i gotta agree here.  no one (not even the OP) is reporting this as a hate crime specifically against muslims.   one article suggests it may have been a parking dispute.   sorry but i live in chicago and we have at least 1 murder a day and most of them for more interesting reasons than a "parking dispute".   sorry but this isn't news except to those that want to push an agenda.

a hate crime would be national newsworthy but not this. 

The complaint article was published at 4:30am! You mean that news outlets didn't have a story out while their reporters were sleeping?!

The man's motives for killing them are irrelevant and subjective. The real debate is the reason this story wasn't covered by the mainstream.

You don't have to be muslim to be a terrorist.

I think you're confusing simple bias with having an agenda. The media prefers stories that tie into larger stories or fit neatly into an existing template because, well, they're lazy. Since there is a long established pattern of individual Muslims displaying sudden jihad syndrome, in the absence of any facts they have a lot more to talk about in the meantime, and ever since 9/11 terrorism has proven to be ratings gold. So of course any such incident is likely to be instant news. But it's rare that any significant terrorist attack isn't followed shortly thereafter by a report on how the local Muslim community fears a backlash, so I don't agree at all that Muslims are generally tarred with one brush or viewed as always being the enemy by the media.

In this case the assumption is that this would have been big news if the killer were Muslim (which it might have been, for the reasons above) or if the victims weren't Muslim (which we'll never know as there's no way to prove that), and we've instead ended up with a situation where this is a national story precisely because the victims are Muslim even though it seems to have nothing to do with why they were killed.

Another user read my post and provided a link to such events. He even posted much later than you did. Googling isn't hard. 

Yeah, i don't know why you needed to clarify that.  Never said you have to be Muslim to be a terrorist, and never said you have to be a Terrorist to be Muslim.

it's just like the Boston Bomber when they tried to figure out if he had any radical ties, they always try to investigate if other parties are involved.  And a big group like ISIS is more attention grabbing than any other smaller lesser known group.

I'm done with this.  This is a video game site, and people here are stepping out of what they know to make some sort of statement/controversy on things they're not informed about.  I don't come to this site for this crap, so have fun guys

Seems only Muslims are characterized as such. When some guy bombs an abortion clinic they don't splatter "terrorist" all over it. When some dumb ass from PETA decides that an animal is more important than a person and decided to burn down a building the word "terrorist" isn't in the mainstream. Don't get me wrong, Muslim terrorists deserve to be called as such. But to ignorant people the word has almost become synonymous with Muslims. I don't recall many calling the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bomber as a terrorist. Sure some did, but it wasn't a mainstay in the narrative. 

As to my question early in the thread, so nicely answered by many people. Murder in the UK makes the news mostly, if it was by gun, it most certainly will. Yet we have a far lower homercide number (and rate) than the US. The man's motives do matter in the case of news coverage however, a crime of passion murder is probably less likely to make the news than a man killing someone people because of their faith.

You're correct. But you're also one of the most active posters in this thread. Maybe you did come here for this?