97 of them were murdered by Muslim terrorists.
Here is a list of terrorist incidents in Great Britain this century, stating the ideology behind the attack, its date, the place it took place, the name usually given to the attack, and the number of victims killed.
Irish Republican – 09 September 2000 – MI6 HQ, London – MI6 rocket launcher attack – 0 killed.
Irish Republican – 04 March 2001 – BBC TV Centre – BBC TV Centre car bomb – 0 killed.
Irish Republican – 03 August 2001 – Ealing – Ealing car bomb – 0 killed.
Islamist – 07 July 2005 – London Transport system – 7/7 bombings – 52 killed.
Islamist – 21 July 2005 – London – 7/7 copycat bombs – 0 killed.
Other – 18 January 2007 – Various – Start of Miles Cooper letter bomb campaign – 0 killed.
Islamist – 30 June 2007 – Glasgow Airport – Glasgow airport attack – 0 killed.
Islamist – 14 May 2010 – East Ham – Stabbing of Stephen Timms MP – 0 killed.
Extreme Right – 29 April 2013 – Various – Start of Pavlo Lapshyn terrorism campaign – 1 killed.
Islamist – 22 May 2013 – Woolwich – Murder of Lee Rigby – 1 killed.
Irish Republican – 10 February 2014 – Various army recruitment offices – Start of New Irish Republican Army parcel bomb campaign – 0 killed.
Islamist – 18 February 2016 – Rochdale – Murder of Iman Jalal Uddin – 1 killed.
Extreme Right – 16 June 2016 – Birstall, West Yorkshire – Murder of Jo Cox MP – 1 killed.
Islamist – 22 March 2017 – Westminster Bridge, London – 2017 Westminster attack & murder of PC Keith Palmer – 5 killed.
Islamist – 22 May 2017 – Manchester Arena – Manchester Arena bombing – 22 killed.
Islamist – 03 June 2017 – London Bridge – 2017 London Bridge attack and Borough Market stabbings – 8 killed.
Extreme Right – 19 June 2017 – Finsbury Park, London – Finsbury Park attack – 1 killed.
Islamist – 15 June 2017 – Parsons Green, London – Parsons Green tube bombing – 0 killed.
Islamist – 14 August 2018 – Palace of Westminster – 2018 Westminster car attack – 0 killed.
Extreme Right – 16 March 2019 – Various – Vincent Fuller racist attacks – 0 killed.
Islamist – 29 November 2019 – London Bridge – 2019 London Bridge stabbings – 2 killed.
Islamist – 09 January 2020 – Whitemoor Prison, Cambridgeshire – Whitemoor prison stabbings – 0 killed.
Islamist – 02 February 2020 – Streatham, Lambeth, London – 2020 Streatham stabbing – 0 killed.
Islamist – 20 June 2020 – Forbury Gardens, Reading – 2020 Reading stabbings – 3 killed.
Islamist – 15 October 2021 – Liegh-on-Sea, Essex – Murder of David Amess MP – 1 killed.
Islamist – 14 November 2021 – Liverpool Women’s Hospital, Liverpool – Liverpool Women’s Hospital bombing – 0 killed.
Extreme Right – 30 October 2022 – Dover – Dover firebomb attack – 0 killed.
Extreme Right – 02 April 2024 – Hindlip, Worcestershire – Attack on asylum seeker at Hindlip – 0 killed.
Islamist – 02 October 2025 – Heaton Park Synagogue, Manchester – Manchester Synagogue attack – 2 killed.
Islamist – 31 December 2018 – Victoria Station, Manchester – Manchester Victoria station attack – 0 killed.
Islamist – 29 April 2026 – Golders Green Synagogue, London – Golders Green Synagogue attack – 0 killed.
