Muslim Council of Britain: Perpetrator Was 'Motivated By Islamophobia'

a reply to: buster2010
Let me dissect this to simple terms so that you can understand.
The definition of a terrorist (please notice I did NOT say Muslim) is a person or persons who commit acts or act to create a sense of fear or terror.
A person taking revenge from a personal perspective is NOT trying to create fear or terror, they are just acting in one instance of retribution.
There is NO EVIDENCE to tie the man to any terror network so why the knee jerk condemnation of him being a terrorist.
Or does that fit your agenda?

a reply to: crayzeed

He drove a van at a load of muslims intending to kill them, he is certainly acting like a terrorist

Wouldn't surprise me if he had a account on ATS

is there a difference between Islamophobia and revenge?? because I think the guy just decided to do unto others as they do unto him and his. he was wrong, and it's possible that no one outside of that mosque was inclined to go plowing their car through a crowd of people, just like those who were plowed into on the bridge might not have had anything against the muslim population....
that's what's so dangerous when we start throwing people into these categories of people and blaming all of them for the actions of a few violently crazy people! people start striking back, but the people they hit are just innocent people who happen to have been thrown into a group.

no one who is doing the violence, or orchestrating it is harmed, just innocent people trying to live their daily lives.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: 23432
Ottomans ruled over Greece , Bulgaria , Romania , Serbia , Hungary and some others I can't remember at the moment.

You don't " invade " for over 400 years ; that is a revisionist talk if I ever saw one . Going by the same logic , Natives in Africa , America , Australia are still under an invasion ; not a rule .

The invasion and occupation, and subsequent loss of parts of of Europe by the Ottoman Empire does not constitute "all" of Europe. Besides, the occupation of some countries was fleeting and the process of conflict and war-making covered a period longer than 400 years. Not sure I understand you "revisionist" comment, nor understand the relevance of your observation. You invade, occupy and then rule. Is here a different sequence?

The Ottoman Empire was not motivated by religious expansionism, although the Armenian Genocide and other religious bigotry was a feature of Ottoman low points.

None of those nations have lost their identity as a result of muslim rule ; over 400 years .

Armenians had joined with Turks to escape religous persecution by other Christians and remained as the " most trusted nation " of the Empire .

There is ample evidence that muslims didn't force Islam onto conquered.

Problem with your narrative is that it is not the truth .

Muslims didnt forcefully convert Christians and Jews in the past and will never do anythning of a sort in the future either.

Some people talk about Muslim forcing conversion yet totally forget what Christians and Catholics did. They destroyed many continents and civilizations in their effort to force their religion onto others.

Not saying one is better but never forget the past of any religion. Also never forget that here would still be atrocities committed by these religions if North America did not limit what they are allowed to do in the name of God. Do not forget what religion is still committing crimes against children to this day and the church is not doing anything about it but sweeping it under the rug.

Any Muslim/Christian/Catholic or whatever religion must realize that the dark ages are over and any type of barbaric behavior will not be tolerated.

originally posted by: 23432

Armenians had joined with Turks to escape religous persecution by other Christians and remained as the " most trusted nation " of the Empire .

Really? So why did the muslim Turks round up and systematically murder nearly 2 million of them?

In fact, the term "genocide" was specifically created to describe what the muslim invaders did to the Armenians.

How's that for a condemnation. To actually have a word for mass murder created just for them.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: 23432

Armenians had joined with Turks to escape religous persecution by other Christians and remained as the " most trusted nation " of the Empire .

Really? So why did the muslim Turks round up and systematically murder nearly 2 million of them?

In fact, the term "genocide" was specifically created to describe what the muslim invaders did to the Armenians.

How's that for a condemnation. To actually have a word for mass murder created just for them.

Since your talking about the past of religions, are you ignoring the genocide that Christians and Catholics did in their effort to conquer the world?

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: 23432

Armenians had joined with Turks to escape religous persecution by other Christians and remained as the " most trusted nation " of the Empire .

Really? So why did the muslim Turks round up and systematically murder nearly 2 million of them?

