A Terrorist Attack is Not An "Incident"

Remember Nice? Remember Jerusalem? Now it's London Bridge.  CNN is reporting this latest attack as an "incident", the definition of which is "event or occurrence".  I think deliberately driving into people in order to maim and kill them merits more than a mere "incident".

Is it racist to immediately suspect terrorism, as liberals will claim? No, it's common sense, and the sooner these terrorism-deniers wake up, the better. I am sick and tired of watching the same news reports over and over, and hearing the same excuses over and over!

After the Manchester terrorist attack, I read this column, which may also be pertinent now. It's Islamic Terrorism and the Politically Correct Stages of Grief:

1. "Passive voice: There was an explosion, mass shooting that happened
2. Cause unknown
3. Suspect looked white or Hispanic
4. May have been terrorism
5. Horrifying pictures
6. Police: Likely a “Lone Wolf” attack
7. Hashtag for _________ City
8. No motive known
9. Witnesses: The man screamed, “Allahu akbar!” before shooting, detonation, etc.
10. Police: Name of Asian, African refugee, immigrant, citizen is Something Something Muslim
11. ISIS, Al Qaeda, name-of-Islamic-group claim responsibility
12. Police/FBI/Other Agency: Suspect known to police, interviewed, deemed not a threat
13. Suspect travelled to: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria for training
14. Police: Family, accomplices arrested, possible “terror cell”
15. Suspect attended ________ Mosque that was radicalized by __________ Imam
16. Family in shock
17. Politicians: The big concern here is Islamophobia and the fear of a “backlash”
18. Memorial services and lighting of buildings
19. Muslim representatives: This is not real Islam.
20. Journalists: We may never know the motive.

Rinse. Repeat."