Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday June 20 2017, @06:00AM   Printer-friendly

A terror attack near a London mosque is "every bit as sickening" as others in recent weeks, Theresa May says.

A man drove a van into worshippers close to Muslim Welfare House in Finsbury Park as they were gathered to help an elderly man who had collapsed. He later died, but it is not clear if this was a result of the attack. Nine other people were taken to hospital.

A 47-year-old man was held on suspicion of attempted murder and later further arrested over alleged terror offences. Scotland Yard said he was being held on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorism including murder and attempted murder.

Source: BBC News

Darren Osborne, 47, was arrested in the early hours of Monday on suspicion of driving a van into a crowd of Muslim worshippers in north London. He is alleged to have shouted "kill all Muslims" and "this is for London Bridge" in the wake of the attack.

Muslim residents on the Cardiff estate where he lived with his partner and four children, claimed he had previously been friendly but said his attitude had changed in recent weeks.

He allegedly hurled insults at his Asian neighbour's 12-year-old son, in the wake of the Islamist attack in the capital earlier this month.

[...] After being dragged from the van by an angry mob, he was protected by the Imam of the mosque, Mohammed Mahmoud, who ordered people not to attack him, but hand him over to the police.

Source: The Telegraph


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:07AM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:07AM (#528369)

    Interestingly enough it looks the death toll here may be 0. The attacker apparently engaged in an attack of opportunity. The Muslims were crowded around a man who had previously collapsed. He's the only person who died.

  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Entropy on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:10AM (1 child)

    by Entropy (4228) on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:10AM (#528370)

    To be fair... Muslim terrorists basically have gotten all the practice so they are a lot better at it.

    • (Score: 1) by AssCork on Wednesday June 21 2017, @04:52PM

      by AssCork (6255) on Wednesday June 21 2017, @04:52PM (#529104) Journal

      To be fair... Muslim terrorists basically have gotten all the practice so they are a lot better at it.

      As the saying goes "How do you get to Carnegie Hall?"
      (In before "With a Bus! Three lefts and a right! AH LA AK BAR!")

      --
      Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.
  • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:37AM (7 children)

    by zocalo (302) on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:37AM (#528382)
    Not so sure about the attack itself being *entirely* opportunistic, although the crowd around the collapsed man was absolutely an unfortunate coincidence that probably led to more being injured. Finsbury Park mosque is somewhat notorious in the UK as a former Imam was Abu Hamza [wikipedia.org], whose numerous terrorism and extradition related trials (and hook for a hand) got a *lot* of media coverage - he's currently serving life in the US. If you were a UK resident inclined to some attack on Muslims, then it's about as prominent a target as you can get without going overseas, and were it not for the actions of the current Imam I'm sure some of the media would be giving that a lot more coverage (the Daily Mail probably is anyway, of course). It's also a fair way from Cardiff, so if this is a case of some one snapping as a result of last month's attack and deciding to get some form of revenge, it seems probable that the Mosque was the intended target but once he spotted the crowd nearby they'd made an obvious target of opportunity.
    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:56AM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:56AM (#528388)

      There is a lot of context that is lost to people looking at it only through the reporting. There is a reason why there are so many Muslim radicals in UK - they were given safe haven when right after independence of British India and its division in Indian and Pakistan. While India spearheaded the Non-Alignment movement (which is where the phrase "3rd world countries" comes from) and then cozied up to USSR, Pakistan openly disregarded NAM and joined NATO. At that time UK (and USA, but particularly UK) promoted discontent between the two countries and provided safe haven to anti-Indian-state actors involved in Khalistan movement [wikipedia.org] and Kashmir conflict. Because of this reason, UK is home to large number of Sikhs and Pakistani Muslims.

      Like all the conflicts related to terrorism today, UK finds itself in this mess because it had a firm belief in its uncanny ability to create and promote problems world wide without any side-affects. The only reason we don't hear anything happening from Sikhs is because they were part of India and they were handled militarily as "internal problem", while Pakistan is a failing nation, now with nuclear power, that is basically like a spiralling hose of fanatics that is out of control. And it will spray all over its vicinity such as UK and France (which sells them weapons).

