Islamophobes threaten Dutch mosque with terrorism


Letter threatening as-Soennah mosque with terrorism, with toy truck

Dutch NOS TV reports today that the as-Soennah mosque in The Hague has received a letter threatening them and schools with Muslim children with a terrorist attack with a truck. A toy truck was added to the letter.

‘After week after week of cars driving over your bodies you may wake up at last’, the Islamophobes threatened.

The mosque says they had been threatened with violence earlier as well.

Islamophobia in Donald Trump’s USA


This AFP video from the USA says about itself:

2 June 2017

New Yorkers of all faiths join together for an iftar meal in front of Trump Tower in New York City.

After the recent news on United States President Donald Trump and anti-Semitism … now this.

Donald Trump Becomes First President In Two Decades To Not Host A Ramadan Dinner. Yet another slap in the face to Muslims everywhere: here.

California Mosques Hit By Possible Hate Crimes During Last Days Of Ramadan. In one case, a burned Quran filled with bacon was found handcuffed to a fence outside a Sacramento mosque on Saturday: here.

THE IMAGE OF U.S. GLOBAL LEADERSHIP Has taken quite the beating under the current administration, according to a survey from Pew Research Center. [Reuters]

US Trump administration stops monitoring anti-Semitism


This video from the USA says about itself:

Trump’s America: Anti-Semitism is Back, and It’s Not Going Away

10 November 2016

Donald Trump being elected President of the United States has legitimized the voice of the alt-right in this country and the ant-Semitic rhetoric that comes along with it.

From the Times of Israel:

State Department clearing out anti-Semitism monitor, drawing unease

With envoy post unfilled, 2 remaining staffers to be reassigned, though Foggy Bottom says it’s still committed to combating hatred; ADL, others call for special envoy to be reinstated

By Ron Kampeas

June 23, 2017, 7:57 am

WASHINGTON (JTA) — The US State Department’s office to monitor and combat anti-Semitism will be unstaffed as of July 1, despite concerns from Jewish officials over the downgrading of the congressionally mandated post.

A source familiar with the office’s workings told JTA that its remaining two staffers, each working half-time or less, would be reassigned as of that date.

The Trump administration, which has yet to name an envoy to head the office, would not comment on the staffing change. At full staffing, the office employs a full-time envoy and the equivalent of three full-time staffers.

The State Department told JTA in a statement that it remained committed to combating anti-Semitism – and cited as evidence the tools, including the department’s annual reports on human rights and religious freedom, that existed before Congress mandated the creation of the envoy office in 2004. …

“The idea of having a dedicated envoy who can travel around the world to raise awareness on this issue is critical,” the Anti-Defamation League CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, told JTA in an interview.

… “But if the administration is truly committed” to combating anti-Semitism, “maintaining the special envoy for anti-Semitism seems like a no-brainer.” …

Jason Isaacson, the American Jewish Committee’s director of government and international affairs, said the position was essential.

“It’s not as though the need for a special envoy has diminished,” he told JTA in an interview. “If anything it has increased.”

German professor Baberowski defends ex-SS neonazi Mohler


This video says about itself:

The SS in Ukraine Part 1 of 4

1 May 2012

After WWII ended the Waffen-SS was rightly condemned at the Nurnberg Trials as a criminal organization. This was because of numerous high profile atrocities and their connection to the SS and NSDAP. As a result Waffen-SS veterans were generally denied the rights and benefits granted to other WWII German veterans. Many foreign volunteers that served in the Waffen-SS were also treated severely by their national governments. In the years since WWII there have been attempts to rehabilitate the image and legality of Waffen-SS veterans, both through legislation and in published works by Waffen-SS apologists. These efforts have largely failed and to this day the stigma on veterans from the Waffen-SS remains.

By Peter Schwarz in Germany:

Baberowski acknowledges his right-wing extremist role models

21 June 2017

Two weeks after his legal defeat in Cologne, Professor Jörg Baberowski has published an article in the Basler Zeitung (a Swiss German-language daily) in which he solidarises himself with Armin Mohler, a pioneer of the New Right.

