Trial Of Britain First Terrorist Tommy Mair Starts

[Blackbriar 8,569]

We can settle part of this easily.

The dictionary definition of "terrorism"......

 

noun

1.

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

 

So, using that definition, it IS fair to call this man a terrorist, I think.

 

I'm not sure at what point he becomes a "Britain First terrorist", however. That organisation is not proscribed (banned), or recognised as having connections or tendencies that could be attributed to the above definition. They do not encourage or condone violence in their name (as with 'Islamic State' and their ilk), and they have not claimed or sought any 'credit' for this attack.

 

 

"Britain First terrorist" has clearly been concocted to sell tabloid newspapers and make a snappy soundbite.......and to allow some people to be baited by a mischievous leftie !

[terryd 8,423]

any way the guy needs locking up for life or hanging if it was an option

[Silversnake 1,099]

We can settle part of this easily.

The dictionary definition of "terrorism"......

 

noun

1.

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

 

So, using that definition, it IS fair to call this man a terrorist, I think.

 

I'm not sure at what point he becomes a "Britain First terrorist", however. That organisation is not proscribed (banned), or recognised as having connections or tendencies that could be attributed to the above definition. They do not encourage or condone violence in their name (as with 'Islamic State' and their ilk), and they have not claimed or sought any 'credit' for this attack.

 

 

"Britain First terrorist" has clearly been concocted to sell tabloid newspapers and make a snappy soundbite.......and to allow some people to be baited by a mischievous leftie !

I don't think he is being mischievous, I think he is trying to be manipulative, it is just that no one takes him seriously.

[Welsh_red 4,645]

 

We can settle part of this easily.

The dictionary definition of "terrorism"......

 

noun

1.

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

 

So, using that definition, it IS fair to call this man a terrorist, I think.

 

I'm not sure at what point he becomes a "Britain First terrorist", however. That organisation is not proscribed (banned), or recognised as having connections or tendencies that could be attributed to the above definition. They do not encourage or condone violence in their name (as with 'Islamic State' and their ilk), and they have not claimed or sought any 'credit' for this attack.

 

 

"Britain First terrorist" has clearly been concocted to sell tabloid newspapers and make a snappy soundbite.......and to allow some people to be baited by a mischievous leftie !

I don't think he is being mischievous, I think he is trying to be manipulative, it is just that no one takes him seriously.

You take him seriously

[WILF 46,832]

They want to call the bloke a terrorist and say he is "right wing" so that they can further curtail any opposition to the cultural genocide being committed on Western Europe.

 

For right wing, see normal ex conservatives, labour, liberals, church goers, builders, ex miners, ex barrow boys, company executives, the ex pope etc etc.........yep, all sound like committed nazis to me !!

Edited November 17, 2016 by WILF

[BGD 6,436]

They want to call the bloke a terrorist because that's exactly what he is.

[Blackbriar 8,569]

They want to call the bloke a terrorist because that's exactly what he is.

I think the dictionary definition confirms that he is a terrorist - although the word is so overused that it's losing its true meaning.

To call him a "Britain First terrorist" is, at very best, tenuous and, at worst, downright dishonest, for the reasons I gave above.

[BGD 6,436]

 

They want to call the bloke a terrorist because that's exactly what he is.

I think the dictionary definition confirms that he is a terrorist - although the word is so overused that it's losing its true meaning.

To call him a "Britain First terrorist" is, at very best, tenuous and, at worst, downright dishonest, for the reasons I gave above.

I'll admit it's a bit of an oversimplification used as a headline but I'm sure we can agree based on what we know of his motives and ideology that "right wing nationalist terrorist" fits perfectly.

[Tiercel 6,986]

 

 

They want to call the bloke a terrorist because that's exactly what he is.

I think the dictionary definition confirms that he is a terrorist - although the word is so overused that it's losing its true meaning.

To call him a "Britain First terrorist" is, at very best, tenuous and, at worst, downright dishonest, for the reasons I gave above.

I'll admit it's a bit of an oversimplification used as a headline but I'm sure we can agree based on what we know of his motives and ideology that "right wing nationalist terrorist" fits perfectly.

 

I disagree, the term 'terrorist' conjurers up a picture of a trained assassin who is willing to die for his cause. This bloke who had no affiliation (photo apart) with any know group took it upon himself to assassinate a political figure for no other reason than he could.

 

TC

[BGD 6,436]

 

 

 

 

They want to call the bloke a terrorist because that's exactly what he is.

I think the dictionary definition confirms that he is a terrorist - although the word is so overused that it's losing its true meaning.

To call him a "Britain First terrorist" is, at very best, tenuous and, at worst, downright dishonest, for the reasons I gave above.

I'll admit it's a bit of an oversimplification used as a headline but I'm sure we can agree based on what we know of his motives and ideology that "right wing nationalist terrorist" fits perfectly.

I disagree, the term 'terrorist' conjurers up a picture of a trained assassin who is willing to die for his cause. This bloke who had no affiliation (photo apart) with any know group took it upon himself to assassinate a political figure for no other reason than he could.

 

TC

So you don't think he's a terrorist?

 

Regardless of what the word conjures up in your mind what he did fits the legal and dictionary definition of a terrorist attack that's a simple fact.

[tatsblisters 9,762]

They want to call the bloke a terrorist and say he is "right wing" so that they can further curtail any opposition to the cultural genocide being committed on Western Europe.

 

For right wing, see normal ex conservatives, labour, liberals, church goers, builders, ex miners, ex barrow boys, company executives, the ex pope etc etc.........yep, all sound like committed nazis to me !!

Yep ex miners I know loads even ex members of the SWP knowing all the left wing dogma is detrimental to our freedoms and our way of life.

[mick1212 389]

They want to call the bloke a terrorist because that's exactly what he is.

tommy deserves a medal the size of a frying pan

[BGD 6,436]

 

 

They want to call the bloke a terrorist because that's exactly what he is.

tommy deserves a medal the size of a frying pan

And you're a terrorist supporting scumbag, well done

[mick1212 389]

 

 

They want to call the bloke a terrorist because that's exactly what he is.

tommy deserves a medal the size of a frying pan

And you're a terrorist supporting scumbag, well done

 

tommys innocent mate me scumbag you're a junky bum

Edited November 18, 2016 by mick1212

[Blackbriar 8,569]

 

 

They want to call the bloke a terrorist because that's exactly what he is.

I think the dictionary definition confirms that he is a terrorist - although the word is so overused that it's losing its true meaning.

To call him a "Britain First terrorist" is, at very best, tenuous and, at worst, downright dishonest, for the reasons I gave above.

I'll admit it's a bit of an oversimplification used as a headline but I'm sure we can agree based on what we know of his motives and ideology that "right wing nationalist terrorist" fits perfectly.

No ! We most definitely do NOT agree !

 

Terrorist yes, by definition....but.....

 

My objection is - apart from the many I've already raised - that you're equating "right wing", "nationalist"and " terrorist" into one homogenised lump, in an underhand attempt to suggest that the three things are interchangeable.

Thomas Mair had no concrete affiliations to any right wing group. No right wing or nationalist group has him listed among their members or supporters. No right wing group 'put him up to it',or have supported or condoned his actions. No right wing group has claimed his actions to be on their behalf.......

 

You're flogging a dead horse, mate, and you won't run me in circles as easily as you do some others - I'm not necessarily a supporter of Britain First, but I very much resent the attempt to tar all right wingers with cheap, scurrilous insinuations !