In fact, the term "genocide" was specifically created to describe what the muslim invaders did to the Armenians.

How's that for a condemnation. To actually have a word for mass murder created just for them.

That narrative doesn't stand the scrutiny thus rejected as " fiction " .

Alleged Armenian Genocide is just what it says ; Alleged .

Armenian Terrorists killing the Christian Europans in Paris is still in my memory .

Don't be a mug ; ask where the bones and the remains of these victims are buried ?

No bodies nor any remains to be found on the land .

On the other hand Turks now have the records of immigration to Western Nations from all ex-Ottomans and the Data shows those supposedly Genocided Armenians to be living USA & France and some other nations .

No Orders to mass kill
No Bones to be found
No Genocide

Don't be a mug .

So, when it comes out he had a few too many pints and someone who was linked to him was killed in one of these attacks and it is drunken revenge is it then terrorism?

Sorry, to call is terrorism is absurd. Hate crime. Sure. I will give anyone that because he was targeting a group of people but this is not a terror attack by any means. I am also slightly afraid this will not be the last one that we will see from either side of this fence.

As someone else had mentioned in a previous thread the UK itself fought internally with Ireland and the IRA for decades. What makes people think that someone from the UK is not finally going to get sick of this and take revenge or, to put it as it should, continue the 'war' that has started in the UK.

originally posted by: Hecate666

originally posted by: dreamingawake

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: dreamingawake
Multiple sources sharing what a witness had quoted from the van driver:
"Finsbury Park van driver screamed 'I want to kill all Muslims' after mowing down crowds"

THE driver who ploughed into pedestrians near Finsbury Park mosque screamed “I want to kill all Muslims” moments after the incident, an eyewitness has claimed.

Source

Well at least he didn't scream "God is Great" I guess.

Either way....the very quick reporting of whatever he screamed and it being labeled a terrorist attack is concerning to me.

It was the next day before the Ariana Grande attack was labeled as such, and even then it was not widely reported as being religiously linked as a terrorist attack.

I think we are seeing the beginning of a new agenda.

It's almost as if the MSM is driving the next religious war. If only the public at large would realize that religion is the factor behind almost every war in history...

It's terrorism the same. It's terrorism in reply to terrorism.

It's not just the MSM pushing for these things. Alt News has Islamophobia news day in and day out, has people freaking out scared to death of Islam. No need for a FF here when people are already self radicalizing by media influence.

BUt it isn't terrorism. At least not when muslim fanatics are doing it. Muslim drives car into crowd, chops heads off or stabs poepple: Mentally ill lone wolf. White man drives van into people: Immediate terrorism.

Whoever coins these phrases can't have a consistent idea of what terrorism means.
Neither do you.

I always call 'lone wolf [more lone weasel] attacks terrorist attacks because they are done in the name of isis [even if you are not an official member with a photo card]. A single man driving in retaliation into a muslim crowd is probably a complete nutter but mostly he is someone who had enough.

I am not condoning it but on the other hand I have to admit that we are all human animals and can only be pushed so far. Maybe the muslims have pushed us too far this time.

For every action, there is a reaction. Yes we are being told to suck all the beheadings, explosions and stabbings and go 'aww the poor muslims' but it doesn't work like this.

I don't want to sound like a kid on the playground but the truth is 'they started it'.

I'd say they are pretty consistent in this case calling it terrorism.

He attacked Muslims, yet he knew Muslims. Well, soon enough we will know won't we?

Suspect in London van attack identified as Darren Osborne

Taxi driver Saleem Naema, 50, said: "I can't believe it. I know him. I've lived here for five years, he was already living here when I moved in. "If I ever needed anything he would come. I just can't believe that he did that. I am a Muslim."

Source

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: buster2010
Let me dissect this to simple terms so that you can understand.
The definition of a terrorist (please notice I did NOT say Muslim) is a person or persons who commit acts or act to create a sense of fear or terror.
A person taking revenge from a personal perspective is NOT trying to create fear or terror, they are just acting in one instance of retribution.
There is NO EVIDENCE to tie the man to any terror network so why the knee jerk condemnation of him being a terrorist.
Or does that fit your agenda?

