Religious/Extremist Terrorism: Non-Muslim edition

[Remius]

I saw the report on the news. I'm not going to bother in the least, including reading about it until the police investigation is ended and he is charged or freed. There's so much bullshit in the news today. When even CNN is flat out caught staging lies for the cameras, journalism is no longer something to pay attention to. Editorial or journalisic opinion is just that, opinion. Just like mine. Might be true, but increasingly it appears not to be. They've moved from being news reporters and journalists to storytellers and entertainers.

We don't even get it right here on Milnet. A guy hit pedestrians and because it 'appears' similar to attacks carried out by muslim terrorists, it automatically goes here in a terrorism thread. What if he had a medical problem or was texting. Nope, just like know it all journalists, we've already decided it was a planned attack. Like I've said, I'm not concerning myself until I hear it from sources I think I trust. YMMV.

The police declared it a terror attack eight minutes after the incident.  The country's counter terrorism unit has taken over the investigation.  In their opinion they declared it as such.  If the sources you trust didn't report that, then I would question your sources...

 

[The Bread Guy]

... A guy hit pedestrians and because it 'appears' similar to attacks carried out by muslim terrorists, it automatically goes here in a terrorism thread. What if he had a medical problem or was texting.  Nope, just like know it all journalists, we've already decided it was a planned attack ...

London's Metro Police had this to say:

... No matter what the motivation proves to be, and we are keeping an open mind, this is being treated as a terrorist attack and the Counter Terrorism Command is investigating ...

You're right that it hasn't been proven to be a terrorist attack yet, but if your theory in yellow turns out to be the case, I'm pretty certain that information'll be shared here, too.

... I'm not concerning myself until I hear it from sources I think I trust ...

I know the sources I look at (all with varying sizes of grains of salt) - what sources do you think you trust, then?  I'm always looking to expand my range of sources - who do you trust these days?

 

[jollyjacktar]

As I said, I'm surprised to some degree that a reciprocal attack hasn't happened before this as no doubt there are elements from society who are equally as sick and twisted.  I suspect the only reason it's not come to this until now is I expect they aren't as willing to die in the act as their end motivations are different and leaving pigs heads or paint was enough up to now.  I agree with Brihard and Abdullah, attacking innocent people is disgusting.  I hope this doesn't encourage more of the same tit for tat shit should this be a genuine attack and not another cause.

 

[brihard]

It appears our questions earlier have been put to be. That was indeed a retaliatory terror attack against Muslims by a white Briton. The BBC article has quite a bit of detail. The PM and the Met Police commissioner have clearly identified this as terrorism and an attack on Muslims. Witnesses on scene report that after the driver was detained he said he wanted to kill Muslims, and said he 'did his bit', and told them to kill him. Police will be getting a mental health assessment on him. Somewhat confusingly, it looks like there was already first aid being provided on a man who was in medical distress on scene, and then the van hit them. That is believed to be the lone fatality, and police are investigating whether the collision was part of the cause of death.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40322960

I suspect that like many other attacks, we will find that this individual fits into my 'radicalized loser' theory- he's probably a failure in his own right, quite likely not all there upstairs, and probably sought meaning in an otherwise meaningless life.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... Witnesses on scene report that after the driver was detained he said he wanted to kill Muslims, and said he 'did his bit', and told them to kill him ...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40322960

Meanwhile, elsewhere on the interwebs, the "false flag" allegation has already been raised (more on YouTube here) ...  :facepalm:

... I suspect that like many other attacks, we will find that this individual fits into my 'radicalized loser' theory- he's probably a failure in his own right, quite likely not all there upstairs, and probably sought meaning in an otherwise meaningless life.

:nod: #TheOtherRadicalization

 

[George Wallace]

Judge for yourself his state of mind and social bearing:

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/finsbury-park-attacker-named-as-cardiff-resident-darren-osborne/ar-BBCTBz2?li=AAadgLE&ocid=spartandhp

 

[brihard]

Judge for yourself his state of mind and social bearing:

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/finsbury-park-attacker-named-as-cardiff-resident-darren-osborne/ar-BBCTBz2?li=AAadgLE&ocid=spartandhp

That article gives us practically nothing to go on to make those assessments. White dude, middle aged, from Wales. It doesn't establish with any degree of confidence his state of mind, his sanity, or how he may have been radicalized. It tries to draw an inference based on their being racist nationalist groups in the same area, but of course all of the U.K. is quite small with significant population density. You'll find nationalist groups close to anywhere.

