Greenwald writes: "It's virtually impossible to find any media outlet
calling the attacker a 'terrorist' or even suggesting that it might be
'terrorism.' To the contrary, the suspected killer - overnight - has been
alternatively described as a gentle soul or a mentally ill 'loner.'"
British prime minister David Cameron and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
(photo: Rex Features/AP)
Why Is the Killer of British MP Jo Cox Not Being Called a "Terrorist"?
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
17 June 16
British Labour MP Jo Cox was brutally murdered yesterday. Although the
motive is not yet proven, there is mounting evidence that the detained
suspect, 52-year-old white male Thomas Mair, was motivated by political
ideology. Cox was an outspoken advocate for refugees. At least two witnesses
say Mair, as he carried out the attack, yelled "Britain First," the name of
a virulently right-wing anti-immigrant party. He has years of affiliation
with neo-Nazi groups: what Southern Poverty Law Center describes as "a long
history with white nationalism." The UK is in the midst of a bitter and
virulent debate about whether to exit the EU - Cox opposed that - and much
of the pro-Brexit case centers around fear-mongering over immigrants.
Despite all of this, it's virtually impossible to find any media outlet
calling the attacker a "terrorist" or even suggesting that it might be
"terrorism." To the contrary, the suspected killer - overnight - has been
alternatively described as a gentle soul or a mentally ill "loner":
This stands in stark contrast to a very similar incident that took place in
the U.K. in 2010, when a British MP, Stephen Timms, was brutally stabbed and
almost killed by a woman angry over his vote in support of the Iraq War. In
that case, British media outlets almost uniformly called the attack
"terrorism"; The Guardian, for instance, described it as "the first
terrorist attack to injure someone on the U.K. mainland since 7 July 2005."
The headline of the British tabloid Mirror called the attacker a "woman
terrorist." And just yesterday, another tabloid, The Sun, reported on
Timms's comments about Cox and, in its headline, referred to him as "Terror
Stab Survivor."
The difference is obvious: Timms's attacker was a Muslim of Bangladeshi
descent, while Cox's alleged killer . is not. As I've written repeatedly,
the word "terrorism" has no real concrete meaning and certainly no
consistent application. In the West, functionally speaking, it's now a
propaganda term with little meaning other than "a Muslim who engages in
violence against Westerners or their allies." It's even used for Muslims who
attack soldiers of an army occupying their country.
It's certainly true that there are some suggestions that Mair - Cox's
alleged killer - had struggles with mental illness. But exactly the same was
true of Omar Mateen, who slaughtered 49 people in an Orlando LGBT club last
week, and he was instantly decreed to be a "terrorist" by essentially every
media outlet despite those mental health issues and his obvious struggles
with his own sexual orientation.
Again, the difference is painfully obvious. As Reza Aslan put it today about
Mair: "He suffered from mental illness is now terror shorthand for 'he
wasn't Muslim' . even if he was a fucking Nazi!" At this point, it is not
hyperbole to note that the real definition of these terms is best captured
by this screen shot from Family Guy:
Those who instantly and reflexively call Muslims "terrorists" struggled with
how to process this latest attack. As The Telegraph's Dan Hodges noted, a
Breitbart writer indignantly complained just four days ago that the media
were refusing to assign collective guilt to Muslims for Mateen's attack and
instead were blaming mental illness - "The media are trying to spin that
this was a 'lone wolf' attack by an unbalanced individual while ignoring the
Islamic beliefs of the attacker" - while another Breitbart writer yesterday
said exactly the opposite about Cox's killer: "Are we seriously being
expected to believe that this act of violence by a deranged loner represents
a statement on the political climate of Britain of which we should all take
note?" As The Guardian's Hadley Freeman put it:
Meanwhile, there was this stunningly illuminating exchange on the Facebook
page of Britain First:
To be very clear: I'm glad when the media withhold judgment about a killer's
motives or goals before there is sufficient evidence to know that with
reasonable certainty. I have no particular objection to their refraining
from applying the "terrorist" label to Cox's killer before more evidence is
available. And, as I said, the term "terrorist" at this point has so little
cogent meaning that debates about how to apply it seem quaint and completely
academic. The scholars Remi Brulin and Lisa Stampnitzky have spent years
documenting how the term, from the start, was little more than a propaganda
tool designed to legitimize one side's violence while delegitimizing its
enemies' violence.
