3rd London Terror Attack

[Beskar]

This time is was against Muslims praying outside a mosque as the van mowed into them. I saw this unfolding last night, but they were limited on the details which made it look more like an accident than an actual attack.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40322960

[Beskar]

What is interesting is the parallels in the reporting.

Initially, it wasn't listed as a terror attack last night, but more that there was an incident where a van hit pedestrians. The person arrested is 'White British' and it comments "subject of a mental health assessment in due course". Why aren't the Muslim extremists stated to be needing mental health assessments?

[Viking]

Why aren't the Muslim extremists stated to be needing mental health assessments?

They aren't? The ones that aren't already dead, that is.

[Beskar]

They aren't? The ones that aren't already dead, that is.

Never been reported to my knowledge or implied in anyway in the news.

[Viking]

Never been reported to my knowledge or implied in anyway in the news.

Like for whom? And for what fraction of non-Muslim attackers has this been mentioned?

Random samples:

• on the day after the Nice attack: Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, Driver In Nice Attack, Wasn’t ‘Stable Psychologically,’ Family Says
• no mention of the mental health of this ethnic European attacker: Pavlo Lapshyn's 90 days of terror
• the Daily Mail two days after the December 2015 tube station attack: Family of Leytonstone attempted murder suspect called in police three weeks before tube attack fearing for his mental health

Furthermore, we don't know if the attacker appeared clearly mentally unstable to the police after they apprehended him. The result of the mental health assessment and related news could give some ideas.

[Griffin Robert Faulkner]

Terror Attack is sad and makes people furious...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What is interesting is the parallels in the reporting.

Initially, it wasn't listed as a terror attack last night, but more that there was an incident where a van hit pedestrians. The person arrested is 'White British' and it comments "subject of a mental health assessment in due course". Why aren't the Muslim extremists stated to be needing mental health assessments?

I was up late at 2AM - so I saw the breaking coverage from the BBC - they reported bare bones details released by the Police, as always, and were already describing it as a terrorist incident. Indeed, reporting was so bland at that point it wasn't even clear the attacker was white and not a fellow Muslims.

As to a Mental Health Assessment - that's standard in these cases but this white man is the first one to survive his own attack in, what? Over a decade in the UK? At least half a decade.

There's normally no mention of this because the Police and CPS don't need to have an assessment, because there's no one left to prosecute for the actual attack. This time, they need to know he's sane enough to be put on trial, so they've released a statement and Beeb have reported it.

[Sarmatian]

I think it is safe to assume that anyone performing this kind of attack on civilians isn't mentally sound. That is very different from being declared legally insane, which he probably isn't.

I've noticed that some media outlets didn't rush to condemn the attack so heavily or use words as strong as they used when it was a terrorist attack committed by Muslims, but that is to be expected. On the whole, it was a balanced reporting.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It must be remembered that the nature of the attack was somewhat different - it's tempting to focus on the similarities like the use of a van as a weapon but there are a number of differences. For example, the van appears to have been rented rather than stolen and there was no follow up by the perpetrator, after he rammed the van into the worshippers he got out and was easily wrestled to the ground, and is now in custody. No gun, no knife, no explosive vest and no "death and glory" mentality.

Sometimes nutters just do nutty things - there was a that guy five-ten years ago who drove around Kent shooting people with a rifle in his taxi cab.

Despite that, Police moved quickly to declare this a terrorist attack and the news (here at least) reported it accordingly.

[Husar]

It must be remembered that the nature of the attack was somewhat different - it's tempting to focus on the similarities like the use of a van as a weapon but there are a number of differences. For example, the van appears to have been rented rather than stolen and there was no follow up by the perpetrator, after he rammed the van into the worshippers he got out and was easily wrestled to the ground, and is now in custody. No gun, no knife, no explosive vest and no "death and glory" mentality.

Sometimes nutters just do nutty things - there was a that guy five-ten years ago who drove around Kent shooting people with a rifle in his taxi cab.