 

[Remius]

That article gives us practically nothing to go on to make those assessments. White dude, middle aged, from Wales. It doesn't establish with any degree of confidence his state of mind, his sanity, or how he may have been radicalized. It tries to draw an inference based on their being racist nationalist groups in the same area, but of course all of the U.K. is quite small with significant population density. You'll find nationalist groups close to anywhere.

Definitely not enough info to go on to make any judgement on state of mind or even social bearing.

MTF I guess as it becomes known.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Judge for yourself his state of mind and social bearing:

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/finsbury-park-attacker-named-as-cardiff-resident-darren-osborne/ar-BBCTBz2?li=AAadgLE&ocid=spartandhp

There's no evidence in the piece connecting the individual with any group, but there's still an interesting narrative tidbit to stay tuned for in the coming days ...

... Several far right groups are active in south Wales, in the vicinity of Pontyclun where Osborne is believed to have hired the van used in the attack. They include the South Wales National Front. Its leader, Adam Lloyd, is based in Bridgend, but it has denied any connection to the attacker.

Lloyd, the SWNF organiser, denied any connection to the attacker.

“The man in question is not known to any of us here in South Wales National Front, and to our knowledge is not and never has been a member,” he said.

“Although we will never condone or accept this kind of violent attacks here in SWNF, anyone with a right mind can see this is not a terrorist attack but a revenge attack.” ...

Definition of "revenge":  "the act of doing something to hurt someone because that person did something that hurt you"

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Wow. I rest my case.

 

[Remius]

Wow. I rest my case.

You're resting your case on the opinion of a white supremist?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

No, I'm resting my case that even the MSM isn't sure of what's going on, but it's not stopping them from trying to be first with the headline. So much so, that their speculation and reporting is doing nothing but muddying the waters. And the readers of their fluff are falling all over themselves agreeing/ denying/ going off on their own wild tangents and arguments.

I don't even know how you twisted what I said into support for the person responsible for what happened or what anyone else in the press has to say. I am on no side. Not the driver's or the muslims' or the white supremacists' or any here. I have my own thoughts, but I'll keep them to myself until I decide I have enough for a solid assessment.

There is still too much unexplained and uncorroborated 'evidence' to be drawing conclusions at this point. Until the veracity of everything that took place is known, there is no reasonable or probable grounds to form an opinion of what happened beyond a white guy drove a truck into a group of muslims.

 

[Remius]

No, I'm resting my case that even the MSM isn't sure of what's going on, but it's not stopping them from trying to be first with the headline. So much so, that their speculation and reporting is doing nothing but muddying the waters. And the readers of their fluff are falling all over themselves agreeing/ denying/ going off on their own wild tangents and arguments.

I don't even know how you twisted what I said into support for the person responsible for what happened or what anyone else in the press has to say. I am on no side. Not the driver's or the muslims' or the white supremacists' or any here. I have my own thoughts, but I'll keep them to myself until I decide I have enough for a solid assessment.

There is still too much unexplained and uncorroborated 'evidence' to be drawing conclusions at this point. Until the veracity of everything that took place is known, there is no reasonable or probable grounds to form an opinion of what happened beyond a white guy drove a truck into a group of muslims.

To be honest I don't blame your skepticism.  But the media is going with what they are being told.  If the London police says "we are treating this as a terrorist attack" what do you expect the narrative to be? That part, the part that states what the police said is a fact whether you believe it or not.  Fake news is indeed fake news.  News that gets it wrong doesn't always equate to fake.  No one here is running wild with anything despite you thinking that opinions are being formed based on what the media is saying.

I also didn't twist anything you said.  You rested your case after someone posted the opinion of a white supremacist. I thought that was odd. 

You said you have trusted sources that someone else here was curious about that you were waiting on.  I'd also like to know what those trusted sources are. If anything I do like to expand the various forums and less sources I go to.  I'm legitimately asking, it's not to call you out or anything but I'd like to know what a skeptic's trusted news sources are. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

White people can be Muslim too.  Some of the most vitriolic dudes I've came across on youtube were white converts.

It's interesting to see side by side pictures of comments from twitter comparing what people say when it's a terrorist attack committed by Muslims against when one is carried out by a non-Muslim.

