A van has hit pedestrians outside a mosque in Finsbury Park, in North London.

 

Eleven people were injured and one killed, and the attacker was captured at the scene by a crowd of worshippers and a local imam. A passing police van was flagged down very quickly, and joined first aid attempts. The attacker has been arrested and publicly identified as a suspected far right extremist from Wales.

 

The mayor, PM, leader of the opposition (who is also the area's local MP) and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner have all visited the scene. The Met's counter terrorism unit have taken over the investigation.

 

London Mayor Sadiq Khan's response to the attack is online here https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/19/finsbury-park-imam-london-terrorist-attacks-grenfell-tower-fire-sadiq-khan

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2017/06/18/van-pedestrians-mosque-north-london-finsbury-park_n_17199142.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2017/06/19/london-mosque-attack-imam-reportedly-protected-suspect-from-angry-worshippers_n_17201322.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

 

People posted the last few attacks in London here, so I thought I'd do likewise with this one. I was in the area at the time, and I can confirm that people appear to be coping very well in the local area. It's been very reassuring to see how well people have come together, regardless of religion. Police also arrived very quickly, which is reassuring (this is quite far from central London, and it's good to know that the police can respond across the whole city, rather than just around tourist centres).

 

Following the Grenfell Tower fire, London Bridge and Westminster Bridge attacks, it's been a rough year for London. I hope things get better soon.

Funny how we could again witness the double standards of some people.

 

An arabic guy attempts to murder caucasian people? "ISLAM IS AT FAULT, BAN IT, BAN ALL THE MUSLIMS, BAN ALL IMMIGRANTS!"

A caucasian guy attempts to murder arabic people/muslims? *dead silence*

 

Ah man, what a great world we live in when someone sees the stick in his neighbour's eye but not the girder in his own.

Edited June 20, 20178 yr by Hystery

Can't wait for biased media to down-play this is 'a mental health issue' rather than a terrorist attack. Like, no shit, a mentally healthy person doesn't just wake up and think "hmm yeah I should murder some people today".

13 minutes ago, orley said:

Can't wait for biased media to down-play this is 'a mental health issue' rather than a terrorist attack. Like, no shit, a mentally healthy person doesn't just wake up and think "hmm yeah I should murder some people today".

I do because I play violent video games.

 

In all seriousness, I didn't find out about this for a pretty long time after it occurred, even then it was pretty blown over coverage wise..

1 hour ago, orley said:

Can't wait for biased media to down-play this is 'a mental health issue' rather than a terrorist attack. Like, no shit, a mentally healthy person doesn't just wake up and think "hmm yeah I should murder some people today".

 

Lots of newspapers reporting it as a ''van driver'' rather than ''terrorist'' attacking people. They're never going to get a grip on non-religious terrorism if they keep up this attitude :(

terrorism is a word that can be used against any body and I hate that word why? because fear is a powerful tool to control people...terror means fear...so when are people going to get a grip and call this for what it is a murder, so if someone gets shot or is hit by a vehicle then is that called "terrorist" act?  get a grip

4 hours ago, sek510i said:

 

Lots of newspapers reporting it as a ''van driver'' rather than ''terrorist'' attacking people. They're never going to get a grip on non-religious terrorism if they keep up this attitude :(

Really? I thinks it's regressive enough to refuse to to the terrorist as a terrorist simply because of his religious affiliation and that it played a role in his/her motivation to commit such atrocities, but the media even refuses to refer to this terrorist in particular as a terrorist? Keep in mind, however, that the same thing happened with the terrorist in Nice when he drove the truck into a crowd of people.

Other than that, people shouldn't be surprised that a "far right wing" terrorist would do such a thing, as unfortunate as this event is. The refusal for leaders to lead and respond to similar situations appropriately was eventually going to cause someone to do this. For goodness sake, Sadiq Khan refused to make any major move against terrorism and instead made policing the internet a priority over fighting terrorism (at least when discussing Police Allocation). He also said that terrorism is a part of life in a big city, something that no person in the right mind would ever be okay with.

Last mention, if anything, the double standard is held by the regressive/progressive far left that refuse to talk about the rise in Islamic Terrorism and completely ignore the terrorists religious affiliation when it plays a role in the terrorist's motivation, but are quick to blame the 'Right Wingers' for any terrorist attack committed by someone who's either white or a right winger. Terrorism should be called out no matter who it is committed by, but we are seeing a certain ideology (Islam) be more influential to extremists than another (Christian/Right Wing). Simply measuring as both being equal threats is both dishonest and counter productive.

3 minutes ago, TheGrandMaster said:

Really? I thinks it's regressive enough to refuse to to the terrorist as a terrorist simply because of his religious affiliation and that it played a role in his/her motivation to commit such atrocities, but the media even refuses to refer to this terrorist in particular as a terrorist? Keep in mind, however, that the same thing happened with the terrorist in Nice when he drove the truck into a crowd of people.