Do you deny that Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist because he claimed the OKC bombing was revenge for Waco and Ruby Ridge?

Busy day at the office for the far right bigots trying to justify the terrorist attack commited by one of their own

Here to find out whats going on at Kensington in London? Another attack?

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError
Busy day at the office for the far right bigots trying to justify the terrorist attack commited by one of their own

The muslim issue is really dividing left and right like never before. It's turning into pure hatred, as evidenced by this love filled post lol.

Two of the suspect's Welsh neighbors speak kindly of him. And they both happen to be muslims.

Taxi driver Saleem Naema, 50, said: "I can't believe it. I know him. I've lived here for five years, he was already living here when I moved in.

"If I ever needed anything he would come. I just can't believe that he did that. I am a Muslim."

Khadijeh Sherizi, who lives next door to Osborne, said: "I saw him on the news and I thought 'oh my God' that is my neighbour.

"He has been so normal. He was in his kitchen yesterday afternoon singing with his kids.

"He was the dad of the family. He has kids. He lives next door. He seemed polite and pleasant to me."




news.sky.com...

MSM newspaper link

The Finsbury Park Mosque gained notoriety more than a decade ago for sermons by radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri, who was sentenced to life in a US prison in January 2015 for his conviction on terrorism-related charges.

I absolutely condemn this attack, but I can imagine why the attempted/killer with his warped ideas chose this particular mosque.

a reply to: matafuchs

Sorry, to call is terrorism is absurd. Hate crime.

I agree and the only reason they want to call it terrorism is because they want to appease the Muslims.

a reply to: InceyWincey

What "warped ideas" are you referring to?

Do you have a link to the suspect's statements or manifesto?

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: matafuchs

Sorry, to call is terrorism is absurd. Hate crime.

I agree and the only reason they want to call it terrorism is because they want to appease the Muslims.

The same as it was near a mosque as it was well away from a mosque and probably closer to a church but hey ho

a reply to: Painterz

Hmm let's see
History.Com
The first of the Crusades began in 1095, when armies of Christians from Western Europe responded to Pope Urban II’s plea to go to war against Muslim forces in the Holy Land. After the First Crusade achieved its goal with the capture of Jerusalem in 1099, the invading Christians set up several Latin Christian states, even as Muslims in the region vowed to wage holy war (jihad) to regain control over the region. Deteriorating relations between the Crusaders and their Christian allies in the Byzantine Empire culminated in the sack of Constantinople in 1204 during the Third Crusade. Near the end of the 13th century, the rising Mamluk dynasty in Egypt provided the final reckoning for the Crusaders, toppling the coastal stronghold of Acre and driving the European invaders out of Palestine and Syria in 1291

BBC Education
In the Middle Ages, the Muslim world stretched from India to Spain, including Jerusalem and the Holy Land. It was scientifically and culturally ahead of the Christian countries of western Europe. By 1070, more and more Turkish nomads were settling in the Christian Byzantine Empire and the Byzantines felt threatened by this. Then, from 1087 onwards, Turks stopped Christian pilgrims from entering Jerusalem.

Christianity Today
the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands

Muslims had been fighting under Mohammed, a soldier, to control Europe & Asia for over 400 yrs and once the Seljuk Turks took Jerusalem in the 11th Century and closed it off to all Christians & Jews that is when the Christian Church started its Holy Wars. There were 7 Crusades in total, ending in 1254 when Islam destroyed all and any remaining Christian held territories. They were defensive wars. Despite the myths that the Crusades were responsible for Islamic hatred, they actually did very little damage to Islam and Muslim territories with Muslims themselves barely taking note of these Holy Wars until as late as the 20th Century when it became convenient to blame these wars for their own current aggression. The Holy Wars were by far a dismal failure. The Christians only managed to hold onto Jerusalem for around 90yrs and lost all other land in the ME quite quickly due to disease lack of food and infighting.