      Not playing with fire, you know, requires long term thinking. Welcome to the next century.

      • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Tuesday June 20 2017, @09:28AM (4 children)

        by zocalo (302) on Tuesday June 20 2017, @09:28AM (#528392)
        The lack of context from the reporting is probably as much to blame as anything else, at least for the recent upswing in race/religious based hate attacks. The amount of media coverage given to Islamic communities' views on terror attacks has been almost non-existant from the start, despite the terrorist tactics being so untargetted as to make it just as likely that someone who might be at least partially sympathetic to their cause will be a victim of their attacks as anyone else. If you paid attention (and sometimes actively went looking for it) members of the Islamic community have vehemently condemned the attacks each and every time, but the media has mostly glossed over that aspect until recently. Maybe if they'd been a little more balanced in their reporting some of those recently radicalised (on all sides) would have realised that those that have been radicalised really are in the minority, and reduced their ranks even further as a result.

        Agreed the comments about with playing with fire. Unfortunately, since the UK is also linked at the hip to the US through the "special relationship" and the US seems dead set of continuing to do exactly the same kind of meddling in foreign affairs without regard to the long term consequences that the likes of the East India Company and British Empire did, it does indeed looks like we're in for another round of it. It's not even a case of those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it; in this case it's still within living memory for most of those leading the charge, FFS.
        --
        UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @10:17AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @10:17AM (#528400)

          The problem there is there is indeed a healthy amount of support for what most of the world would see as extremely radical beliefs in Islam. Pew carried out this exact sort of polling [pewforum.org] some time back. For one instance among many, 56% of Muslims in the Mideast believe people that leave Islam should be executed. That number grows to 76% among Muslims in South Asia. On women's rights about 90% of Muslims from the aforementioned regions agree with the statement that, "A woman must obey her husband." Keep in mind that unlike Christianity the Quran is viewed and literally interpreted with verses like:

          > Qur'an 4:34: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

          These sort of views are completely and absolutely incompatible with modern civilizations. Starting to try to report on 'what Muslims really think' is not a desirable to go down. There is a strong inverse correlation between views of Islam and knowledge of Islam. I used to also be very accepting and endorsing of the religion, until I actually started to learn more about it. Just because something may be a cultural value doesn't mean it's a good or even acceptable value.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @05:51PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @05:51PM (#528614)

            And to whoever downmodded that as 'flamebait' - have you ever considered the possibility that your personal prejudices might actually not be supported by reality? It's easy to believe what we all want to believe in today's world of social media echo chambers. However, those data and facts are not trolling or coming from some radicalized site. That is Pew, one of the most reputable polling organizations in existence today. That poll, or its results at least, are precisely why other major pollsters no longer poll on Muslim beliefs. It's not what we want to see, or want to believe. And yes, it is likely something that would vitalize far right extremists. Nonetheless, I don't think the correct answer is to try to pretend these facts simply don't exist.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21 2017, @01:56PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21 2017, @01:56PM (#529016)

            "guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded"

            translation: "wrap your hairy beaver up in a sheet".

        • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:09PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:09PM (#528425)

          OP here. While I don't judge people on their preference on what punishment suits what crime, there is indeed a problem of Muslims failing to contain the radicals. The lack of coverage of lack of support of radicals is very recent phenomenon, one that coincides with rise of far-right in western countries. Media tells what it thinks most would want to hear. Also, media is in the business of selling conflict. Feel-good stories are not news material. "I like it" "I think its okay" those things are not newsworthy. Media is also amoral.

          But coming back to you original point, yes - there was good coverage of condemnation. Muslims formed a human chain on the London bridge, for example, something I know even though I couldn't care less. But the problem is exacerbated by lack of action against Saudi Arabia. Even the moderate Muslims know that the radicals are being funded by Saudi wahhabis, who are in turn being funded by the west. So when they see those same radicals somewhere in the far away land, blowing American establishments, they don't really care. Since they don't care, media doesn't report it.

