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
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:45AM (4 children)
> The Bishop of Stepney, Rt Rev Adrian Newman, said "an attack on one faith is an attack on us all".
Is that all faiths, or all humans? The "... one [...], ... all" scheme is typically used for expanding from one member of a class to all members of the class, which implies it's more likely to be the the former than the latter. Which would be a big fuck you to atheists - presumably they don't matter as they're going to hell anyway.
Of course, part of the problem is that he's calling it an attack on a faith (obviously being used as a trope meaning the religion, for the pedants), when actually it's simply an attack on a group of followers of that faith. The religion itself is unchanged by the attack, I cannot believe the perpetrator believed any muslim doctrines would be changed because of what he was doing.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @09:10AM
It's a guy who you should listen to! Because he's a bishop! He's an expert!
Abrahamics, I tell you hwhat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @10:20AM (1 child)
You can't change a man's mind.
You can cut off a man's head and stick it back onto his neck with a pike.
This does not mean that he agreed or will agree with you, but it certainly stops all arguments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:14PM
--R.A. Lafferty
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday June 20 2017, @04:32PM
> actually it's simply an attack on a group of followers of that faith.
But an attack on a random group of followers of one faith is not only terrorism, but an attack on the practice of that religion/faith.
Make them fear going to that mosque (see Irak's regular Friday Sunni/Shia bombings), that's attacking the religion itself.
It's not very productive because it won't change people's belief/faith, until they blame their god for letting those attacks by infidels happen to them. It's even less likely to cause them to worship the same god under a different branch of the same major religion. But it hurts that particular branch.