Baberowski, who teaches history at Berlin’s Humboldt University (HU), failed in his attempt to ban the general student committee (ASTA) at Bremen University from describing him as a right-wing extremist and racist. He has responded to his defeat in court by openly identifying himself with his right-wing extremist role models.

In a piece titled “The human is not an abstraction,” Baberowski reaffirmed a statement that played a central role in the Cologne proceedings. In September 2015, he justified his opposition to the integration of a large number of refugees by stating that it would disrupt “the traditional continuity in which we stand and which provides social stability and consistency.” According to Baberowski, “Common experiences, readings and observations” constitute the glue that holds society together.

Even the initial ruling by the lower court, the Cologne District Court, which found in favour of Baberowski on several points, declared that this statement justified describing him as a “right-wing extremist.” Two weeks ago, the Cologne District Court of Appeals rejected his complaint on all points.

Baberowski is now reaffirming his far-right thesis and basing himself on an author who, in the post-war era, revived “the volkish nationalism of the 1920s” and is today honoured as a “founding father” by the new right, as the German weekly Die Zeit wrote in July 2016.

Baberowski began his article with a citation from Mohler’s volume published in 1990 titled Insulting Liberals: “The idea of an autonomous individual, which the liberals love so dearly, is the worst of all abstractions.”

He then summarised Mohler’s further theoretical progression. “Every human being stands in a continuity of life, is connected with family, friends and memories that give his existence continuity,” he wrote, and went on to conclude, “It is a central tenet of conservative thought to conceive of people in groups and continuities of tradition.”

The conception of a community “based on primordial ties” in which the people draw on “their own group, relations, neighbourhood, religion or ethnic origin [sic!],” as Baberowski writes, does, in fact, belong to the tenets of arch-conservative and fascist thought. In line with this, the Nazis coined the term “people’s community” (Volksgemeinschaft).

The fact that Baberowski is a right-wing extremist and racist is underscored by his embrace of such conceptions. While in the past (for example, in an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on September 20, 2015) he described himself as representing a “liberal viewpoint,” he now attacks liberalism by basing himself on an acknowledged fascist.

Born in 1920, the Swiss publicist Armin Mohler joined the Waffen-SS in Germany in 1942. After the war, he moved in right-wing and far-right circles. For a time he was private secretary to the writer Ernst Jünger and for a short period a speechwriter for Christian Social Union leader Franz Josef Strauß. He participated in the founding of the far-right “Republican Party,” published in right-wing extremist papers such as Junge Freiheit and the Deutsche National-Zeitung, and supported Alain de Benoist, a pioneer of the French Nouvelle Droite.

Mohler is considered the most important modern representative of the “conservative revolution,” a concept he helped shape and wrote about at length. It incorporates a group of ideological tendencies characterised by their anti-liberal, anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian features, which prepared the way for National Socialism in the Weimar Republic.

Mohler, who died in 2003, retained his loyalty to his fascist role models until the end. Asked in 1995 by the Wochenzeitung if he still admired Hitler, he answered, “What does admire mean? He at least created the correct leadership. The cadre that he attracted had style.”

In the same year, he told the Leipziger Volkszeitung that he was a fascist “in the sense of Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera,” the Spanish dictator’s son and predecessor of Franco at the head of the Falange Party. He added, “For me, fascism is when disappointed liberals and disappointed socialists come together for something new. Out of this emerges what one can call conservative revolution.”

Mohler is now seen as a role model by groups like Pegida and far-right elements in the AfD (Alternative for Germany). Götz Kubitschek, one of the leading ideologues in these circles, eulogised Mohler in a 2003 obituary and described himself as Mohler’s “pupil.”

Baberowski does not only agree with Mohler’s anti-liberal standpoint, which rejects the ideals shaped by the Enlightenment and the American and French revolutions of equality, freedom and the self-determination of the individual (“the worst of all abstractions”). Like Mohler and his fascist precursors, Baberowski also draws authoritarian conclusions.