The list was compiled from these Wikipedia pages:
List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain in the 2000s
List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain in the 2010s
List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain in the 2020s
I have excluded from the count the three young girls murdered in Southport by Axel Rudakubana because although he was charged under the Terrorism Act 2000 for possession of ricin and a military study of an Al-Qaeda training manual, I am not convinced his motive was political. I have also excluded the killing of Anne Widdecombe from the count because the suspect is awaiting trial and the presumption of innocence applies. If these two cases were included, the proportion of terrorist murders this century that were carried out by Muslims would be 97/104; 93% rather than 97%.
I do not blame innocent Muslims for the crimes of their co-religionists. I do not claim that all or most Muslims are terrorists. I honour those many Muslims who have fought against Islamic terrorism, at horrendous risk to themselves and their families. I do not deny that there are other sorts of terrorists out there, including those who seek to murder Muslims. But 97 out of 100 is a very high proportion.
I’d feel a lot happier if the peaceful Muslims identified themselves.
@Patrick Crozier
I’d feel a lot happier if the peaceful Muslims identified themselves.
WTF are you talking about? The vast, vast majority of Muslims have shown themselves by their actions and behavior to be peaceful. I know dozens of Muslims who would no more murder a stranger than you would. Every weekend in Chicago a dozen or more kids are murdered by black gangbangers. Would you feel happier if all the black people in America identified themselves too?
Every population has its psychopaths, from what I hear it is about 2% of the population. People who have no conscience or empathy for others. The Muslim peoples are no different. They, like you, just want to find happiness, success and raise happy healthy children. And isolating people because of their religion rather than treating them like anyone else, with similar expectations on what it takes to participate in a free society is the worst thing you can do.
There is certainly some nasty stuff in their holy book, just as the Christian Bible has some real horrors in it, but, like Christians, even religious Muslims take the good stuff and skip the bad stuff. For the vast majority of Muslims they’d no more commit a violent Jihad than a Christian would smite dead Ananias and Sapphira for insufficient money in the collection plate.
I suspect that you hang out with a rather high-class subset of the muslim world in your daily travels.
Come with me to Minneapolis, into Little Mogadishu, where it’s all relatively low-socio-econ Somalis out on the streets day and night. If you don’t look like them, you will be spit on several times in an hours’ wandering. Should you do something that strikes them as disrespectful of their religion – and it doesn’t take much – you might get beat up, maybe badly.
From my experience, I’d say that Christianity has this small fringe of people who will do violent things in service to their religion, while muslims have this small fringe who WON’T do violent things for their religion.
They are not the same.
And there is utility in looking to an entire group when a smaller subset of that group are doing unacceptable things. They will have much more power – much more persuasive ability – to make their violent compatriots settle down than will a bunch of infidel whities saying “can’t we all just be friends.” When we want certain gang members in the city to stop shooting people, we don’t try to pressure rural farmers about gun use – we talk to that specific gang in general and hope they can affect their fellow members.
What? No “far” left terrorism?
Britain looks like an anomaly.
PS: I am temporarily unable to cut & paste, so i don’t reply to other comments.
@bobby b
I suspect that you hang out with a rather high-class subset of the muslim world in your daily travels.
Yup, I’m real classy, so I am 😉
Come with me to Minneapolis, into Little Mogadishu, where it’s all relatively low-socio-econ Somalis out on the streets day and night.
Sure, as long as you first come with me to Cabrini Green or the projects on the South Side of Chicago. But, if we do, let’s promise not to judge all black people by seeing the worst of black people.
When I was in my early twenties I lived in Edinburgh and I was dating this girl. Her mother was very sick and a little destitute so she got put in public housing on one of the housing estates on the outskirts of the town. I’d go visit her. In retrospect that was a very dangerous thing to do because it was just the worst gang infested area. Her mom was good friends with the matriarch of the whole sub society and she put out the word to leave me alone, but had she not done so, my car getting trashed would be the least of my problems. And they were all as lily white as I am.
Which is to say if you judge a group by the worst of the group they are going to leave a very bad impression indeed. A lot of times the real problem (as you identified) is not their religion but their socioeconomic status of poverty and hopelessness. Religion is tool that has been used throughout history to exploit people in difficult circumstances like this.
