I know, but in the Western world Islamic terror has the aim of trying to turn the local community against Muslim immigrants, so that the jihadists can more easily recruit disaffected youths.
I was wrong anyhow. Apparently the skin colour of the driver was “white”. Still terrorism if it turns out the stories about the perpetrator are correct.
From the reports i read this was a white guy, and probably mostly involve$ in a group tha5 specifically target muslims.
Noticed at the moment BBC, or ABC are not calling this a terrorist attack although I personally think it is. They are calling it a major incident.
Terrorists can be anybody… but not really the issue.
Still I hope that won’t be any deaths.
One dead - ABC
The attacker has been named as 47 year old father of four Darren Osbourne, from Wales. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40332616
Ha. How interesting. In reporting the Finsbury Park mosque attack in today’s BBC News at Six, the BBC highlights the fact that many local Muslims are upset at the media using the term “incident” instead of “terrorist attack” in reports immediately after the attack. The BBC reporter then interviewed two individuals who were irate that the terrorist attack was not being accurately described in the mainstream media. (Note that in this specific instance, as the attacker was taken into custody, such reporting could have had a prejudicial impact on the trial).
Interesting that this analysis was put forward without contention by the BBC as an example of double standards in how we report and talk about right wing extremist attacks against Muslims, being yet another form of Islamaphobia etc., yet when I said the exact same thing about the reporting of terrorism, I was ridiculed on these forums as having “lost the argument”.
Well, this myth has been debunked, because we know what ISIS’ stated aims are - they’ve said they kill Christians first and foremost because they’re non-believers. We don’t need too clever by half professors in western universities to “interpret” what has clearly been said.
As for wanting to turn the local community against Muslim immigrants…why? How does this make sense? Say there are enough attacks that someone like Trump bans all Muslim immigration to the US. Then what? They’ve completed their aim? Their aim is to remove themselves from a part of the world? It doesn’t even make sense.
Heh, close but wrong.
ISIS’ ideology, and I shit you not, is to create a war in the Middle East, and then lose horribly, and just when ISIS is about to be annihilated, Jesus will return from Heaven to convert the world to Islam. That’s not a joke, this is what ISIS actually believes. Pissing off the West plays into that.
Trump banning new Muslim migrants does nothing about Muslims already in Western societies. This has nothing to do with immigration. ISIS’ propaganda arms are targeting existing Muslim communities in Western countries and the concern is that attacks like these will give ISIS more ammunition to begin swaying disaffected young Muslims who are born in the West.
I had it explained to me that the reason this time was because the suspect is still alive. Calling this incident a terror attack, as opposed to a “potential terror attack” (which is what a lot of news orgs are leading with apparently), creates the possibility of legal trouble.
Yes I noted that in my post. Still doesn’t explain why the BBC itself highlighted the anger (without the explanation in this case though) about why “incident” was used…
I’m pretty sure that’s not wrong, it’s been fairly widely covered recently that ISIS has stated they will kill “us” no matter what (re: foreign policy, right wing politics etc).
Ye, to goad us into a war so Islamic Jebus can save them. We’ve been through this 
Forgive me, but I think this flimsy claim needs a little more rigorous analysis, lol.
Reality: they say they want to kill “us” for being non-believers, they produce instructions on how to do so even with primitive means, and they do kill “us”.
Not reality: subsequently, every Muslim born in the USA is going to be so disaffected that they are going to travel to the Middle East…and somehow this is going to start a war there…forgive me if I don’t believe this is an entirely serious “aim” of theirs…
It’s 100% true.
Those in Western societies don’t travel to Syria, they instead cause trouble in their countries and that motivates the governments there to react by attacking ISIS at its source. It’s the dumbest fucking ideology.
I would provide sources but I’m on the bus to work.
Well, without getting into an indepth discussion about ISIS itself, I think the oft-repeated phrase that their aim is to get “non Muslims turning against the Muslim community” a little stretched, considering what they have stated very directly and clearly.
In any case, I’d prefer to shift back to the media coverage of this latest incident, as that is what this thread is about, and the BBC highlighting grievances about the use of the word “incident” to describe clear forms of terrorism. You all shouted me down the other day…is it just that I’m ahead of the curve once again?
Paul Pisasale, Mayor of Ipswich, has been arrested. A little bit of coverage before on ABC Radio Brisbane.
The Queen is giving her speech to Parliament shortly.
Incidentally Philip was taken to hospital last night as a ‘precautionary measure’.
The Grenfell tower fire has been confirmed to have started from a fridge, that was not subject to a recall. The cladding involved has been tested and failed safety standards. Manslaughter charges will be considered - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40380584
Saudi Arabia and its allies have provided a list of demands to Qatar in order to renew ties and end their blockade - and it includes the shutting down of Al Jazeera… 
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/arab-states-issue-list-demands-qatar-crisis-170623022133024.html
