Another terrorist attack in London—with a twist
This one appears to have been an anti-Muslim retaliation by a man who is currently in police custody:
The man arrested on suspicion of carrying out the Finsbury Park terror attack is 47-year-old Darren Osborne from Cardiff, the BBC understands.
He was held after a van hit Muslims who had been attending evening prayers at a north London mosque.
They had been helping a man who had collapsed. He later died but it is not clear if it was because of the attack.
Mr Osborne was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder and later further arrested over alleged terror offences.
For years the media has been talking about hate crimes against Muslims. Well, this is a real one, all too real. The suspect, however, seems to have been an actual “lone wolf” rather than a “known wolf” or part of any organized group.
The modus operandi was the same as in the recent Islamist terrorist attacks: a vehicle. Fortunately, Osborne was somewhat less competent than his Islamist predecessors and role models—he seems to have failed to actually kill anyone. The sole death involved a man who had already collapsed, and who may have died of natural causes.
I hope that this is not the first sign of a trend. It should surprise no one that it happened, however. It feels like the entire situation is escalating, particularly in Great Britain and France, and these things are often contagious for people already on the edge of unhingement. That’s my guess about Osborne.
[NOTE: By the way—although I don’t monitor them all that closely—it seems to me that the BBC is less reticent about the use of the word “terror” here than in previous instances. It’s not even in scare quotes in the article about Osborne.
This is their general policy. I assume they would say that Osborne has been charged with committing terror offenses, and that’s why they decided to use the word in the present case.]
This was inevitable and the only surprise is that it took a great deal of attacks by muslims to drive someone over the edge. I do not condone this man’s actions, but I do understand his outburst of violence. The authorities in the UK have created this atmosphere of anger mixed with fear.
Until the political class and the bureaucracies stop coddling muslims and conversely demeaning the victims of jihad as suffering from racism and islamophobia, the tensions between muslims and non-muslims will become evermore intense. And voters better be ‘woke’ and demand the political class perform its primary function which is protecting the citizens and maintaining order.
The slogan should be just say no to sharia and no more no go zones.
The jihadis have been hoping for years that someone would finally commit a real act that would “justify” all their fake Islamophobia warnings.
Over on Rantburg, they’re discussing it – and it may just have been an unfortunate street accident, turned into a “anti-muslim” incident. The dead man was apparently felled by a heart attack, and was sitting in a chair in the street some distance from the mosque – with a crowd around him … and the guy in the van comes around the corner, tries to dodge the crowd, and winds up on the sidewalk. There are pics here of the front of the van – very little damage to be seen,
I’m wondering if this isn’t rather like the accident which kicked off the Crown Heights riot. Unfortunate accident, blown up by activists and credulous reporters – make that malicious reporters – into something it was not.
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?D=06/19/2017&SO=&HC=1&ID=490676
And, again, Teresa May has promised to crack down on “Islamophobia.” Just as she does after every attack, no matter who carries it out.
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/19/15829438/finsbury-park-theresa-may-donald-trump
The miracle is that this hasn’t happened sooner. The best way to combat “Islamophobia” is to stop the Islamist radical attacks on non-Muslims.
Can it be done? Yes, but we will have to challenge the ideology. No Western nation can have people in their midst who advocate a worldwide Muslim theocracy governed by sharia law and use violence or any means necessary to achieve their ends. It’s just that simple.
An interesting analysis of the Salafist jihadi’s methods for staying ahead of the authorities in the west; applicable to Western Europe and the US.
https://warontherocks.com/2017/06/the-toxic-movement-that-brought-terror-to-london-bridge/
om, good link. The Wahhabi/Salafi/political (Take your pick, the names are interchangeable) Muslims have a distinct ideology that can be challenged. This article made reference to it, but does not offer a systematic path for refuting the ideology. That is what is needed.
There are moderate Muslims who are denouncing the idea of a worldwide theocracy established through violence and murder. Those moderates base their faith on the pillars of:
1. Belief in Allah as the one God.
2. Daily prayer.
3. Fasting.
4. Charitable giving.
They denounce the goal of worldwide Muslim theocracy as immoral and unrealistic. This information is hard to find because moderate Muslims get no MSM coverage and there are few that are brave enough to speak out.
“There are moderate Muslims who are denouncing the idea…”
I’m surre there were moderate germans in Dresden
Parker, when you say you understand his violence, do you mean something like, you understand the impulse to murder innocent people because they belong to the same demographic group as someone else who also committed murder? I mean, revenge is a pretty basic human urge, so no shame if your immediate instinct is to “understand” revenge murder.
JackReno, I’m trying to understand your comment. It sounds like you’re suggesting there’s an equivalent between fighting Nazi Germany (it’s ok to bomb good Germans in the service of fighting Nazis) and fighting jihadists (it’s ok to drive a van through a crowd of innocent people in service of…revenge against Muslims I guess?). Which elides a key distinction, which is that Nazi Germany commanded the industrial might of one of the world’s then-most powerful countries to wage total war, while jihadists…don’t.
Every victim of terrorism is a tragedy. Fortunately, terrorism generally doesn’t kill a lot of people. (Most of the victims of terrorism since 9/11 have, of course, been innocent Muslims living in Iraq, Syria, etc.) There’s a big difference between Nazi Germany fielding millions of men to conquer Europe and a jihadist movement that is reduced to knife attacks and driving cars through crowds. The latter is a terrible, awful thing that must be stopped, but it hardly rises to the level of “indiscriminate revenge attacks against innocent people.” The Brits, who explicitly chose to keep calm and carry on (much to the confusion, I think, of this blog’S proprietress and commenters), seem to get this.
But I bet it makes you feel really tough to posture in from, vague blog comments about bombing Dresden!