          I know some muslims who privately are gleeful when some bomb goes off in UAE. But who will the USA empower? [fortune.com]

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by n1 on Tuesday June 20 2017, @09:27AM

      by n1 (993) on Tuesday June 20 2017, @09:27AM (#528391) Journal

      Abu Hamza has a very interesting time-line, these are just some small excerpts from http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=aearly97damsonberry [historycommons.org]

      Early 1997:

      London-based imam Abu Hamza al-Masri starts working with two branches of the British security services, the police’s Special Branch and MI5, the domestic counterintelligence service. The relationships continue for several years and there are at least seven meetings between Abu Hamza and MI5 between 1997 and 2000 (see October 1, 1997, November 20, 1997, and September 1998). Based on records of the meetings, authors Daniel O’Neill and Sean McGrory will describe the relationship as “respectful, polite, and often cooperative.”

      [...] Abu Hamza will tell his aides that he is “beyond the reach of British law,” and will neglect to pay the mosque’s electricity and water bills. Authors Sean O’Neill and Daniel McGrory will later comment: “Increasingly, Abu Hamza acted as if Finsbury Park had divorced itself from Britain and was operating as an independent Muslim state. He contacted extremist groups, offering his services as an ambassador for them in [Britain] and presenting the mosque as a place of guaranteed asylum.”

      October 1997:

      The British domestic counterintelligence service MI5 meets with Abu Hamza al-Masri, a leading British imam and informer (see Early 1997). After the exchange of “pleasantries,” Abu Hamza and his handler discuss his recent breach with the Groupe Islamique Armé (GIA), an Algerian militant group, which has been indiscriminately killing civilians (see Mid 1996-October 1997). The handler notes that “[Abu] Hamza is bowed but not broken,” and adds, “For him the jihad goes on, if not in Algeria then somewhere else.” Abu Hamza tells the MI5 officer that Britain “is seen as a place to fundraise and to propagate Islam.” Authors Daniel O’Neill and Sean McGrory will later comment, “The admission that Abu Hamza and his followers were using [Britain] to raise funds to finance terrorism overseas did not seem to cause a blip on the MI5 agent’s radar.”

      September 1998:

      The British domestic counterintelligence service MI5 meets with Abu Hamza al-Masri, a leading British imam and informer (see Early 1997). They discuss “training camps” Abu Hamza’s mosque is organizing for Islamist radicals, although it is unclear if these camps are in Britain or overseas. One of his MI5 handlers informs him he is “walking a dangerous tightrope.” Another agent later notes, “I informed him that incitement even to commit terrorism and violence overseas was fraught with peril.”

      2000-2001:

      British authorities repeatedly reject requests submitted by Italian judge Stefano D’Ambruoso, who wants to interview leading London-based radical imam Abu Hamza al-Masri. The requests are made because D’Ambruoso is surprised by how many times Abu Hamza’s name crops up in connection with terror inquiries in Italy. However, the Metropolitan Police, for which Abu Hamza works as an informer (see Early 1997), declines the requests, saying that it cannot force Abu Hamza to talk to D’Ambruoso.

      Before may 2004:

      The British intelligence service MI5 develops information showing that London imam Abu Hamza al-Masri has significant connections with radical militants, but fails to show this to Home Secretary David Blunkett. Blunkett apparently learns this information after Abu Hamza, who has been an MI5 informer (see Early 1997), is arrested in 2004 (see May 27, 2004). When Blunkett takes office in 2001, as he will later recall, there is an assumption that Abu Hamza “was a bigmouth and was worth tracking but wasn’t at the centre of events.” The security services have a “detailed trail” of networks, personal history, and high-level contacts showing that Abu Hamza is “a real threat and a danger,” but they do not tell Blunkett.