Terrorist attack at Finsburgh Park

OK the result is in. Darren Osborne has been found guilty of murder and attempted murder through terrorism after being brainwashed by extremist right wing propaganda on line.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...darren-osborne-found-guilty-murder-makram-ali

 

One of the odd things about articles from the Guardian, and other left wing media, is their frequent use of the term 'right wing'. If this murderer was 'right wing' does that make Muslim terrorists 'right wing' also, or are they 'left wing'?

Do you think 'propaganda' is being used by the use of these terms, terms which add nothing to the story and can vary from one person to the next. I'm as concerned about propaganda as you so it this might be an issue which could be discussed.

Was the "sexual abuse scandal involving Muslim men", which seems to have inspired this guy, genuine propaganda or was it a factual news story?

 

Nothing to see here folks

The muslim mayor of london already told us that terrorist attacks will become a normal occurance and he was right

 

This would strongly suggest that Muslims are actually the victims of propaganda themselves and are acting out the resulting hatreds on innocent people in London and everywhere else.

To end international terrorism and hatreds we must, according to some on this board and elsewhere, eliminate the Hate Speech found in the Koran, Mosques, Islamic schools and anywhere Muslims gather. That might not be such a bad idea.

 

Fake news.

 

It is your definition of right wing that is wrong. Islam is a right wing religion. This murderer is also (far) right wing. A right wing group can hate another right wing group

 

Strange. Are you the one who castigates others for posting on threads solely about the US. There is a word for that - hypocrite

BTW your statement is fake news

 

You got me this time

What goes on in the UK is none of my business

 

So does that mean all hate groups are 'right wing'?

I see many liberals speaking out for Muslims who come from chaotic countries where their backgrounds are impossible to check. We've seen Barack Obama release known terrorists from Gitmo who then go on to murder innocent people. We've seen BH Obama pull the troops from Iraq and allow groups such as ISIS to grow and thrive.

Are you claiming Barack Obama is 'right wing'?

 

Religious hatred is wrong. Anyone who condones terrorism is wrong. Terrorists should be neutralized.

 

The Muslim mayor said terrorism was 'part and parcel' of living in a major city. Inspired by B.H. Obama, perhaps, he never did mention that it is Muslims who are the major part of this 'parcel'.

 

The corporate state makes that decision in the US.

 

We can use "terrorism" to neutralize anyone who questions authority, it's very useful.

 

And radical Muslims who believe murdering innocents is a legitimate form of protest.

Do you support terrorism, Lum?

 

That's being done, with few ever arriving at Gitmo. That will be used exclusively for the higher-ups who manage to survive and then they'll likely disappear also.

 

Who is "we"? Socialists? Anti-Americans? Anti-semitics?

 

No you are deliberately miss quoting him.

 

It has nothing to do with the Guardian. It was what our courts said and what our Jury took only one hour to come to a verdict on. This was a terrorist attack - the result of a sick man coming in touch on line with Britain First whose tweets the President of the US was posting and Tommy Robinson both of whom were in contact with him in the two weeks before the attack and Jayda Fransen just two hours before. Britain First has already been implicated in the murder of MP Jo Cox.

What you are criticising is not the Guardian but the opinion of Britain's terrorist services and our courts. When people do that one has to imagine they have some personal issue in this.

I see nothing to see here for you. You were pleased were you that originally he had gone off to kill Corbyn but said the best result would have been if he had been able to kill Sadiq Khan. What is your problem? Nothing to see because he did not manage to kill Khan?

Finsbury Park attack trial: Darren Osborne hoped to kill Jeremy Corbyn and Sadiq Khan at London march

 

What the trial was mainly about was how a man could become radicalised so quickly - in three to four weeks. This was extremely quick though they did have one instance of a Muslim being radicalised as quickly. We don't have the death penalty in the UK and our police are only given licence to kill if the perpetrator is an immediate threat and there is no other way to deal with the situation. That allows us to find out what pushes people in this way. This man, although an alcoholic, would not four weeks earlier have given anyone reason to believe he possibly could do this. People did not even think he had anything against Muslims. However in 3-4 weeks all that changed and he wanted to kill as many as possible. His raging represented the ideas of the far right - Britain First and Tommy Robinson whom he had been in contact with. What is interesting is that the grooming of Osborne seems similar to that of those attracted to ISIS and similar.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-muslim-internet-britain-first-a8190316.html

He was expecting to be killed after his attack.

 

As JB has said - more 'wacko' than 'terrorist'.

 

which is usually the case with Muslims as well. However after being in touch with extremists, both of them do commit terrorist attacks.

 

Yes, it's so much easier to demonise Robinson by bashing him with the Establishment narrative than to face up to the fact that they and the 'enemy inside' liberal extremists have caused a problem in this country isn't it! Anyone want to argue that we don't have a problem?

 

The reality is that he was getting a lot of attention from both Britain First and Robinson. He was spouting off Robinson's views. These almost certainly are what made him act how he did - that and his own psychological State. Our Terrorist services are saying they will need to pay more attention to far right grooming. Robinson did not though as far as they know tell him to do it. He simply aggravated someone whose mind was not stable with these ideas. It isn't about demonising. It is about being aware that his contact with people like Robinson and Britain First is what caused him to commit the terrorist act. Had they any evidence that either had told him to do it they of course would be arrested so they do not just like in the killing of Jo Cox they do not have any evidence that Britain First told them to do it.

Robinson said on Newsnight after Breivik's Norway attacks that if Britain did not change its ways it would likely get a similar attack within 5 years.

 

But he didn't cause the problem did he. Let's not forget who did, and excoriate them as well. It's cause and effect writ large!

 

The cause in this instance appears to be Britain First and Tommy Robinson's grooming of an unstable man.