“Liberals cannot imagine,” he wrote, “that people in authoritarian orders have free spaces for action that they would not have if they relied on decisions that lead into the open and uncertainty. Most people want security, predictability and stability. They want only those changes that do not call into question their way of life.”

According to Baberowski, only the privileged—people who live “in the bourgeois districts… where they remain among themselves”—can afford liberalism and cosmopolitanism. By contrast, the poor, who live under precarious conditions, need an authoritarian order and communities “based on primordial ties”—i.e., a fascist regime.

It is alarming that a professor at Humboldt University presents such an affirmation of authoritarian and far-right views in the Basler Zeitung, which belongs to the press empire of Swiss right-wing extremist Christoph Blocher. It is made even worse by the fact that the university administration and several professors continue to defend Baberowski to this day, describing his statements as “not right-wing extremist,” and declaring criticism of him to be “unacceptable.”

An official statement by the Humboldt University presidium to this effect remains on its web site. The International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE) called on the university in an open letter to officially retract the statement. The university has since confirmed receipt of the letter, but has neither responded nor removed the statement. None of the 23 professors who signed the statement has withdrawn his signature. One can only interpret this as a decision to defend or at least cover up right-wing extremist positions.

New German barracks still named after Hitler’s old marshal Rommel


This Voice of America video says about itself:

Evidence of Pro-Nazi Extremists in German Military Deepens

19 May 2017

Evidence of far-right extremism within the German armed forces is growing following the arrest Friday of four students at a military university in Munich. Police are trying to establish whether they have links to another soldier accused of plotting to frame refugees in a terror attack. As Henry Ridgwell reports, the allegations remain sensitive in a country where the 20th century Nazi history casts a long shadow.

By Johannes Stern in Germany:

German defence minister praises Rommel, Hitler’s “favourite general”

20 June 2017

Last Saturday, speaking at the Field Marshal Rommel Barracks, Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen announced that the Army would keep the name of the barracks. “The Rommel Barracks has been so named consciously on an anniversary of the resistance. And that shows that Rommel also had his role in the resistance,” she told media representatives. It had therefore been decided not to rename the barracks.

Von der Leyen’s announcement on the so-called Day of the German Armed Forces shows the true mindset that prevails at the top of the Defence Ministry. Following the uncovering of a neo-Nazi terrorist cell in the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) at the beginning of May, von der Leyen had been compelled to make some critical remarks about the all-too-obvious continuity of military traditions from Hitler’s Wehrmacht to today’s Bundeswehr. She was enthusiastically praised for this, especially by the Left Party.

From the beginning, the announcement by the minister of defence to rename some barracks and to remove Wehrmacht memorabilia was hypocrisy. It was a nod towards the anti-militarist sentiment in the population and merely served to downplay the extent of the right-wing conspiracy in the army. Now, von der Leyen has decided it is time to go on the offensive. Of all of Germany’s war-time generals, she has chosen to line up behind the one who was carefully built up in the Third Reich through Goebbels’s propaganda ministry to become Hitler’s most famous “war hero”.

Von der Leyen’s claim that Rommel was part of the resistance to Hitler is absurd. Before Rommel clashed with Hitler over military matters at the end of the war, and was driven to commit suicide, he was considered Hitler’s “favourite general”. In October 1942, after a conversation with the Nazi leader, Goebbels wrote in his diary, “Rommel has made a very deep impression on him [Hitler]. … He has a firm world-view, is not only close to us national socialists [Nazis] but is a national socialist.”

Among other things during his career, Rommel was commander of the Führer Headquarters, and played a central role in the Nazi war machine in five campaigns—Poland, France, Africa, Italy and the Atlantic Wall. To the very end, the Nazis clung to the “Rommel myth” they had themselves created. On October 18, 1944, Hitler’s personal daily order for the state burial of the general in Ulm read: “In the present struggle for the fate of the German people, his name is the byword for outstanding bravery and fearless bravado.”