Despite that, Police moved quickly to declare this a terrorist attack and the news (here at least) reported it accordingly.

That's because it is a terror attack.

You can't seriously be arguing that "No gun, no knife, no explosive vest and no "death and glory" mentality" somehow makes it not a terror attack. There are many ways to terrorize people, not just the ones chosen by islamists. Whether someone is a nutter or not is also irrelevant to whether or not they intend to terrorize people. It would seem that he aimed at not letting Muslims feel safe in Britain as some kind of misled revenge for the islamist attacks, i.e. a terror attack.

Attempts to redefine a terror attack to the point that it only applies to islamist attacks anymore are just plain wrong.

[Pannonian]

That's because it is a terror attack.

You can't seriously be arguing that "No gun, no knife, no explosive vest and no "death and glory" mentality" somehow makes it not a terror attack. There are many ways to terrorize people, not just the ones chosen by islamists. Whether someone is a nutter or not is also irrelevant to whether or not they intend to terrorize people. It would seem that he aimed at not letting Muslims feel safe in Britain as some kind of misled revenge for the islamist attacks, i.e. a terror attack.

Attempts to redefine a terror attack to the point that it only applies to islamist attacks anymore are just plain wrong.

The extra sense of unease comes from the fact that these terrorists are willing to blow themselves up or otherwise be killed in the heart of what they're doing in order to maximise their damage. We're used to looking out for unattended bags, and other non-Islamist forms of terrorist action. If there's another old-fashioned IRA campaign, we could take that in our stride. But nothing can guard against Islamist terrorism.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's because it is a terror attack.

You can't seriously be arguing that "No gun, no knife, no explosive vest and no "death and glory" mentality" somehow makes it not a terror attack. There are many ways to terrorize people, not just the ones chosen by islamists. Whether someone is a nutter or not is also irrelevant to whether or not they intend to terrorize people. It would seem that he aimed at not letting Muslims feel safe in Britain as some kind of misled revenge for the islamist attacks, i.e. a terror attack.

Attempts to redefine a terror attack to the point that it only applies to islamist attacks anymore are just plain wrong.

At no point did I suggest this was not a terrorist attack, read my first post in response to Beskar. My second post was in response to Sarmation where I simply observed that this was substantially different to a Muslim terrorist attack and that is why is was initially reported slightly differently.

That should have been apparent from the closing statement of my last post and the context of the conversation, I apologise if I was not absolutely, categorically, clear but as I'm not a politician I expect my basic human decency to be taken as read.

[Husar]

At no point did I suggest this was not a terrorist attack, read my first post in response to Beskar. My second post was in response to Sarmation where I simply observed that this was substantially different to a Muslim terrorist attack and that is why is was initially reported slightly differently.

That should have been apparent from the closing statement of my last post and the context of the conversation, I apologise if I was not absolutely, categorically, clear but as I'm not a politician I expect my basic human decency to be taken as read.

I didn't find your posts quite that clear, but I accept your explanation. Sorry if I overreacted.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I didn't find your posts quite that clear, but I accept your explanation. Sorry if I overreacted.

In retrospect I can see how you might have misinterpreted my second post.

However, as you said, I couldn't seriously suggest it wasn't a terrorist attack. Even so, the way it unfolded there was, initially, a chance it was just a tragic accident or a drunk at the wheel. We should not assume terrorism in every case like this until we have some evidence of motive.

"I want to kill all Muslims" is pretty self-explanatory, though.

[Pannonian]

In retrospect I can see how you might have misinterpreted my second post.

However, as you said, I couldn't seriously suggest it wasn't a terrorist attack. Even so, the way it unfolded there was, initially, a chance it was just a tragic accident or a drunk at the wheel. We should not assume terrorism in every case like this until we have some evidence of motive.

"I want to kill all Muslims" is pretty self-explanatory, though.

I waited for more details about the Manchester attack before concluding it was terrorism. Initial reports suggested it may have been a gas explosion or something.