Other than that, people shouldn't be surprised that a "far right wing" terrorist would do such a thing, as unfortunate as this event is. The refusal for leaders to lead and respond to similar situations appropriately was eventually going to cause someone to do this. For goodness sake, Sadiq Khan refused to make any major move against terrorism and instead made policing the internet a priority over fighting terrorism (at least when discussing Police Allocation). He also said that terrorism is a part of life in a big city, something that no person in the right mind would ever be okay with.

Last mention, if anything, the double standard is held by the regressive/progressive far left that refuse to talk about the rise in Islamic Terrorism and completely ignore the terrorists religious affiliation when it plays a role in the terrorist's motivation, but are quick to blame the 'Right Wingers' for any terrorist attack committed by someone who's either white or a right winger. Terrorism should be called out no matter who it is committed by, but we are seeing a certain ideology (Islam) be more influential to extremists than another (Christian/Right Wing). Simply measuring as both being equal threats is both dishonest and counter productive.

I really don't want to turn this into a political debate but Sadiq Khan has never said that terrorism is a part of life in a big city.

"Sadiq Khan has said he believes the threat of terror attacks are “part and parcel of living in a big city” and encouraged Londoners to be vigilant to combat dangers."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sadiq-khan-london-mayor-terrorism-attacks-part-and-parcel-major-cities-new-york-bombing-a7322846.html

I should have said the threat of terror attacks, so you're right in correcting me.

Edited June 20, 20178 yr by TheGrandMaster

combat dangers by using what? there loving goverment restricts people from using guns so you are pretty much sitting ducks....hows that gun control working out for ya Londoners?

2 hours ago, TheGrandMaster said:

Really? I thinks it's regressive enough to refuse to to the terrorist as a terrorist simply because of his religious affiliation and that it played a role in his/her motivation to commit such atrocities, but the media even refuses to refer to this terrorist in particular as a terrorist? Keep in mind, however, that the same thing happened with the terrorist in Nice when he drove the truck into a crowd of people.

 

I'm french, and I can tell you people refered to the guy as a terrorist right away. Dunno where you're getting your info.

 

 

2 hours ago, TheGrandMaster said:

Other than that, people shouldn't be surprised that a "far right wing" terrorist would do such a thing, as unfortunate as this event is. The refusal for leaders to lead and respond to similar situations appropriately was eventually going to cause someone to do this.

 

There's no excuse for someone to do something like this. Especially not "Well leaders don't do shit so people are going to do that". That's bullshitty excuse. You can't say "Well leaders don't do shit so I'll do that because I've to". That's not how it works. That's not how the world works. Yes people should be damn surprised that a far right wing terrorist would do something like this. Because those far right people are the first ones to moralize others about how Islam is bad and terrorists are caused by it. And yet here they are, trying to kill people the exact same way terrorists do. Irony, anyone?

 

 

2 hours ago, TheGrandMaster said:

For goodness sake, Sadiq Khan refused to make any major move against terrorism and instead made policing the internet a priority over fighting terrorism (at least when discussing Police Allocation). He also said that terrorism is a part of life in a big city, something that no person in the right mind would ever be okay with.

 

He's right to focus on policing the internet, as most of ISIS recruitments are made through the internet. Cut their recruitment, you cut the possibility of having one of them coming back to explode himself somewhere. Besides, what "major move" do you want to do? Locking down borders? Segregating people based on their religion? There's no "major move" against terrorism, because it's an invisible threat. The only thing you do against terrorism is gathering intel to prevent those attacks from happening, and hitting the recruitment. And finally, yes, terrorism is a part of life in a big city. Because terrorists aim big cities. You don't see them exploding their idiotic self in tiny villages. It's just a fact. Sure, that's not something we have to live with, and we have to fight it however we can, but the fact is, terrorism is part of a big city life.

 

 

2 hours ago, TheGrandMaster said:

Last mention, if anything, the double standard is held by the regressive/progressive far left that refuse to talk about the rise in Islamic Terrorism and completely ignore the terrorists religious affiliation when it plays a role in the terrorist's motivation, but are quick to blame the 'Right Wingers' for any terrorist attack committed by someone who's either white or a right winger. Terrorism should be called out no matter who it is committed by, but we are seeing a certain ideology (Islam) be more influential to extremists than another (Christian/Right Wing). Simply measuring as both being equal threats is both dishonest and counter productive.