So, blaming the religion is like blaming the gun when somebody shoots an innocent bystander.
Islam is what Muhammed taught – the later Medina verses abrogating (“Doctrine of Abrogation”) the earlier Mecca verses which were composed before he had his own army, and what Muhammed personally did.
Under Islamic law leaving Islam is punished by death, under Islamic law mocking Muhammed is punished by death. Islamic doctrine (reflected, for example, in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran) is that the whole world must be Islamic (by any means necessary) and infidels must be crushed – and feel themselves subdued, paying the infidel tax in due humiliation (the humiliation is at least as important as the tax).
Muhammed made it very clear that he was the last prophet – Islam can not be changed because there is no Earthly person or persons who has the authority to change it.
As for Fraser Orr’s comments about poverty and hopelessness.
This is not the 1960s, with Cloward and Piven and the “Great Society” throwing money (and throwing “affirmative action” “positive discrimination” – that harmful farce has been going on for 60 years) at American cities, “Progressive” authorities today refusing to punish criminals because they are black (or whatever) – it is absurd to trot out these excuses (concerning any attacker – of any race or creed), and neither Muhammed or Bin Laden, or Mr Mamdani (from a wealthy family – he has never had to work a day in his life) were or are poor.
Grow up.
But you will not grow up – you refuse to grow up. Just as you refuse to accept basic facts about Islam (it is the religion – it is what Muhammed taught and what he personally did), or anything else.
Which makes you Sir – part of the problem.
Future historians (if there are any) may ask how the West was destroyed – when, as recently as a few decades ago (as recently as 1960) it seemed so strong and secure – there is a short answer.
White “liberals” – that is the reason for the downfall of the West.
You need to take the rose tint out of your contact lenses Fraser. You are being colonised. “Peaceful” Muslims repeatedly self-report (in any number of surveys) hostility to Jews, apostates, gays and secular law. Whenever the Muslim population of a city or a district hits a certain level, they use electoral corruption and the threat of violence to get what they want. Tower Hamlets is the most extreme example of an Islamic rotten borough in the UK, awash with corruption, but there’s many others. There seems to be plenty in the USA too. You don’t seem to have the industrial scale rape of children by ‘peaceful’ Muslims yet, perhaps that is mainly ‘peaceful’ Pakistani Muslims. The same is happening all over Europe.
It also strikes me that many of the explicitly anti-American, anti-white DSA candidates are Muslims. Just as British Muslims have hijacked the Green Party. But hey, Mr Khan from round the corner seems a nice chap, so there is nothing to worry about.
How many murders per year does it take to intimidate our so-called elite? How many to make them angry?
I wonder what the data shows for far left terrorists’ atrocities? If you go back to the Baader/Meinhoff, Red Brigade, Weather Underground cases of 40,50 years ago l, etc.
I also notice cases of attacks on businessmen and women in the US that seems motivated by the nihilist hard Left, and isn’t necessarily an overlap with Islamism, although that can be the case.
And yet it is the Jews who all the bien pensants agree that we must hate. Why do you suppose that it?
Fraser Orr, you misunderstand the Christian viewpoint. Ananias and Sapporah lied about what had been given, and the Christians didn’t kill them- they had heart attacks, I think. Maybe God directly interfered. It was the lie that was the fatal sin.
Bobby:
In Britain, that really is the way government acts. It always blames anyone who owns a gun legally for the crimes of those who don’t. The Labour shower are bad, but historically the faux Conservatives have been no better. Some of the worst attacks on lawful gun ownership took place under “Conservative” government, including that of Mrs Thatcher.
Paul describes Islam as what the Prophet taught, and that is correct, but as he knows, the issue is that there are plenty of religions that have dark aspects and calls for the death of “smiting” of enemies – the Old Testament is full of this – and yet religions have changed for the better, although usually not before violent conflict.
