RE: The “religion of peace” and the endless repeating cycle
Firstly, lest look at the definition of terrorism
"The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." (Oxford dictionary)
Now let us see what the prosecution had to say regarding the terrorist
" "The Crown's case is that Mr Osborne, motivated by extreme political views and personal hatred of Muslims, acted to kill, main, injure and terrify as many people as he could by driving a vehicle into a group of pedestrians.
''His was a deliberate and pre-meditated terrorist act and a terrorist murder.'' (https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/624712/finsbury-park-terror-suspect-radicalised-watching-bbc-grooming-drama-three-girls/amp)
I suggest you look at the link above and decide for yourself.
Him having mental issues does not disqualify him from that label. As demonstrated by the overwhelming number of dastardly acts done by terrorists; do you seriously think that you could excuse isis's actions because they are "mentally damaged?"
My issue is with your double standards, fix it.
That is all
The definition does not change the fact that it was not an act of terrorism but an act of someone with a mental disorder.
But great confirmation bias posting something that supports your opinion and is not based on the facts. The actual definition of a terror attack as per the english dictnary is:
"the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear"
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/terrorist%20attack
His attack was neither political, religious or ideological in nature. Neither was it premeditated. The evidence suggests it was due to his mental instability.
Please quote me exactly where I am excusing Issi's actions and call them mentally damaged?
I suggest you sharpen your reading and comprehension skills.