 

Let's play a game. Let's say we can erase Islam from humanity. Just like that. Do you really, in your deepest self, do you really think this is going to stop those crazy fuckers from exploding themselves? Hint: no, it won't. Those people are thirsty for influence, power and control. And most of all, they're fucking crazy. If Islam didn't exist, they'd find another excuse for their pathetic choice of existence, because all they want to do is to watch the world burn. Islam just happens to be an easier way to brainwash new recruits into believing they're right, and the perfect scapegoat for short-sighted individuals who can't see the bigger picture.

 

It doesn't matter what skin color, political beliefs or religious beliefs a terrorist has. They're terrorists, period. It's absolutely not dishonest nor counter-productive to put that far right wing idiot and an extremist terrorist as equal threats, because they both do the same damn thing, they kill innocents for whatever they think is right.

And no one cares because muslims were the victims, it doesn't fit the narrative. It's awfully hard to fear monger about white people, isn't it? 

 

Fuck that terrorist that ran over those innocent Muslims. Hope he burns in hell like the scumbag he is.

19 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

There's no excuse for someone to do something like this. Especially not "Well leaders don't do shit so people are going to do that". That's bullshitty excuse. You can't say "Well leaders don't do shit so I'll do that because I've to". That's not how it works. That's not how the world works. Yes people should be damn surprised that a far right wing terrorist would do something like this. Because those far right people are the first ones to moralize others about how Islam is bad and terrorists are caused by it. And yet here they are, trying to kill people the exact same way terrorists do. Irony, anyone?

 

I wasn't making an excuse, nor was I ever justifying the actions of that individual. Also, Right Wingers don't say terrorism is caused just by Islam, but that Islam has been the justification for numerous terrorist attacks in the past few years, and should I add that "Right Wingers" are not the only ones who "moralize" others about how Islam is bad, in fact there are many prominent figures who were/are Muslim and speak out about the major flaws with Islam that are acted upon in reality. There is no Irony, because no mass of Right Wingers are justifying the actions of this terrorist. 

19 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

He's right to focus on policing the internet, as most of ISIS recruitments are made through the internet. Cut their recruitment, you cut the possibility of having one of them coming back to explode himself somewhere. Besides, what "major move" do you want to do? Locking down borders? Segregating people based on their religion? There's no "major move" against terrorism, because it's an invisible threat. The only thing you do against terrorism is gathering intel to prevent those attacks from happening, and hitting the recruitment. And finally, yes, terrorism is a part of life in a big city. Because terrorists aim big cities. You don't see them exploding their idiotic self in tiny villages. It's just a fact. Sure, that's not something we have to live with, and we have to fight it however we can, but the fact is, terrorism is part of a big city life.

 Who's going to stop the terrorists from being inspired by ISIS/Islam and committing these terrorist attacks in the name of both? Who's going to stop them from traveling to Syria to join ISIS?

I do support the idea of securing borders, but I can't say that I support Religious Segregation.

I wasn't referring to terrorism in general, I was referring to major terrorist groups, organizations, and individuals who could be classified as potential terrorists. I understand that terrorism as a whole can't be stopped, but there are moves we can make in order to stop terrorist groups.

19 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

 

 

Let's play a game. Let's say we can erase Islam from humanity. Just like that. Do you really, in your deepest self, do you really think this is going to stop those crazy fuckers from exploding themselves? Hint: no, it won't. Those people are thirsty for influence, power and control. And most of all, they're fucking crazy. If Islam didn't exist, they'd find another excuse for their pathetic choice of existence, because all they want to do is to watch the world burn. Islam just happens to be an easier way to brainwash new recruits into believing they're right, and the perfect scapegoat for short-sighted individuals who can't see the bigger picture.

Yes , it will. You just said yourself that Islam provides an "easier way" for potential terrorists to believe these atrocities are justified.  I am also fascinated by how you can read the mind of others and know what they think because of your psychic powers and how you can simply determine that Power is the sole reason why they want to commit such atrocities and that Islam is merely a justification for such and used at their disposal for recruiting others., I suggest you make a career with your powers. There is more evidence to suggest that Islam is the driving force in their actions rather than their desperate moves to gain power. 

 

19 minutes ago, Hystery said:

It doesn't matter what skin color, political beliefs or religious beliefs a terrorist has. They're terrorists, period. It's absolutely not dishonest nor counter-productive to put that far right wing idiot and an extremist terrorist as equal threats, because they both do the same damn thing, they kill innocents for whatever they think is right.

It is dishonest, because we've seen more terrorist attacks being committed in the name of Islam than terrorists committed in the name of Right Wing Ideology, and not just because of how they commit it, but how often in a period of time.

Also why aren't moderate white Christians condemning this action? Why isn't every white person in London publicly condemning this act of terror?

