Suspected terrorist attack in London 4 dead including the attacker

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Well that's good news.  Did they postulate as to a reason?

Nah.  Just in the terrorism database site I've been sorting through since last weekend.   But one year isn't a trend, unfortunately.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, -TSS- said:

Doesn't anyone think that this London-attack has been a bit blown out of proportion? I'm not saying that there were "only" four victims but I'm saying that almost anywhere else this would have barely made the news but as London is some sort of a centre of the world anything that happens there gets multiple attention.

Can you imagine if this had happened in New York? Trump would have been tweeting his frustration at not being allowed to retaliate with nuclear force.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Can you imagine if this had happened in New York? Trump would have been tweeting his frustration at not being allowed to retaliate with nuclear force.

Nuke Kent?  Probably wouldn't make much of a difference.

[OftenWrong]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Agreed, but they had to be extremists in the first place.  You don't blow up a market full of Shiites because of what the US is doing.  That might have freed you up a bit to do it, but the will has to be there.  There is a case to be made for a vicious dictatorship.  It kills people, but it keeps people from killing people. 

Sadly, it is all they understand. Not tolerance, not cooperation. And without those things there can be no democracy, that's for sure.

One should be careful not to project what we take for granted in the west to the remote areas of the world.

[OftenWrong]

15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Can you imagine if this had happened in New York? Trump would have been tweeting his frustration at not being allowed to retaliate with nuclear force.

Hillary would be tweeting that they weren't given enough hugs when they were children. Then she'd blow the hell out of their homelands when no one was looking...

[Guest]

4 hours ago, -TSS- said:

Doesn't anyone think that this London-attack has been a bit blown out of proportion? I'm not saying that there were "only" four victims but I'm saying that almost anywhere else this would have barely made the news but as London is some sort of a centre of the world anything that happens there gets multiple attention.

I can't imagine that if it had happened in any other city in the western world it would have barely made the news 

[H10]

21 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

The intent was to both attack a government military institution and kill civilians. They went out of their way to kill civilians by driving on a sidewalk.

I doubt it, if he wanted to kill civilians, there is way better places he could have shot and stabbed people.

[Guest]

Just now, hernanday said:

I doubt it, if he wanted to kill civilians, there is way better places he could have shot and stabbed people.

That's the conundrum that has always given me pause when I consider terrorists, or whatever these people are.  There are always better ways to kill more people. I guess, never having been in the position of actually wanting to, I've never experienced the possible brain fog that might accompany such thoughts when you mean them. 

[H10]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

That's the conundrum that has always given me pause when I consider terrorists, or whatever these people are.  There are always better ways to kill more people. I guess, never having been in the position of actually wanting to, I've never experienced the possible brain fog that might accompany such thoughts when you mean them. 

His target was government, its why he went after police officers. Its why he tried to access government buildings.  He knew just driving the car on the sidewalk, there was a good chance he'd hit someone, anyone, tied to government, because that area is full of government workers.

 

Now if he went and bombed a bus in some suburb, or shot up some school (like adam lanza) that would be obvious a much more soft target, he'd probably get away with it or kill alot more people.  There was no real logic, to targetting that area, if his job was terrorism.  I say this as a person who has been to London, there are areas that are so crowded, in downtown london, where he could pull out a gun, start shooting, and easily kill 200-300 people before a cop could get on the scene.

[-1=e^ipi]

23 hours ago, marcus said:

I don't think the idiot in England planned things out.

He probably planned it out similar to the attack on our parliament. Maybe not planned very well, but one generally doesn't just drive by their country's parliament every day.

 

Now the attacks on random police officers with a knife, those are more likely unplanned.

[-1=e^ipi]

4 hours ago, hernanday said:

I doubt it, if he wanted to kill civilians, there is way better places he could have shot and stabbed people.

Killing civilians wasn't the main goal, but they were killed along the way intentionally. So still classifies as terrorism.

[OftenWrong]

9 hours ago, hernanday said:

His target was government, its why he went after police officers. Its why he tried to access government buildings.  He knew just driving the car on the sidewalk, there was a good chance he'd hit someone, anyone, tied to government, because that area is full of government workers.

The area is also full of tourists. I have no idea why you are going on about this though. Clearly he wanted to get lots of media attention and attack Parliament, and by driving over (about 40) people on the sidewalk, he would have known that all sorts of random people would be injured/ killed. The purpose of this was terrorism.

[hot enough]

7 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Killing civilians wasn't the main goal, but they were killed along the way intentionally. So still classifies as terrorism.

What classification does killing half a million Iraqi children fall under? 

What classification does killing a million Iraqis fall under?

What classification does killing three million Vietnamese fall under?

What classification does killing 50,000 Nicaraguans fall under when your band of terrorists, the Contras, who are the equivalent of the Founding Fathers, slash off women's breasts, castrate fathers, peel the skin off their faces, put grenades in their mouths and pull the pin, all in front of their children or for variety, switch and do this to the children while parents get to watch?

[Rue]

13 hours ago, hernanday said:

His target was government, its why he went after police officers. Its why he tried to access government buildings.  He knew just driving the car on the sidewalk, there was a good chance he'd hit someone, anyone, tied to government, because that area is full of government workers.

