit of not thinking of their own wellbeing, witness the unarmed women who took on a man with a machete who had just murdered a service man just a couple of years ago. They stood there and argued with him. Who does that?

People of courage. Actual courage, as opposed to the type of self-serving group-think safety-zone courage so cherished by the liberal/progressive left.

They should have run and run and run. Yesterday, an unarmed man took down an armed man. Yes, they need to be more afraid of guns and not endanger themselves with such bravery.

Some understand the nature of evil and what is required to defeat it. Others advocate cowardice and appeasement wrapped in a blanket of lie and obfuscation, all with complete and often willful disregard of reality.

But you just stay up there on your high horse. You must have a wonderful view up there, seeing everything and understanding nothing.

I understand only too well the nature of the liberal/progressive left. The reaction to the Orlando attack only serves to crystallize that nature to any who have eyes to see.

There are no points available for stating the obvious.

You will never do so, therefore someone must.

Do you mean Progressivism, which is actually a thing, or do you have your own definition for that word? If the former, you're completely wrong, it's never been associated with totalitarianism.

That is a joke. Progressives are by definition and practice totalitarian.

Well, I don't use twitter, so I don't know what your fixation on someone on twitter is.

The Twitter post was quoted in the OP article, which obviously you didn't read, as proof of the underlying contention. But in today's world twitter post are all the proof the low-information crowd requires.

 

[Oafman]

There are no points available for stating the obvious.

You will never do so, therefore someone must.

Actually, it's fine if nobody does. Seeing as it's already obvious.

That is a joke. Progressives are by definition and practice totalitarian.

Not only do you not know what progressivism is, you also don't know what totalitarianism is.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

In court, he said, "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain," when asked his name and other identifying information.

He confirmed his name:

Mr Justice Sweeney enters the court in his red robes and wig. When the defendant is asked if he is Thomas Mair he says "Yes I am"

Only a clinical psychologist after examination can diagnose mental illness, but a man who can't give his own name - it does at least raise questions about his fitness to stand trial.

And the judge ordered an assessment, but would you be saying the same if he had declared he'd done it for ISIS? He took the first public opportunity to give his motivation.

Partial transcript of Omar Mateen call

When asked his name the first time, he responds with, "My name is I pledge of allegiance to [omitted]" and the dispatcher says in reply, "Ok, What’s your name?" Then I think he answers with his name in response (though it is omitted in the transcript). Point being that refusal to give a name and, instead, giving a political message may be a way to force people to pay attention to their cause.

If it is a sign of mental illness for one, it is a sign of mental illness for another. Unfortunately, we have many trying to highlight the mental illness angle of the neo-Nazi sympathizer when they didn't for the ISIS sympathizer. We were told to wait for confirmation of a motive for one while those same people (and the media) rushed to label the Orlando attack terrorism with similar types of evidence in both cases.

And since we're now exposing hypocrisy, let me post a few more pertinent articles/tweets:

Do we really have to wait for this guy to grow a beard and convert to Islam before the media calls him a terrorist?

 

[nightflight]

Was Omar Mateen diagnosed with mental illness?

 

[Hetta]

This from someone who just a few days ago claimed never to have heard of MSNBC. And was then proven...wrong.

You guys are certainly fond of your non-sequiturs. No I hadn't heard of MSNBC. Nobody can actually "prove" my own experience wrong, but it doesn't surprise me that people like you continue to assert that I'm a liar, just without using the word.

The rest of it isn't worth comment. You didn't understand my post, you made assumptions, and now you're trying to "prove me wrong" again. LOL. Whatever.

 

[seashale76]

Yes, to answer your question. Not the first time an implication of that sort against a poster has been concocted out of nowhere.

QFT

 

[777Sloan]

.

 

[Hetta]

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/do-the-current-violent-actions.7949937/page-11#post-69728857

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/fox-or-not.7861247/#post-66923241

Oh so LOL saying that a thread isn't about MSNBC means that I "know" about it. The English language must be difficult for you people, and it is not even my first language. Saying that an acronym isn't the issue being dealt with on a thread does not mean that I "know" about it. If someone had a thread about apples and someone else made a post about x - which is something I've never known about - even though I don't know about x, I could still say "this thread isn't about x" and yet I still don't KNOW what x is: I simply know that it's not the topic of the thread. How childish and immature people are.