Darren Osborne murder of a Muslim man for which he was convicted today was not a terrorist act. It was a revenge attack against Muslims, though not a justified act
By Gabriel Princewill-
.Prosecutors branded the attack a terrorist one after Muslim chiefs complained that they had been victimized because the media did not brand the attack a terrorist attack. In actual fact, the attack was an act of terror because Osborne acted exactly like terrorists do. However, an act of terror and a terrorist attack is not exactly the same thing.
This might appear at first sight to be an inherent contradiction, but it a paradox of sorts. The intention and purpose of the assailant, in this case, is crucial in defining how his actions should be compartmentalized.
Osborne is a demented low life whose purpose was not to perpetuate a political or ideological purpose but to vent an unbridled anger and contempt for the Muslim community. His judgement was palpably tainted; his actions inspired by an outrageous and unjustified level of bigoted anger against Muslims.
Police believe Osborne’s flagrant hate for Muslims was induced by a BBC drama about a sexual abuse scandal involving Muslim men used in online extremist propaganda against Islam. He was also a heavy consumer of internet propaganda from Tommy Robinson, the founder of the English Defense League, and also an extremist group, Britain First.
INDISCRIMINATE
Terrorism is generally defined as the indiscriminate act of violence against civilians to achieve terror, fear, or a political or ideological aim. The murderous act committed by Osborne does not appear to fall under any ambit of the ordinary definition of terrorism, especially when the underpinning motives of evil Osborne is carefully evaluated.
His actions were not indiscriminate because he targeted Muslims. They could arguably have been ideological if he was feeding on material from ‘Britain First’, but that would only satisfy the criteria for being extremist, not a terrorist. The fact Britain was still recovering from three terrorists attack the same year, lends weight to the view that Osborne was the epitome of an angry warped mind in action.
The call by the Muslim community for the attack to be branded a terrorist act is perfectly understandable. Without a cry for the act to be described with strong pejorative connotations, it could have been perceived that the media and police were undermining the levity of the attack, and implicitly endorsing it. The reality, however, is that Osborne’s attack was a murderous act of terror, not a terrorist act.
If this type of act became recurrent such that random acts of murder were occurring against the Muslim community, it would qualify to be seen as terrorism against Muslims only then. However, there are no networks with the mind to execute such hateful campaigns, which is why only groups or individuals that orchestrate such campaigns or enact them deserve to be called terrorists.
SENTENCE
Osborne will be sentenced next week for murder and attempted, and the incorporation of the terrorist element of the attack will give poignancy to the verdict. He will deserve whatever an extra number of years he is given for murdering an innocent, no amount of punishment can compensate the family of the victim. The essence of this article is just to point out for whatever it is worth that only terrorist attacks should be branded as such.