A van and a knife attack.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-40147014
Printable View
A van and a knife attack.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-40147014
Police at the cordon at the south side of London Bridge says there is more than one fatality
Tiresome
Some witnesses claim to have seen people with their throats slit.
Sky News have reported a statement from prime minister Theresa May: “The terrible incident in London is being treated as a potential act of terrorism.”
Emergency services responding to the incidents at London Bridge and Borough Market have confirmed that they were terrorist attacks.
There's another in Vauxall, too.
Sounds like at least one guy wearing an explosive belt has been shot according to BBC.
Vauxhall incident unconnected with the other two. Six killed in London Bridge and Borough Market attacks. Three suspects killed.
What I heard on the news.
3 criminals religious fanatics used van to ram the crowd, then attack at random killing and injuring people at random, in the name of their God (what they were shouting) and were killed by armed police after 8 minutes of the rampage.
That is another Cobra meeting, bla bla bla, keep caln, bla bla bla, don't let terrorists win, bla bla bla, and others pre-built sentences which are now platitudes.
How very nice
edit, this was much worse than I thought
...and politicians announce simultaneously that it won't disrupt the election campaign while allowing it to disrupt the election campaign. This will encourage copycat attacks, seeding in the minds of nutters the possibility that enough killing might bring down the system somehow. The election shouldn't even be mentioned: any journo that brings it up should be told, "Next question" before being taken aside by the police afterwards and asked if they are trying to encourage terrorism so they can report on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Yup, at least one of the terrorists was a Muslim.
Quote:
A neighbour, who asked not to be named, described the man who lived in a flat at the centre of the raid as a slim, bearded man in his mid-20s, married with a young child, no older than two. He is believed to be of Pakistani origin.
She told the Guardian she had recognised her neighbour as the man from a picture that circulated last night of one of the attackers lying on the ground in Borough Market after he had been shot by armed police.
Her suspicion appeared to be confirmed when she woke on Sunday morning to see police officers photographing his red Peugeot car.
“I realised it was him,” she said. “It is shocking. Everybody here has children and jobs. We never thought anyone here would have the type of mentality to do something like that. I used to see them every night, He had a wife and child and would drop them off home and would look for a parking spot.
“He never used to communicate with the women here. I just knew him as the guy that always came at a certain time and would drop his wife and kid off right close to the main door and then go.
“He never used to park where he should park. He never really looked at us and if he did he didn’t look happy as if he had a why are women out on the street at this time of the night type of look on his face.” She said he wore traditional Islamic robes and his wife wore a full-face veil.
“He used to have the beard, the long dress that men wear, sometimes white, sometimes dark-coloured,” she said.
No shit Sherlock. I hopel everybody keeps their cools and don't start attacking muslims who have nothing to do with this shit. Some probably will
Good to see you back LEN, sad it was for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
Kudos to the police there. First report to takedown in under 9 minutes.
How many of you lot live in London itself? Where you nearby?
:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
What global agenda do we have left other than boundless Islamist terrorism?
I live within a few miles of Barking, where at least one of the suspects was from. Like I said in your thread, it's been a while since I was last near London Bridge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
My wife is watching the concert when I am typing this text...
She is still under the shock...
She can't come to the term that some just hate us... Just for who we are...
England sure had to swallow a lot lately. And then you hear stupid things like 'you are more likely to die in traffic'. Not that it isn't true but accidents just happen it's not intentionally hurting people
When you keep doing what you always have done, you will get what you always have got.
This is a truth, 'blades, but as has been discussed divers times before, truly substantive changes from the Western perspective would involve cultural/societal adjustments that would undercut OUR identity and individual freedoms. Down that road lies the police state -- security but at a steep price in liberty. Our leaders, and many of our fellow citizens, are hoping the real change will come from Islam -- that they will inculcate a religious culture that does not reward violent extremism and that their fringe 1% will become more akin to the bulk of Christianity's fringe 1% and adopt a pacifistic ideal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
My wife has reacted somewhat the same way -- especially given that our vacation later this summer includes a few days at a hotel near Tower bridge. I found myself in in inexplicable bout of rage yesterday evening as well....not really sure what prompted it, but had to do about 4 mysteries of the rosary until I got myself back on an even keel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I suspect that the motivation is not so much who we are (though that is how the violence is expressed) so much as for how we have (in their minds) wronged them. These attacks are, for the suicide attackers, a way to assert their own identity. Thus, the underemployed fellow, living in a culture that does not always cohere to the values of his parent culture feels marginalized. He can either assume he is unlucky, or unable, or that "the man" is holding him down unfairly. This segues, of course, to that "the Crusaders have always attacked us, belittled us, and wronged us because of our faith" story -- and people do hold such grudges whether reasonable or not, I am blamed by some of my fellow citizens for the 400 years of slavery perpetrated against their great grandsires; Zionists still view themselves as the underdogs forced away from their rightful homeland by the Arabs (such identity arguments set aside realities of time or event that don't support the narrative). Thus you have the disgruntled young man, who rather than lashing out in frustration can now scream "this is my identity and I MATTER" through violence in service of 'the cause.'