The issue is that this journalistic restraint is extremely selective. Does
anyone have any doubt at all that if Cox's suspected killer had been Muslim,
yelling "Allah Akbar" instead of "Britain First," then every media outlet on
the planet would be describing him forever as a "terrorist"? The fact that
they are not doing so here sheds great light into what this word really is.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
British prime minister David Cameron and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
(photo: Rex Features/AP)
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/17/why-is-the-killer-of-british-mp-jo-cox-n
ot-being-called-a-terrorist/https://theintercept.com/2016/06/17/why-is-the-k
iller-of-british-mp-jo-cox-not-being-called-a-terrorist/
Why Is the Killer of British MP Jo Cox Not Being Called a "Terrorist"?
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
17 June 16
ritish Labour MP Jo Cox was brutally murdered yesterday. Although the
motive is not yet proven, there is mounting evidence that the detained
suspect, 52-year-old white male Thomas Mair, was motivated by political
ideology. Cox was an outspoken advocate for refugees. At least two witnesses
say Mair, as he carried out the attack, yelled "Britain First," the name of
a virulently right-wing anti-immigrant party. He has years of affiliation
with neo-Nazi groups: what Southern Poverty Law Center describes as "a long
history with white nationalism." The UK is in the midst of a bitter and
virulent debate about whether to exit the EU - Cox opposed that - and much
of the pro-Brexit case centers around fear-mongering over immigrants.
Despite all of this, it's virtually impossible to find any media outlet
calling the attacker a "terrorist" or even suggesting that it might be
"terrorism." To the contrary, the suspected killer - overnight - has been
alternatively described as a gentle soul or a mentally ill "loner":
This stands in stark contrast to a very similar incident that took place in
the U.K. in 2010, when a British MP, Stephen Timms, was brutally stabbed and
almost killed by a woman angry over his vote in support of the Iraq War. In
that case, British media outlets almost uniformly called the attack
"terrorism"; The Guardian, for instance, described it as "the first
terrorist attack to injure someone on the U.K. mainland since 7 July 2005."
The headline of the British tabloid Mirror called the attacker a "woman
terrorist." And just yesterday, another tabloid, The Sun, reported on
Timms's comments about Cox and, in its headline, referred to him as "Terror
Stab Survivor."
The difference is obvious: Timms's attacker was a Muslim of Bangladeshi
descent, while Cox's alleged killer . is not. As I've written repeatedly,
the word "terrorism" has no real concrete meaning and certainly no
consistent application. In the West, functionally speaking, it's now a
propaganda term with little meaning other than "a Muslim who engages in
violence against Westerners or their allies." It's even used for Muslims who
attack soldiers of an army occupying their country.
It's certainly true that there are some suggestions that Mair - Cox's
alleged killer - had struggles with mental illness. But exactly the same was
true of Omar Mateen, who slaughtered 49 people in an Orlando LGBT club last
week, and he was instantly decreed to be a "terrorist" by essentially every
media outlet despite those mental health issues and his obvious struggles
with his own sexual orientation.
Again, the difference is painfully obvious. As Reza Aslan put it today about
Mair: "He suffered from mental illness is now terror shorthand for 'he
wasn't Muslim' . even if he was a fucking Nazi!" At this point, it is not
hyperbole to note that the real definition of these terms is best captured
by this screen shot from Family Guy:
Those who instantly and reflexively call Muslims "terrorists" struggled with
how to process this latest attack. As The Telegraph's Dan Hodges noted, a
Breitbart writer indignantly complained just four days ago that the media
were refusing to assign collective guilt to Muslims for Mateen's attack and
instead were blaming mental illness - "The media are trying to spin that
this was a 'lone wolf' attack by an unbalanced individual while ignoring the
Islamic beliefs of the attacker" - while another Breitbart writer yesterday
said exactly the opposite about Cox's killer: "Are we seriously being
expected to believe that this act of violence by a deranged loner represents
a statement on the political climate of Britain of which we should all take
note?" As The Guardian's Hadley Freeman put it:
Meanwhile, there was this stunningly illuminating exchange on the Facebook
page of Britain First:
To be very clear: I'm glad when the media withhold judgment about a killer's
motives or goals before there is sufficient evidence to know that with
reasonable certainty. I have no particular objection to their refraining
from applying the "terrorist" label to Cox's killer before more evidence is
available. And, as I said, the term "terrorist" at this point has so little
cogent meaning that debates about how to apply it seem quaint and completely
academic. The scholars Remi Brulin and Lisa Stampnitzky have spent years
documenting how the term, from the start, was little more than a propaganda
tool designed to legitimize one side's violence while delegitimizing its
enemies' violence.
The issue is that this journalistic restraint is extremely selective. Does
anyone have any doubt at all that if Cox's suspected killer had been Muslim,
yelling "Allah Akbar" instead of "Britain First," then every media outlet on
the planet would be describing him forever as a "terrorist"? The fact that
they are not doing so here sheds great light into what this word really is.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