What Hitler meant by this can be seen in Rommel’s own orders. As commander of the brutal German occupation of Italy, against all the provisions of the Geneva Convention, he compelled more than a million disarmed Italian soldiers to work as “military internees” for the German war economy. Rommel’s order of October 1, 1943, regarding this read: “This war is a total war. If the men of Italy no longer have the opportunity to fight for the freedom and honour of their fatherland, they have the duty to use their full labour power in this struggle.”

Just a week before, on September 23, 1943, he had issued the instruction: “Any sentimental inhibitions on the part of German soldiers towards gangs loyal to [former Italian general] Badoglio in the uniform of former comrades-in-arms are completely inappropriate. Any of these who fight against German soldiers has lost any right to protection, and is to be treated with the harshness which belongs to scum that suddenly turns his weapons against his friend. This view must be made common knowledge among all German troops.”

Von der Leyen’s partisan defence of Rommel confirms the warnings of the Socialist Equality Party (SGP) and the World Socialist Web Site. The return of German militarism and the systematic transformation of the Bundeswehr into a military task force, or rather a war force, defending the interests of German imperialism around the world requires the revival of the old Nazi traditions and their criminal methods.

In the meantime, this can be clearly seen in the official foreign policy publications of the German government. For example, a contribution in the anthology Germany’s new responsibility, presented by the minister of defence at this year’s Munich Security Conference, complains that in Germany, the “neurotic effort to remain morally clean” runs through almost all domestic and foreign policy debates.

In this it was clear: “Whoever goes to war, must, as a rule, take responsibility for the deaths of people. Including the deaths of uninvolved and innocent people.” Especially, in “times of new strategic uncertainty,” the role of the military should be “particularly emphasised [again], not only because society demands such hard tasks, but because it ultimately remains the most critical, and therefore also the most demanding, the crowning discipline of foreign policy.”

The concluding prognosis by Jan Techau, the author of these lines, whose current book bears the notable title Leadership Power Germany, would also have met with enthusiastic support among the generals of the Wehrmacht: In the coming years, Germany “will have to do much more politically and militarily” and will “be confronted with foreign and security policy issues”, of which “the country does not even dare to dream today. Maybe not even in its nightmares.”

Von der Leyen’s revival of the Rommel myth goes hand in hand with the preparation of new “nightmares”. “Warm words are not enough,” she declared at the Rommel Barracks. In view of growing international challenges, soldiers “will need more and more sustainable funding and support from society in the coming years.” She boasted that after 25 years of cuts, the Army would finally be able to grow and recruit more staff. New materiel would also be procured for foreign assignments.

Speaking to the press, von der Leyen then gave free rein to her dreams of new German war and colonial policies. She expected the Bundeswehr to be in Afghanistan for many years to come. “Even in Kosovo, the Bundeswehr has been stationed there for almost 20 years. In Afghanistan, we probably have to think in even longer periods, “she said. “We should not keep asking when can we withdraw, because it motivates the terrorists and unsettles the people who want to stay at home.” To stabilise Afghanistan needs “patience and a long breath”.

The German ruling class is forging its war plans against increasing resistance in the population. On Thursday, an INSA survey for the Bild newspaper revealed that 55 percent of Germans are for the complete withdrawal of the Bundeswehr from Afghanistan. Only one in five respondents supported German soldiers remaining in the country.

London Islamophobic terrorism, not just one ‘bad apple’


This video from London, England says about itself:

Finsbury Park Attack: 15-Year-Old GCSE Student Expresses Anger Over ‘Media Cover Up’

19 June 2017

A 15yr old student spoke of the fear she has following the attack in Finsbury Park and what it means to her.

From daily The Morning Star in Britain:

Finsbury Park attack has roots in Tory policy

Tuesday 20th JUne 2017

SEARCHING questions must be asked about the latest outburst of violence on our streets.

Nothing can minimise nor justify nor excuse the actions of the hate-filled fanatic who targeted a group of people going about their business near the Finsbury Park Mosque in north London for the reason of their religion.

But personal condemnation of one murderer is not nearly enough.

As this newspaper made clear after the killings in central London two weeks ago, and has always made clear, the deeper causes of such terrorist outrages deserve intense scrutiny and action.

