Was the Southport massacre a terrorist attack?
At the time, the country was swiftly assured it was not. Although this apparent attempt to quell political anger about the horrific attack did seem to backfire, only giving rise to the sense that we weren’t hearing the full story and that the perpetrator, Axel Rudakubana, was rather more sinister than the Welsh choirboy he was being portrayed as.
Now that he’s pleaded guilty and the full details of his crimes are in the public domain, we are hearing much the same efforts to downplay the terror angle. The Prime Minister, the Government and much of the media have proved keener to talk about Amazon and social media rather than what might have motivated Rudakubana.
It is not unusual for politicians to deflect attention from uncomfortable realities. More significant is what was said by the prosecutor, Deanna Heer KC, at Thursday’s sentencing. “There is no evidence that [Rudakubana] ascribed [sic] to any particular political or religious ideology,” she declared. “He wasn’t fighting for a cause.” Some have taken this as demonstrating cut-and-dry that there was no terrorist motive – that Rudakubana was simply a randomly violent individual obsessed with genocide. If even the prosecutor is denying a clear motive, then surely there can’t have been one?
But there is much about this statement that smells off. It smacks of being more an aping of the preferred official narrative than a careful evaluation of the facts.
First, among the potential elements of terrorism
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
So when are the media going to home in on the circumstances of this devil incarnate’s parents migrating to this country from Rwanda in the aftermath of the genocide of 30 years ago?
Islamists seem to use the grievance politics of the left for their own ends. We have seen this happen in Australia where they have joined with those protesting the colonisation of Australia to turn the rhetoric into violent revenge – (8) COLONISED: Palestinian flags blot out Aboriginal flags, dominate Invasion Day. Sadly there are many groups now who promote violence as a means to justice which we know it is not.
We should deport all these people. Africans and whites cannot live safely together. Leave Africa to stew. Close our borders.
Different people’s want to live with their own. I do not want to have Africans and middle eastern and Indian sub continent people in my ancient, ancestral land.
Agreed.
That’s it isn’t it.
Starmer and his lot hate us, and so do the tories and the blob.
Don’t care, the feeling is entirely mutual. Entirely.
We’ll get the bar stewards sooner or later
Some terrorists are driven to violence by their fanatical belief in Islamism. Some violently inclined men are drawn to Islamism because it indulges and legitimises their taste for violence. I guess the Southport killer is one of the latter.
It is not unusual for politicians to deflect attention from uncomfortable realities
But the reality of our current situation is not uncomfortable for our rulers. The Southport murderer is an anti-whitist. Our Government is an anti-white government bent on replacing the native peoples of these islands. This is why the government bent over backwards to protect the Southport murderer, but moved heaven and earth to defeat the white people protesting about the murder of white children.
I for one do not understand the obsession with whether this was terrorism. It was murder, horrific and unfathomable murder. For that he deserves the toughest justice available to us, which in this case is probably not tough enough. I am angered and appalled at any loss of life, violence, criminality of any kind inflicted upon us by someone who should regard being here as a privilege. I don’t care whether that person is white European, black African or any other person.
Ah but crime in this subset of that population is lower than the domestic population. My response to this is unrepeatable in polite company, because if you have been welcomed into this country, you should hold that welcome as the most precious thing and you should not commit any crime against your hosts.
Then another ah but rings out, that this person was born here, so he is British. In my life, I have known people born in Malta, Malawi, USA, Germany and so many other countries and you know what, because all of them were born to British parents living in those countries, they are all British, with British birth certificates and passports. It seems… Read more »
Agreed. Probably not a terrorist – yet. I’m sure he would have grown into one, given his researches and proclivities.
This looks like a racially-aggravated hate crime entailing mass murder, possibly atavistic given his heritage and recent history. Was he the only black kid in his school? I doubt it, and he was pushed forward for the Dr Who thing probably to tick a box so clearly not disadvantaged.
I feel so sorry for prison staff who have to contain this creature.
And still the authorities pretend there is no danger as undocumented men lurk outside schools. What ever happened to ‘loitering with intent’?
Why do convicts appear in face masks these days?
Is it part of the punishment?
He wore one during the trial, assuming the illustrations were accurate.
I’ve seen this quite often, especially in London. I have assumed it’s about not being recognised by CCTV/witnesses and/or looking threatening – with a hoody on most of the face is obscured.
They should not be allowed to mask up. I would have ripped it off his face.
Peter Hitchens is getting a lot of flack for his take on it: ”It’s not terrorism, it’s marijuana”;
”But why are there so many crazy, violent people in this country now? Why are there so many fatal stabbings?
Marijuana, that’s why. Make Marijuana Illegal Again”
Here’s an exerpt from his Mail on Sunday piece on it. I note he’s not a fan of Tommy Robinson too so I think there’s quite a bit we disagree on;
https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1883263642847568256
The evidence refutes Hitchens’ viewpoint because he was extensively assessed and deemed to not have mental illness. This monster was a psychopath who evidently hated white people and has a history of aggression and preoccupation with violence. Being a psychopath doesn’t automatically mean you’re mentally ill. And there was never any evidence he was a pot-head.