 

[George Wallace]

[

White people can be Muslim too.  Some of the most vitriolic dudes I've came across on youtube were white converts.

It's interesting to see side by side pictures of comments from twitter comparing what people say when it's a terrorist attack committed by Muslims against when one is carried out by a non-Muslim.

White people are what anthropologists call "Caucasians".  Quite a few Muslims, particularly in the Middle East, Eurasia, Northern Africa and Southwest Asia are "Caucasians".  It is quite humourous when it comes to people using "racism" in their argument on this subject.

Back on topic.  What we have is a nut job, just like the one who shot the Republican members of Congress practicing at the ballpark.  There are thousands out there, in every nation.  I am not sure if I would label this case as one of terrorism over a case of assault.  I look at it as a case where someone wanted to retaliate to "terrorism" at the first target they saw.  More of an case of assault with a deadly weapon than a terrorist act.  We shall see what comes out in Court, when that day comes, as to what his motives really were, and whether they were planned or just spur of the moment.

I also think that there is a great difference between terrorism and terrorizing.  Our concept of "terrorists" is that they conduct "terrorism"; but "criminals" have also been known to "terrorize".  For example: the Hells Angels have not been branded as a "terrorist group", yet they have been known to "terrorize" segments of our society.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Treating it as a terrorist incident and knowing it is are two different things. Police can treat near anything as a terrorist incident. It allows for special powers when someone is suspected of it. No time limit to hold them, legal privileges suspended etc. It's actually pretty common IIRC. They can always downgrade the charges later when they know more about what's going on. Treating it as a terrorism act allows them to hold the suspect where he'd normally be freed on bail. That's what I see. YMMV.

At any rate, that's as far as I'm going, with this, until I see something concrete.

 

[Remius]

No argument there.

But your statement about this reads as though you blamed the media for the narrative when in fact it is the police who started it.  The media went with what the police told them.  You can't blame them for that.

I'm all for calling out the media when they are wrong but maybe you should blame the police for starting this.

Not the media and certainly not the people here. 

 

[brihard]

Until the veracity of everything that took place is known, there is no reasonable or probable grounds to form an opinion of what happened beyond a white guy drove a truck into a group of muslims.

The Brits have a similar threshold for charging criminal offences as us- in our case we quite literlaly use the term 'reasonable and probable grounds'. In this case the attacker has been charged with at least one terrorism offense. So it appears that yes, actually, there ARE reasonable and probable grounds to form the opinion that a terrorism act took place - at least in the mind of British police and crown prosecutors. I don't know what weight you give to their opinion in this matter, but in my mind it ought to be a lot. You don't just slap terrorism charges willy nilly on top of already very solid criminal cases.

The guy attacked Muslims, stated his desire to kill Muslims, and claimed to have 'done his bit'. He was attacking a whole people based on their religious views in an apparent tit for tat. If this doesn't fit your concept of 'terrorism', you need to revise. I am saddened but not surprised at the contortions some people are going to to call this something other than what it appears to be, who otherwise if the attacker were Muslim would be very quickly on that particular train.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

No argument there.

But your statement about this reads as though you blamed the media for the narrative when in fact it is the police who started it.  The media went with what the police told them.  You can't blame them for that.

I'm all for calling out the media when they are wrong but maybe you should blame the police for starting this.

Not the media and certainly not the people here.

Not blaming anyone here, whatever you meant by that. I don't care what they write or perceive, didn't even read most of it. Do whatever you want. Think whatever you want. I'll do likewise. Nobody says you have to listen to me or even agree. As far as what I should or shouldn't do, you don't get to decide any of that. Again, unless there's new info, the police said they were TREATING as a terrorist attack, not that it was a terrorist act, for the reasons I already stated. As far as I know, they haven't come out and made that point definite yet. It's an easily missed point but a valid one and it's not picking flyshit out of pepper. The police are usually very picky and particular about the way they word things for the public. Journalists, not so much. You'll have to live with this answer as I'm not discussing my POV until I have better info. You can do as you wish. Just because I may not agree with you or someone else, doesn't mean I'm wrong or my perceptions are skewed. It means I can think for myself and not worry what anyone else thinks or says, unless I wish to.
You should try it. 
eaceut

 

[Jarnhamar]

He should have traveled to Syria and  blew himself up in an Isis strong point. What a loser.