Christianity was influenced in the early Middle Ages by the recovery of understanding of Aristotle (Acquinas); there was an “enlightenment” in parts of the Islamic world of sorts, which eventually disintegrated. Christians today tend not to go about calling for heretics to be burned. The Reformation, let’s not forget, was not about a desire to make life more secular, but to purge Christianity of the corruptions and “idolatry” that angered Luther and others. (Luther was a rabid Jew-hater, among other things.) The Reformation did, because of when it happened, coincide more or less with the invention of the printing press. People wanted to read the Bible, and much to the horrors of religious folk, wanted to read other things, including books that lit a fire under religious dogmas.
Even then, Christians were capable of terrible things: the Atlantic slave trade, Inquisition, etc. Just as they were capable of fighting against these.
Eventually the Enlightenment happened, with developments that still are with us today.
So what am I getting at in response to the above post? Well, I think that when in a minority, and under the pressures and influences of a dominant, mostly secular culture and hopefully a proudly secular one, people from any faith, including one such as Islam, will tend to adapt over time. Not all of them will, but many will do so. The problem as I see it is when you have a culture where the achievements of post-Enlightenment countries are denounced, sneered at or taken for granted: scientific curiosity, individual rights, freedom of speech, belief and right to engage in voluntary relations – the whole shebang. Add in a disregard and disdain for cultural excellence, and a nihilistic, cynical popular culture. And then add in a group of people steeped in a religion that puts a premium on obedience, punishment of heresy, disdain for modernity and autonomy. That is where trouble starts. And finally, marry the murderous desires of the fanatics with the pathologies of the hard Left, and you get the Islamist/leftist crossover that we see today.
@Nicholas (Pro-Localism) Gray
Maybe God directly interfered. It was the lie that was the fatal sin.
You’d better hope and pray that lying isn’t a fatal sin or else there is going to be a lot of dead Christians. Imagine, if you will, that every fresh face bride walking into a church for her wedding wearing white and God struck her down for her dishonesty. Yikes!
Poverty does not make people criminal – and it is an insult (a vicious insult) to claim, or imply, that it does. For example, the town I am sitting in (Kettering – a typical English town) was a lot less criminal (in everything from murder to litter) when the population was vastly poorer than it is today. During the 1930s, a time of great poverty, there was less disorder than today – people did not tend to vomit in the street, drop endless litter (sometimes only a few feet from a bin – which they ignore), or stab each other because they were out of their minds on drugs.
Wealth does not make a hostile group not hostile – if a world-view is hostile, the supporters of that world-view will remain hostile even if they are rich. Islam is a hostile world-view – a rival philosophical and legal system.
Nor is religion necessarily bad “a tool that is used to exploit people like this” – meaning the poor. Treating religion as “the opium of the people” – the same mentality that leads to blaming crime on poverty.
Indeed Christianity was the motivation for such things as the campaign to end the slave trade and to end slavery itself.
Treating all religions as if they were basically the same – is ignorant. Although, to be fair to Fraser Orr, this ignorance may, perhaps, be shared by the Archbishop of Canterbury and His Majesty the King.
There may have been less litter in the past but that didn’t stop people complaining about it. This is from a Mr. K. A. Mackinnon of Hyde Park Gardens, published on 12 April 1924:
I do not remember having seen at any time more refuse, unpleasant dust, and noisome litter of papers strewn about the London streets…
People might refrain from dropping omnibus tickets, paper bags, orange peel, &c., about the streets.
Well said @Johnathan Pearce. I’d like to say “I couldn’t have said it better myself”, but if I’m truthful I’d probably have to say “I couldn’t have said it nearly as well as you did.”
I’m not going to judge an individual’s worth or value or danger based on knowing only their race or their religion.
But I AM going to structure my own life – my safety, the safety of my family and friends – in a probabilistic manner.
DeAndre Green, living on North 3rd in North Minneapolis, may be a wonderful, caring guy who would never think of hurting me.
But I’m not walking down North 3rd after dark.
And I think it is more incumbent on Green to spread some good influence among his neighbors and friends than it is for me to do so. I don’t care if that community stays fearsome. Joe might want to care about it.