Recently months have seen three dozen people killed on the streets of Manchester and London by Islamist fanatics — acts that were at least in part a predictable and predicted reaction to the foreign policy of this country and its allies.

Now we have a man using a motor vehicle to deliberately target ordinary Muslims going about their daily lives, badly hurting several people, screaming about his murderous quest to “kill Muslims,” later laughing about what he had done.

Yet it would be entirely wrong to argue that this is “just” a hate crime.

As Kevin Ovenden shows clearly in these pages, Islamophobia in this country occupies a sordid special spot.

It is a hatred that has been whipped up by the powerful and become a political tool.

A tool with which to disguise the logical results of imperialist policy abroad, a tool to undermine political opponents at home.

Who can forget the Tories’ campaign last year against now London Mayor Sadiq Khan, and the campaign by Theresa May’s scumbag-in-chief Lynton Crosby to tar him as an extremist on what looked like the sole grounds of his faith.

The Tories’ man in that race, Zac Goldsmith, is now back as one of the party’s MPs after being soundly seen off by Londoners, at least in part for his transparently racist campaign.

Or how about when former Tory chair Sayeeda Warsi spoke of a “simmering underbelly of Islamophobia in the Conservative Party.”

Or when Tory Shipley MP Philip Davies — a nasty tyke for all sorts of reasons — refused to apologise after saying that Muslims should “fuck off” following a fake story in hate-mongering rag The Sun.

Or when May refused to criticise US President Donald Trump for his slurs against Khan after the London Bridge attacks.

Or when — despite a pause in campaigning and just hours after people were hacked to death — the former home secretary said there had been “far too much tolerance” of Islamist extremism.

But even these pale in comparison to the government’s Prevent “counter-extremism” strategy — an institutionally Islamophobic programme where 67 per cent of those targeted for extra snooping are Muslims, despite only making up 5 per cent of the population.

This language and these attitudes have consequences. Every day ordinary Muslims in this country face hatred, suspicion and violence.

The Finsbury Park murder took place just days after the first anniversary of Labour MP Jo Cox’s murder by another far-right terrorist, and the events where communities got together to show their unity.

That unity is our strength. We must reject division and unite against hatred, in all its forms. Unite against those in power who would use hatred to divide and weaken us.

Theresa May needs to address Islamophobia in her own party: here.

This video from Britain says about itself:

JK Rowling In Twitter Row Over Finsbury Park Attack

19 June 2017

JK Rowling has called on those spreading hate and division to stop, in the mean time entering into arguments with Katie Hopkins and Nigel Farage.

By Julie Hyland in Britain:

Fourth terror attack in UK since March targets Muslims

20 June 2017

One man was killed, and 10 injured after a van mowed down Muslim worshippers leaving prayers at 12.20 a.m. Monday in Finsbury Park, North London.

The driver, 47-year-old Darren Osborne, who was detained at the scene, reportedly yelled, “I’m going to kill all Muslims—I did my bit.”

Osborne, a father of four, had driven the rented van from his home in Cardiff, South Wales to the Muslim Welfare House, near Finsbury Park Mosque, where he waited until late night prayers had finished. On Ramadan holiday the mosque was especially busy and onlookers said many more could have been killed or injured.

Osborne drove onto the pavement, ploughing into a crowd that had gathered to help an elderly man who had become ill due to the heat. The older man died at the scene, eight others were taken to hospital, and two were treated on the street.

Onlookers described injured bodies lying across the street, as the van dragged people beneath it. When Osborne jumped from the cab, shouting his anti-Muslim statements, he was pinned to the ground by several men, while the local imam Mohammed Mahmoud shouted, “Don’t hit him—you do not touch him—hand him to the police.”

Osborne tried to goad the worshippers, saying repeatedly, “Kill me, Kill me.” When he was handed over to police, he taunted the crowd, “I’d do it again, I’d do it again,” as he smiled, waved and blew kisses.

The attack is the fourth terror attack in Britain since March—one in Manchester and three in London—that have claimed 36 lives so far.

