By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google Sign up with FacebookQ: Oh no, not again... oh, wait - no it's not.....
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/vehicle-collides-pedestrians-finsbury-park-001...
Witnesses have said that this van deliberately swerved onto the footpath to hit people.
A witness in this article (of the current news reports) said that he saw 3 people in the van, and that 2 got away. A third was arrested. (could be wrong with the numbers).
A witness even said he saw a man with a knife attack someone.
And yet - this still isn't considered a 'terrorist attack'.
Why not?
Perhaps it's because the victims this time are Muslims... and it's ok to kill Muslims!
Just as Engles posted already a few minutes ago wrote - getting revenge is ok! And is not a form of terrorism.
Even if it turns out the assailants are also Muslims (cos the whole fucking problem is sectarian!) - the fact that no-one is jumping on the usual bandwagon is pathetic.
(and, I'm not even talking about the politicians or police! - I get that they don't want to jump to conclusions, and may have different sources - i"m talking about the usual media outlets that normally would instantly be screaming about yet another terrorist attack after only 5 minutes of the news hitting the headlines!)
Double-standards.. keep 'em coming!
Counter terrorism task force is leading the inquires on this so they are for all purposes treating it as terrorism.
Just because he isn't a Muzzie don't mean he isn't a terrorist
I was just reading comments online.
Most people seemed to be saying call it what it is.. terrorism but there were the inevitable few trying to say it wasn't terrorism because it was obviously for revenge rather than religion. I don't think any details re the motive have actually come out yet.
It's probably too early to say yet how it will be spun but I don't see how it can possibly be called anything other than a terrorist attack when the guys behind it seem to have done exactly the same thing as the London bridge guys did.
Shining_brow:
I wonder if the standard right-wing newspapers will use the 'T' word... or just call it "an act of revenge". Waiting for Breitbart and Jihadwatch.... and Fauxnews
expatlife26:
well it is clearly terrorism. What's the difference between revenge and terrorism?
Revenge is a motivation, terrorism is a means. In no way are they exclusive.
Who the fuck said it's not terrorism?!
Shining_brow:
It's been over 5 hours now since this has happened.
RIGHT NOW - do a search on Yahoo or Bing (or google if you have it) for the word combination of "Finsbury park terrorist"... or even just "terrorist attack" and tell me how many hits you get that are about this!!!
Shining_brow:
It's been over 8 hours now since this has happened.
RIGHT NOW - do a search on Yahoo or Bing (or google if you have it) for the word combination of "Finsbury park terrorist"... or even just "terrorist attack" and tell me how many hits you get that are about this!!!
(By putting in that combination right now, ONLY the Guardian newspapers have used the 'T' word in the headline! )
Englteachted:
Is he tied to an organization? Then it won't fit the govt's definition
SAme for a muslim attack years ago that was actually proven to be tied to Osama
Shining_brow:
It's been over 8 hours now since this has happened.
RIGHT NOW - do a search on Yahoo or Bing (or google if you have it) for the word combination of "Finsbury park terrorist"... or even just "terrorist attack" and tell me how many hits you get that are about this!!!
(By putting in that combination right now, ONLY the Guardian newspapers have used the 'T' word in the headline! )
Shining_brow:
Ooops - serer error... that last post was obviously done at the time indicated.
Merriam Webster def 4, is what I subscribe to
: violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
Counter terrorism task force is leading the inquires on this so they are for all purposes treating it as terrorism.
Just because he isn't a Muzzie don't mean he isn't a terrorist
If you read any English newspaper website you will see they are calling it a terrorist attack
TheGardener:
It would be ill-advised and rushed to judge something as anything in only 8 hours.
See Shining? People are taking this pretty seriously. It may be a slightly different crowd but theres a lot of overlap of people who oppose indiscriminate violence regardless of it's origin.
I don't think this is being ignored because the victims in this case were Muslim.
I do however think a lot of hay is being made making the claim that it is being ignored. But I don't think that's true.
It's not terrorism.
It's "part and parcel of living in London". - Muslim mayor of London
hi2u:
Stiggs: Ya, which according to him is "part and parcel of living in London", just learn to live with it and move along.