A rhetorical question on the media's double-standard of reporting terrorists' motivations
Yet when it's a Muslim, almost immediately it's invariably said that there's no evidence the person had religious motivations or ties to other groups.
Houssein Zorkot. Mohammad Alkaramla had "personal problems." Regarding the deadly attack earlier this year in Rio de Janeiro, "Police stressed, however, that there was no concrete evidence that the attack had either a religious or a political motive." Someone made a Wikipedia page for Naveed Afzal Haq, whereas someone else more properly titled the page about the Empire State Building shooting of 1997. Mohammed Taheri-azar. Hesham Hadayet opened fire at LAX's El Al counter, which naturally was downplayed as having no religious motivation. John Mohammed and Lee Malvo, the D.C. beltway snipers. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad and, just months later, Nidal Malik Hasan. There were four Newburgh men who banded together to bomb synagogues -- but of course they weren't tied to anything beyond themselves, and the judge even blamed the feds for making them into terrorists.
So we again see the double-standards of political correctness, which by nature defies reality. I haven't heard of any home-based terrorism in Ireland for a very long time, but I have a feeling that when English targets were bombed, and the suspect was Irish Catholic, then the investigators immediately had a good idea of the motivation and the overall movement.
Addendum: the world has idiots who have to ask, "For Christians who think of their faith as preaching peace, how to explain the faith-sanctioned killing of the Crusades?" and mention "Or consider the Ku Klux Klan's burning crosses." I get annoyed by such non-thinkers who are essentially demanding justification of why 2 plus 2 don't equal five -- it's obvious to any thinking person that the Crusaders and KKK aren't followers of Jesus Christ by any means. Ergo there's nothing "faith-sanctioned" about the two groups.