If Finns were responsible for all the attacks on people in Minneapolis, I’d be avoiding any contact with Finns, even though many Finns are OK people.
ETA: Well, some Finns. 😉
Bobby might be interested to know that there is a dutch website that refers to moroccans as “finns” (finnen).
That combines irony with barely plausible deniability.
@bobby b
But I AM going to structure my own life – my safety, the safety of my family and friends – in a probabilistic manner.
I think that is perfectly reasonable, as long as that is what you are doing. Where I grew up there were large swaths of the city of Glasgow that were pretty dangerous, no go zones, and they were populated by lily white people, in fact many of the areas populated by Asians were among the safer poor neighborhoods. There was a famous ongoing war called the ice cream wars where a bunch of white gangs got together to fight violently over territory regarding ice cream trucks, that were also a front for illegal narcotics.
Here, where I live now, there are plenty of communities that are predominantly Muslim, middle class, regular neighborhoods that are perfectly safe. My kids went to some fancy private schools that were full of Muslim parents who wanted their kids to get an excellent education and where engaged parts of the school community. Fancy Muslims for sure, but still data about what “Muslims” are like.
So I think you are using the wrong measuring stick. What I think you will find is that areas which are full of unemployment, single mothers, hopelessness, drug abuse, terrible schools, low police enforcement, broken infrastructure and so on are the actual dangerous areas you should avoid. And as I said earlier such places are fertile soil for the some of the more extreme applications of religions including Islam and its equally dangerous philosophy of nihilism.
There is a local Mosque not far from where I live. The people there seem lovely, get involved in the community, help out people in need, all the sorts of things that religious organizations do. To brand these people with the same red letter as the worst of their religious counterparts is not only unfair, but worse, it drives them from polite society and pushes them to make common cause with the radicals. And that is bad for everyone. We very much need the “good” Muslims on our side, and some of the rhetoric here is not at all helpful to achieving that goal.
If I can quote a great, if quite flawed, man: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”. May we all judge people by what they do rather than by their race of religious affiliation.
@Paul Marks
Although, to be fair to Fraser Orr, this ignorance may, perhaps, be shared by the Archbishop of Canterbury and His Majesty the King.
The rest of your comment is the same old discussion we have had many times so no point in retreading here. However, this line did strike me. I heard about the new Archbishop of Canterbury and I looked her and her viewpoints up. I was surprised to find that she may be the person with whom I disagree about every single one of her beliefs and things she advocates. I think it is impressive that one person, this archbishop, could be so comprehensively wrong about absolutely everything. It is an impressive acheivement, especially for a DEI hire.
As a general rule I do think the Church of England is the best of the Christian churches. Their philosophy could be summed up as “be nice to everyone and don’t make a fuss. And don’t talk too much about right, wrong, God or the Bible since it might offend someone”, which really is very English. Decorated as it is with elegant ceremonies for life’s transitions, anodyne Sunday services to offer a heartbeat to your week, and pretty churches and church yards to celebrate bucolic England, it resonates with the core of the word “English”. Such an activist archbishop seems rather out of place, though no doubt her crazy will be dissolved into nothingness in the bureaucratic Byzantium that is the Church of England.
Fraser, I note that, like many living in the USA, you equate race with skin colour. Very useful no doubt for those who like a visual representation of their prejudices, but utterly useless in many circumstances.
With regard to Islam, you are perhaps fortunate to live in close proximity to Muslims who currently have no need to cause you concern by virtue of their comfortable lifestyles. Islam, like Socialism is very patient, barring (quite a few) hotheads. Their holy book is, according to them, the actual word of God. As opposed to the multi-authored Bible, which has long been open to discussion, evaluation and criticism.
Fraser Orr do you disagree with the lady awarding, on the 25th anniversary of 9/11, a prize for interfaith understanding and dialogue, to a Gentleman who supported Bin Laden – and supports the persecution of opponents of Muhammed, in Pakistan – and everywhere else?