Saddening...
@SF, maybe you are looking too much into what makes sense to you and making a mistake in the process doing so, maybe it's as simple as that these characters are simply religious fanatics who hate us. As simple as that perhaps? I don't think you are doing anyone a service trying to make sense out of it, it's a useless courtisy to try to understand it
Reports so far indicate that the police did get enough advance warning about the attacks. The problem is distinguishing signal from noise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Is it possible to act in advance, political-correctness will always winQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
It's not a matter of PC. It's a matter of knowing what information is useful and relevant, and which is not. One of the neighbours have now said that he'd had a conversation with one of the attackers about his (the neighbour's) van, what it was like, etc. It struck him as a little odd at the time, but not in any particular way. It's only in hindsight that he understood what the conversation was about. We have enough data. We need better expertise in profiling what data is useful and what is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
That sounds really sound but when will political correction stop making that really hard @last lineQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Do you have any evidence that PC attitudes stopped police from detecting these attacks? If not, then note that there is evidence that the police are overloaded with information and couldn't filter them. Note that I've gone off about Britain's faultists ignoring evidence in favour of their own explanation which doesn't need evidence. I'll refer the same arguments to you if that's what your anti-PC argument is about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
My comment was on a more strategic level. Your response is on the tactical (though I understand you to be correct. Moreover, their response time during was excellent).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Good post. Always an issue with this, especially since the other side is well aware that extra noise adds to the confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Not terrorism specifically but a major sex-case in England was pc'd, police was just too scared to act. Afraid of pcQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You are referring to Rochdale. There is a TV series on it (3 episodes) called Three Girls recently. I would recommend watching it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
For those located in the UK, can access it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...es-1-episode-1
One of the bigger reported failings was apparently more to do with Victim Blaming (Poor, Council Dwelling, 'Scum of Society') than the PC-ing of accusations against the Pakistan-British perpetrators, though there might be elements of that too.
This isn't that case though. Nor is it operationally related. Or strategically. There have been other sex case cover ups too, involving the BBC entertainment wing among other institutions. But these institutions have largely been cleaned up, and I'm confident enough that further cases will be dealt with competently. So, what does your cited example have to do with this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Same point, political correctnessQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Do you have any evidence that PC attitudes factor into this particular case?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Plenty in fact, CNN even staged a protest with figurantsQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
At least one of the two Barking ones was a second gen, coming to the UK as a kid after his parents claimed asylum from Pakistan (from what?). The Ireland one is a first gen, claiming asylum fro Morocco (from what?).
Probably from Islamist extremists....Life is irony writ large.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
But they didn't...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
CNN asked Police to transplant a select number of protesters away from the main protest to a secluded area where they set up their cameras - the actual protest happened and the people on camera were protesters - claiming CNN staged the protest is grossly misrepresenting what is a very common practice by News agencies (protests are often loud and not conducive to interviews/filming).
The only thing CNN did wrong was to not clearly state this is what they had done - and lets be honest here the press are all guilty of not disclosing stuff like that (Fox and the interview with that private detective a few weeks ago is a good example)
Sure, tney just suddenly apeared
sigh lets try this again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
They didn't just appear - they were part of an actual protest with a lot more protesters - there are plenty of still pictures of the full protest if you look.
CNN decided they didn't want to film at the protest location due to lighting and sound issues. They set up their cameras away from the protest and asked the Police to move a select group of the protesters (an Islamic Mothers group) to their location so they could be filmed. The group agreed to be moved and the Police obliged. This happens all the time with protests.
CNN's mistake was not making it clear they had moved the protesters which is a pretty big Ethics breach but isn't staging a protest by a long shot.
You will just have to excuse me for simply not buying it, As I don't
Muslims not seen protesting - “Why aren’t you guys denouncing terrorism?”
Muslims seen protesting - “Aha, a staged protest!”
Only Frag believes in the conspiracy theories necessary for the second line. And speaking from Dutchland, he's hardly well placed to speak for Brits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
It was staged, you will know that laterQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
So they weren't there to protest the London attack?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
no they were figurants
Ah, so they were faking outrage for the benefit of the press, and CNN exploited it for their own agenda?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Frags:
By definition, all protests are "staged" even if spontaneous. It is a form of public speech.
Staged does not automatically equate with insincere.
Again, strong and stable.