On March 22, Khalid Masood drove a car into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge and fatally stabbed a police officer at the entrance to Parliament before being shot dead. Four others died and 49 were injured.

On May 22, suicide attacker Salman Abedi detonated his bomb at an Ariana Grande concert at the Manchester Arena, northwest England, killing 22 people and injuring 120.

On June 3, eight people were killed and at least 48 injured after a van was driven at high speed into people on London Bridge. The three occupants—Khuram Shazad Butt, Rachid Redouane, and Youssef Zaghba—then ran to neighbouring Borough Market, where they stabbed people indiscriminately before being shot dead by armed police.

Appearing at Finsbury Park yesterday, Prime Minister Theresa May pompously expressed her sorrow over “evil borne of hatred.” She has come under sustained fire for her indifference to the horrific inferno at Grenfell Tower, west London last Wednesday, where the current death toll is 79 people and rising. Worshippers at the mosque had reportedly being giving prayers to the victims only shortly before they were attacked.

May referenced London Bridge and the “unimaginable tragedy of Grenfell Tower” in her statement following her chairing of a Cobra emergency meeting. She spoke in platitudes about the “unbreakable resolve” and community spirit in this “extraordinary city of extraordinary people.”

This was buttressed with her repeating the need to stamp out “extremist ideology” by denying it “safe spaces.” May has made clear this includes joining the United States in taking military action in Syria and strengthening counterterrorism legislation. She used the Finsbury Park assault to repeat her threat to gain powers for greater censorship of the internet by forcing internet companies to give up individuals’ private messages, such as through WhatsApp, and to force them to censor material or face heavy fines.

Nonetheless, May’s reference to not tolerating “extremism of any kind, including Islamophobia” was welcomed by the Guardian as a “distinct and important change in rhetoric” away from her previous “one-eyed” approach, targetting Islamic extremism.

Such claims disarm workers and youth as to the strengthening of the state apparatus and its implications. It also conceals that this latest attack—clearly motivated by anti-Muslim hostility—has been encouraged by the statements of numerous political leaders, including May, and by the media.

The prime minister seized on the attacks in Manchester and on London Bridge to try and strengthen her position under conditions of a snap general election that she had called two years ahead of schedule. Claiming that the country was at war with the ideology of Islamic extremism, she said it was “time to say enough is enough.”

“There is far too much tolerance” of Islamic extremism in Britain, she claimed.

In one sense this is true—at least as far as the intelligence and security services are concerned! Virtually every single person that has been involved in a terror attack in Britain since 7/7/2005 was known to the state. Many had been reported repeatedly as potential terror threats and were under surveillance. Italian intelligence services had informed their British counterparts, for example, that the London Bridge attacker, Youssef Zaghba, had attempted to travel to Syria and was considered a terror risk.

Butt had appeared on a Channel 4 TV documentary, “The Jihadis Next Door,” in which he threatened police and posed with an ISIS flag. Manchester bomber Abedi came from a well-known family of Libyan Islamic supporters of Al Qaeda, who were part of the western-backed overthrow of the Gaddafi regime in 2011.

The authorities allowed all these individuals to move around freely because they were part of a network of operatives protected by the British state, which has been used in the UK and US-backed regime-change operations in the Middle East.

The right-wing media has seized on the latest attack to up its anti-Muslim campaign. Writing in the Sun, Douglas Murray called for an end to “large-scale Islamic immigration,” the “permanent closure” of mosques “caught hosting anti-British views,” “imprisonment of everyone known to have connections with extreme organisations” and the deportation of dual nationals “caught associating with designated groups.”

In fascistic tone, the Daily Mail editorialised, “We need action—now. There is a war being fought on our streets and it’s time to deploy all the weapons at our disposal.” Its columnist Katie Hopkins went further. After the Manchester bombing she tweeted, “Western men. These are your wives. Your daughters. Your sons. Stand up. Rise up. Demand action. Do not carry on as normal. Cowed.” She also called for a “final solution” in another anti-Muslim tirade.