9 minutes ago, TheGrandMaster said:

Yes , it will. You just said yourself that Islam provides an "easier way" for potential terrorists to believe these atrocities are justified.  I am also fascinated by how you can read the mind of others and know what they think because of your psychic powers and how you can simply determine that Power is the sole reason why they want to commit such atrocities and that Islam is merely a justification for such and used at their disposal for recruiting others., I suggest you make a career with your powers. There is more evidence to suggest that Islam is the driving force in their actions rather than their desperate moves to gain power. 

 

It is dishonest, because we've seen more terrorist attacks being committed in the name of Islam than terrorists committed in the name of Right Wing Ideology, and not just because of how they commit it, but how often in a period of time.

 

You missed the point. Yes, Islam makes it easy for those idiots to brainwash people. But if Islam didn't exist, they'd find another way to do that. Because that's all they want. You can be fascinated by my psychic powers all you want, but it doesn't take a psychic genius to guess what ISIS wants. They're like every warmongering entity in this world: power, influence, control. They tried to have a grasp over Mali (the reason why we sent our forces there). They tried to have a grasp over Syria (the reason why we sent the coalition there). They try to make us fear them with terrorist attacks, to have an influence on us. They do nothing else. Islam just happens to be the easiest way for them to gain fanatics, but if Islam didn't exist, they'd find something else to do the same, because they're not muslims, they're psychopaths. If you have "more evidence" that suggests Islam is the driving force of their actions rather than a way for them to gain a powerbase to then strike their enemies, feel free to share them with all of us, don't hold back such knowledge.

 

And no, it's not dishonest. Doesn't matter how many attacks have been committed. It's pretty simple really. What did he try to do? He tried to kill innocent people based on personal beliefs. What do terrorists do? They try to kill innocent people based on personal beliefs. Therefore, he's just like them, he's an asshole, a crazy fuck, and a murderer. You're just trying to minimize his action.

2 hours ago, The Knight said:

combat dangers by using what? there loving goverment restricts people from using guns so you are pretty much sitting ducks....hows that gun control working out for ya Londoners?

 

Because guns are really useful tools to stop people randomly swerving out of a flow of traffic into a crowd of people?

London's attacks would have been far worse if their attackers had got their hands on guns. Gun control here means that when these lunatics do attack people, they have to use cars and knives, which makes it far easier for normal people (and the police, who do have access to guns) to deal with them.

 

There is no justification for arming civilians to deal with terrorist attacks; the police have the guns, and when they're the only ones in a given situation with guns, that gives them the advantage. The police themselves have requested that civilians do not arm themselves to deal with potential attacks, both because it's illegal and also because it would make it harder for police to judge the scale of the problem and identify attackers from civilians.

 

So, in conclusion, gun control is working out great for us Londoners.

5 minutes ago, sek510i said:

 

Because guns are really useful tools to stop people randomly swerving out of a flow of traffic into a crowd of people?

London's attacks would have been far worse if their attackers had got their hands on guns. Gun control here means that when these lunatics do attack people, they have to use cars and knives, which makes it far easier for normal people (and the police, who do have access to guns) to deal with them.

 

There is no justification for arming civilians to deal with terrorist attacks; the police have the guns, and when they're the only ones in a given situation with guns, that gives them the advantage. The police themselves have requested that civilians do not arm themselves to deal with potential attacks, both because it's illegal and also because it would make it harder for police to judge the scale of the problem and identify attackers from civilians.

 

So, in conclusion, gun control is working out great for us Londoners.

Quite agreed. I don't think gun control will work in the US, but in countries like the UK it works very well. Just down to the culture, I guess.

4 minutes ago, orley said:

Quite agreed. I don't think gun control will work in the US, but in countries like the UK it works very well. Just down to the culture, I guess.

I doubt that UK style gun control coming in overnight in the US would have much of an impact, which is possibly why people in the US don't always understand how well it works here :/

54 minutes ago, sek510i said:

I doubt that UK style gun control coming in overnight in the US would have much of an impact, which is possibly why people in the US don't always understand how well it works here :/

yeah considering the crime in the uk is higher then in the us states that don't have gun control and a gun could of stopped the driver or at least the tires....most "terror" attacks have all happened in places that have strict gun control...uk, france, new York, boston, conneticut, Illinois, California  just to name a few but nothing to see here move along

42 minutes ago, The Knight said:

yeah considering the crime in the uk is higher then in the us states that don't have gun control and a gun could of stopped the driver or at least the tires....most "terror" attacks have all happened in places that have strict gun control...uk, france, new York, boston, conneticut, Illinois, California  just to name a few but nothing to see here move along

 

Having more guns wouldn't solve anything of all that. Dunno if you're aware, but here in France, our army is dispatched all over the country. Not the police, the army. We actually have more soldiers on duty within our borders than out of them, which has never happened since WWII. They're armed with FAMAS, handguns, flashballs, flashbangs. Guess what? It didn't stop the terrorist attacks from happening. Because guns don't magically solve things, guns aren't magic wands.