Looks like the protest wasn't real at all, we will hear later I guessQuote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
for pete sake Frag you are always on at us to fact check...
http://www.snopes.com/cnn-muslim-protests-london/
Your wrong - it was not fake - your sources are peddling their own propaganda which you are swallowing whole
At least in matters of Brexit he thinks he is. Now it is in matters of terrorism as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You must have missed the memo on snopes being a liberal propaganda rag that just spreads the globalist agenda like the failing New York Times. If you can't find the info on Fox News, InfoWars or Breitbart then your link is most likely useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
For consideration, maybe they meant really well and just didn't want anybody to get hurt. There is a line between reporting and being talking dolls though, you just can't be both and expect to be taken serious
CNN failed
Frags gets all his info from a few select blogs and social media. Diversifying is a danger to his bubble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
Not my fault they are more riable than official mediaQuote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
except when they are easily proven wrong... like now... :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Of course they can be wrong, but blogs are independant. You know it can be wrong. But msm has lost it's credibility to being taking for granted, I simply don't trust them. This CNN-item reeks more than a littleQuote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
Quite telling as well, that the usual suspects have not opened a new thread about the Tehran terror attacks yet.
Time to insert a nice link: http://theantimedia.org/us-reaction-isis-attack-iran/
Quote:
Conversely, when a terrorist attack rocked London this week, U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May swiftly pushed us to believe that the cause of that terrorist attack – and the previous one in Manchester — had nothing to do with British foreign policy, but instead, was rooted in a deep, evil ideology that hates us for who we are. Apparently, ISIS hates us for our “values” and our “democracy”; and Western foreign policy shares no role in creating the conditions for these brutal attacks to occur.
How long can this narrative realistically hold now that we see that the Islamic Republic of Iran is also the victim of ISIS-inspired terrorist attacks? Does ISIS also hate Iran for its “values?” Iran’s “freedom?” Iran’s “democracy?”
[...]
There’s a reason why Donald Trump’s popularity surged last year when he claimed that, if elected, he would focus more on America and less on expensive and costly wars in the Middle East. There’s a reason, too, why England’s Jeremy Corbyn is surging in popularity — he is the only one speaking the truth about the root causes of terrorism and the proper way to address it.
[...]
Comparatively, in the most recent terrorist attacks in the U.K., the attackers have vocalized a clear link between British foreign policy and their decision to launch an attack on British soil, as has all too often been the case in the past.
Iran is just too far away to care, I know that's pretty horrible to say but at least it's honest
What should the distance be for you to start to care?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
There was a much more horrible attack in Afganistan this week and nobody mentioned it, what are you asking from meQuote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
So only Europe, then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Given that 'staunch' NATO support for Ukraine during the current turmoil, I think it would be hard to claim even all of Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Well yes, feel free to dislike me for that, but you will probably have to dislike a lot of people who feel the exact same wayQuote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
It was mentioned, it did make headline news but because that's been a war zone since 1979 it can be filed as business as usual. A terrorist attack in the capitol of Iran is uncommon and also ironic due to their being a key exporter of terrorism throughout the middle east. It also has the potential to widen the ongoing sunni-shia conflict. The Afghan attack only shows that instability still reigns there and the inability of the Afghan govt and international community to reign in Pakistan's support/ignoring for terrorists such as the Haqqani network.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The problem though is that it is by definition not possible for a country to have a foreign policy compatible with Islamic State. It's only a question of what IS has the power or priority to react against at a given time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
So choosing between "values" and "foreign policy" in this case is a false dilemma because these are blended.
This is not a reason for liking or disliking. Not for me. I understand the human nature in this respect. Why should anyone be sad about things happenning far away? But don't expect others to feel for you if something like that happens in your backyard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Oh dont't worry I know what it looks likeQuote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Well, that's not true at all and completely irrelevant as to why I posted it. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Of course a country can have a foreign poilicy compatible with Islamic State. That country may cease to exist and become part of the Islamic State, but then the policy will still be compatible. :stare:
And then again it might just be about the country having the "least incompatible" foreign policy being the one that is a priority target for them. As in if Western or European Countries didn't try to manipulate others into doing their bidding, ISIS might be a local Middle Eastern issue and not bother with bombing Europeans. And if values and foreign policy are blended, what values do arms deals with Saudi Arabia represent?
But then it's no longer a country! See what I did?Quote:
Of course a country can have a foreign poilicy compatible with Islamic State. That country may cease to exist and become part of the Islamic State, but then the policy will still be compatible.
These groups are mostly local issues, but as history shows the East Med is "local" for Europe.Quote:
As in if Western or European Countries didn't try to manipulate others into doing their bidding, ISIS might be a local Middle Eastern issue and not bother with bombing Europeans. And if values and foreign policy are blended, what values do arms deals with Saudi Arabia represent?
Don't think in terms of "manipulation" and "bidding"; these aren't one-sided relationships.
Saudis get arms so that they can defend themselves against the militants they have bought and paid for, and also equipped with those arms. A complicated relationship for all parties to be sure.