I suspect you DO think the lady was wrong to give this Gentleman this prize – but whatever sincere Muslim she gave the prize to, the lady would have faced the same problem – the teachings of Muhammed.
You claim to know Muslims who reject the basic teachings of Muhammed – in which case they are NOT Muslims, and if they claim to be Muslims, whilst rejecting the basic teachings of Muhammed, they place themselves under sentence of death – as what Muhammed called “hypocrites” (people who claimed to be Muslims – but kept making excuses, rather than joining in his plundering and slave raiding operations). Muhammed was very clear – if-they-reject-Islam, even your own family are your enemies, and you must help crush them.
As for the philosophy of the Church of England – I suspect you do not know much about it, you may be a great reader of Anglican thinkers – but, to judge by your comments here, you do NOT seem to be.
But then, again, you are not alone – I suspect that lady in Canterbury and His Majesty know just about as much about Richard Hooker, and the others, as you do Sir.
Sadly, Fraser Orr, President Trump seems to agree with YOU (rather than with nasty Reactionaries like me) – even yesterday he was still talking in terms of a “deal” with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
He still does not understand that they would break any deal – and, as for his threats, they would WELCOME being killed by infidels – as this means (they believe) eternal sex and other delights in Paradise.
President Trump talked about dealing with the IRI “after the election” – he does not seem to have grasped that unless their is victory (victory – that forbidden word) BEFORE the elections – he will spend the next two years not fighting the IRI, but in fighting Impeachment efforts by Congress.
And President Trump’s family will be targeted.
For example, any District Attorney and Grand Jury (made up of leftists) can commit his wife or his sons or daughters to trial for “murder” – pick a random murder victim and say the wife, or son, or daughter of President Trump murdered them.
A New York City jury would find them guilty – regardless of the evidence. Big City juries giggle as they find the innocent guilty and find the guilty not guilty. And the President has no pardon power for State level offenses – so his wife and children could be dragged off to prison, to be abused till they died.
Think the Dems are not capable of such conduct? I beg to differ – I think they perfectly capable of doing this.
No victory over the IRI means defeat in the MidTerm elections.
The Dems will not even have to rig the vote with fake mail-in ballots – although they will do that anyway.
Wessexboy – correct.
The Bible and the Koran are fundamentally different works.
The Bible was written by many people over centuries – with various DIFFERENT points of view.
The Koran claims to be the direct word of God (Allah) revealed to Muhammed.
Yet Fraser Orr refuses to see this makes Islam, makes Muslims, fundamentally different.
I should have typed “Big City juries giggle as they find the Progressive guilty not guilty, and find the Reactionary innocent guilty”.
And it is true, horribly so – juries in New York, Washington D.C. (and so on) often judge the accused on the basis of their political and cultural beliefs (or what the jury think are their political and cultural beliefs). Some 90% of the voters of Washington D.C. vote Democrat – even a Communist state might be embarrassed to report 90% support. There is no hope of fair treatment for “Reactionaries” from a Washington D.C. jury.
Remember the education system and the media have undermined belief in objective moral right and objective moral wrong – so Progressive juries judge people on the basis of whether the accused is Progressive or not. Or just on their RACE.
Black and hispanic juries tend to find black and hispanic accused not guilty – regardless of the evidence, and tend to find Anglos guilty – again regardless of the evidence.
This is not considered Racism – as “Racism” is now defined in a Critical Theory Marxist way – i.e. as something that only white people can be guilty of.
As for Britain…..
Write a book about how you helped the pro Soviet traitor George Blake escape from prison – openly boast about your crime, and a British jury will find you “Not Guilty”.
Cross London and make a speech to an angry mob about how right wingers should “have their throats cut” – and a British jury will find you “Not Guilty”.
If a jury is made up of Progressives, in the United States or the United Kingdom, there is little hope of justice – instead there will be “Social Justice”, the innocent will be found guilty, and the guilty will be found not guilty.