After London Bridge she claimed the capital was the victim of its “multiculturalism.” Speaking of London as if it was an enemy city, facilitating and colluding with Muslim extremists through its “endless tolerance to those who harm us,” she wrote that it was now, “The patriots of the rest of England versus the liberals in this city.”

Osborne’s precise affiliations are not yet known,

According to the Guardian, Osborne was an Internet follower of Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen, the leaders of the neonazi paramilitary gang Britain First.

but in travelling from Cardiff to London to mount an attack on Muslims leaving prayer he was taking such incitements to their logical, murderous conclusion.

The Muslim Welfare Centre, outside which the attack took place, had only at the weekend held a memorial meeting to Jo Cox. The Labour MP was murdered in West Yorkshire by a right-wing terrorist

Thomas Mair shouted “Britain First” as he shot Cox three times and stabbed her 15 times in broad daylight near the local library in Birstall, near Leeds. Britain First is the name of a UK fascist group. When first arrested, he described himself as a “political activist.” In court he said, “My name is death to traitors, freedom for Britain.”

Although a search of his home had provided extensive evidence of indirect links to fascist and far-right groups, little effort was made to explore his political sympathies during the trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder.

Police records show an increase in Islamophobic incidents following the London Bridge killings, with 20 recorded on June 6, the highest daily tally for 2017. Commenters on social media were quick to point out that no politicians or columnists were demanding to know how Osborne had been “radicalised” and by whom.

London mosque attack survivors cheer Corbyn, heckle Theresa May


This 20 June 2017 video from London, England is called Theresa May heckled while Jeremy Corbyn is cheered at #FinsburyPark.

Finsbury Park terror attack: Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn receive very different reactions on mosque visit, video shows. One man is heard shouting: ‘How come you [May] were so quick today? Kensington you weren’t so fast,’ as Prime Minister emerges from centre. Another shouted for her to “come out and talk to us” and protesters called out “May must go”: here.

So, the survivors of the bloody Islamophobic terrorist attack on the Finsbury Park mosque react rather similarly to the survivors of the bloody corporateConservative politicians-caused Grenfell Tower disaster.

This 19 June 2017 video from London, England is called Jeremy Corbyn on Finsbury Mosque attack.

Donald Trump fails to personally address terror attack on London mosque and murdered Muslim woman. He’s much quicker to express condolences when Muslims attack western nations, critics note: here.

JK Rowling is asking how the Finsbury Park attacker was radicalised: here.

Witnesses described seeing [attacker] Osborne shouting “I’m going to kill all Muslims” and saying the attack was “for London Bridge” as he was arrested and dragged from the scene by police. … The Telegraph reported Osborne had become radicalised following the recent terror attacks in London Bridge and Manchester. He is alleged to have hurled insults at his Asian neighbour’s 12-year-old son and was allegedly thrown out of his local pub the night before the attack for “cursing Muslims“: here.

Osborne is reported to be an Internet follower of nazi outfit Britain First.

Number of far-right extremists flagged to Government terror unit soars 30% in a year. Dramatic rise can be revealed after Muslim worshippers were mowed down outside north London mosque on Monday by suspected terrorist: here.

From daily The Independent in Britain, 20 June 2017:

Comments “glorifying” the Finsbury Park terror attack have been reported to the Government’s terror alert system amid fears of further atrocities.

A woman who wished to remain anonymous told The Independent she discovered a stream of vile responses to a post on Britain First’s Facebook page.

The far-right group posted a link to its leader Paul Golding’s blog, reporting that the man suspected of ramming a van into worshippers leaving prayers declared that he wanted to “kill Muslims”.

Finsbury Park attack: EDL founder Tommy Robinson [real name: Yaxley-Lennon] not being investigated [by police] despite ‘hate preaching‘ about ‘enemy combatants‘ at mosques: here.

London: Regents Park Mosque ‘attack’: Man ‘holding weapon and threatening Muslim worshippers’ tasered and detained by police. The man came to the mosque and began “shouting abuse and threats”, a witness said: here.