”With due deference, Mr. Hitchens, you make this attack sound like little more than an accident.
I’ve covered this case from start to finish and Rudakubana was not found to be suffering any significant mental illness or disorder by reports commissioned by the defence council.
The Southport murderer is not schizophrenic or lacking in the ability to reason. Indeed, he demonstrated himself to be quite crafty at several junctures.
There is zero evidence that he was a drug user. If he had and this was though to impair his cognition, judgement, or relationships, the defence counsel would have raised the point.
Rudakubana carried out the Southport attack deliberately and gleefully. Human beings do not need to be ill to do horrific things.
He was subjected to extensive psychological tests but they came back with nothing. It was with some reluctance that Rudakubana’s… Read more »
If drugs played a part, it’s much more likely to be psychiatric medication, and the unpredictable effects of coming of it, than marijuana.
Exactly, the old Mary-J tends to make people very peaceful and lethargic.
I always found a bit of bob exceedingly relaxing.
Start thinking out of the box. The one unspeakable question in this debate is, what medication was Axel Rudakubana on while he was under the care of the NHS, and that he stopped using after four years? Not weed – anti-depressant might be a more likely candidate. I suggest you check out this commentary. The short initial summary points suggest there might be a different issue that is very carefully being avoided.
Yes anti-depressants are the common thread alongside guns in every mass shooting in America.
Hitchens is somewhat obsessed with cannabis and tends to blame it for violent attacks that were obviously motivated by ideology.
How do you know that drug abuse did not trigger them to carry out acts in the name of ideology. Peter Hitchens is correct in saying that some sort of drug – legal or illegal – is present in those who commit massacres. Just as the elite work hard to conceal race and religion, they also refuse to divulge drug status. Hiding something perhaps? Especially since those in the elite have a history of drug use themselves even if it just some weed at university.
The paragraph which mentions damage to “community relations” hits it on the head.
Trying to “maintain community relations” is, at this point, like trying to protect a house from fires – after it has burnt down.
I am hopeful that “community relations” can be rebuilt – there are, after all, a large number (and I would still suggest a majority) of ethnically-non-“native” people in this country who are decent sorts and are British patriots.
The above also does not excuse the entire “native” community – there are numerous political and ideological factions which are dead against the notion of British patriotism.
What it will take though, is for certain communities to disown those who express these sentiments, and who behave in a way that is unacceptable to the long-standing societal norms of this country.
If you wish to live here and emigrate from overseas, you are very welcome – provided that you are prepared to contribute societally and productively, and that you are happy to accept that the “native” culture here may be very different to that where you have originated – and that you adhere to the aforementioned British cultural and societal expectations.
Somebody else here who’s onboard with the whole ”They’re importing UN troops” thing;
”Western governments work hand in glove with the UN, which is controlled by Internationalist Communists. Our treacherous politicians are carrying out the UN’s Global Compact For Migration whilst also importing Future Enforcement Troops to be used when the Brits finally wake up.
PS: The UN Global Compact For Migration is absolutely about The Great Replacement. Which is why they are also sending UN soldiers to our shores. They will do to us what our own military would refuse to do…..
Importing, housing and feeding a hostile army requires a very different set of govt protocols than those traditionally utilised in processing asylum seekers.
People who refuse to recognise what our government is doing are simply unable to comprehend the evil enormity of it.”
https://x.com/PWestoff/status/1883849543265222722
I think the British military (or what remains of it) and military veterans would still annihilate such people if it came to it. I would also imagine that help from our neighbours across the pond would be rapid and decisive.
Miri A F discusses this in a blog post. I have linked to this excellent article previously but it most certainly slots in well here. As you know Mogs I have long supported the ‘importing an army’ storyas has John O’Looney. As far as I see it this is just blatantly obvious.
“You will note, also, that these people (young, male asylum seekers) are always placed in accommodation which either has gyms on site or very near by. Why? I mean, you’d think that if you’re fleeing war and persecution, working on your biceps wouldn’t be much of a key concern – but it would if you were a soldier needing to maintain your fitness whilst you wait to be deployed.
These people are soldiers, and they are here to enforce something that our own military (who will never turn against their own people) would not do. That is why they’ve been recruited from the kind of countries that despise the West, think us immoral and degenerate, and so would think nothing of brutally enforcing some sort of totalitarian state regime (indeed, they might even think they were doing us a favour).”
https://miriaf.co.uk/invasion-of-the-flat-snatchers-2/
“If you wish to live here and emigrate from overseas, you are very welcome”
Erm, no. We are stuffed to the bloody gunwhales and definitely do not need any more.
Depends who they are. If they’ve got shed loads of cash or a PhD in a scientific subject that might generate some wealth, then come on down. Trouble is, we’re chucking these people out and replacing them with grifters who contribute the square root of diddly squat.
In the current climate I stick with my point of view.
The UK is full.
David Starkey comments very profoundly on this topic in the accompanying Daily Sceptic video.