 

Now if he went and bombed a bus in some suburb, or shot up some school (like adam lanza) that would be obvious a much more soft target, he'd probably get away with it or kill alot more people.  There was no real logic, to targetting that area, if his job was terrorism.  I say this as a person who has been to London, there are areas that are so crowded, in downtown london, where he could pull out a gun, start shooting, and easily kill 200-300 people before a cop could get on the scene.

With due respect his target was both government and civilians. Your trying to spin it otherwise is without basis. The act if zig zagging into tourists and hitting them with his car would require premeditated, focused, direct thought.

Trust me psychology aint your thing. Stop presuming you understand terrorists let alone this one. Its  ridiculous. He drove into and killed civilians. Your projection he assumed they were government employees is you trying to downplay him as a killer of innocent people and trying to bring rational motive to what he was doing. Enough.

What he did was pre-meditated violent murder designed to terrorize the innocent.

 

 

 

[Rue]

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

What classification does killing half a million Iraqi children fall under? 

What classification does killing a million Iraqis fall under?

What classification does killing three million Vietnamese fall under?

What classification does killing 50,000 Nicaraguans fall under when your band of terrorists, the Contras, who are the equivalent of the Founding Fathers, slash off women's breasts, castrate fathers, peel the skin off their faces, put grenades in their mouths and pull the pin, all in front of their children or for variety, switch and do this to the children while parents get to watch?

Do you even have a point? How does what IPEI stated have anything to do with your assertion? 

What you are doing is trying to draw a moral equivalence between what this idiot did in London and the incidents you list.

The incidents you listed however you want to call them don't change the nature or target of what the idiot in London did.

Your attempt to take violent incidents and list them does what? How does it change what the idiot in London did?

Go on finish your ridiculous contention. Explain how they justify what this idiot did in London.

Go on. Stop couching your words.

If you think the above incidents justify this idiot in London having done what he said, say so. State it or are you afraid to admit you

are defending what this idiot did?

[hot enough]

Killing civilians wasn't the main goal, but they were killed along the way intentionally. So still classifies as terrorism.

[Rue]

4 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

The area is also full of tourists. I have no idea why you are going on about this though. Clearly he wanted to get lots of media attention and attack Parliament, and by driving over (about 40) people on the sidewalk, he would have known that all sorts of random people would be injured/ killed. The purpose of this was terrorism.

He's trying to provide an anti-government motive to downplay this idiot having targeted innocent civilians. He's trying to redefine the act of terrorism to make it seem more rational or acceptable by portraying it as an anti government action.

You bet its something else reading this kind of crap. What can I say,

[Rue]

9 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Killing civilians wasn't the main goal, but they were killed along the way intentionally. So still classifies as terrorism.

With do respect you don't know whether there as a main goal or not. No one knows. The idiot is dead.What we do know is he deliberately zig zagged into civilians to hit them. That was pre-meditated. It required directed thought, He had to aim while zig zagging. I would suggest to even try place a hierarchy on his motives is pointless. The actual point I would argue  is he targeted BOTH government and civilians and he engaged in acts designed to terrorize. . A lot of what we do after the fact of a terrorist attack  is to  try engage in theories that make terrorists rational, i.e., less threatening and the theories then try suggest terrorists only do things to people who deserve it.

There is no one profile of a terrorist but this article describes common characteristics:

wnd.com/2015/01/profile-of-a-terrorist-what-makes-people-blow-themselves-up

 

Edited March 25, 2017 by Rue

[H10]

9 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Killing civilians wasn't the main goal, but they were killed along the way intentionally. So still classifies as terrorism.

No, it doesn't because his intent was to hit government, civilians just got in the way.

[H10]

4 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

The area is also full of tourists. I have no idea why you are going on about this though. Clearly he wanted to get lots of media attention and attack Parliament, and by driving over (about 40) people on the sidewalk, he would have known that all sorts of random people would be injured/ killed. The purpose of this was terrorism.

The area is full of government workers.  Yes he wanted to attack parliament, not tourist near parliament, there are way better places in London to kill tourist.

[Argus]

21 hours ago, hot enough said:

You have once more evaded the question. 

It's called being on topic. You should consider the merits of that some time.

[Argus]

19 hours ago, -TSS- said:

Doesn't anyone think that this London-attack has been a bit blown out of proportion? I'm not saying that there were "only" four victims but I'm saying that almost anywhere else this would have barely made the news but as London is some sort of a centre of the world anything that happens there gets multiple attention.

Because it's something which holds lessons for what we can perhaps expect to see here as the number of Muslims here grows.

Edited March 25, 2017 by Argus

[Rue]

6 minutes ago, hernanday said:

No, it doesn't because his intent was to hit government, civilians just got in the way.

Civilians just got in the way? You think his zig zagging into civilians, i.e., directing his car to hit as many civilians as he could was just them getting in the way?

 

[Rue]

7 minutes ago, hernanday said:

No, it doesn't because his intent was to hit government, civilians just got in the way.

You have no idea what his intent was. You now not only pose as knowing that this idiot terrorist thought but suggest civilians "got in the way".

[Guest]

Just now, Rue said:

Civilians just got in the way? You think his zig zagging into civilians, i.e., directing his car to hit as many civilians as he could was just them getting in the way?

 

Oh! He was zigzagging because he was trying to miss them! Why did we not think of that? 

If those idiots hadn't gotten in the way he would have been able to deliver his strongly worded petition to parliament as he had planned, given the knife he had found to a Constable, as he had originally intended (knives can be dangerous, and he knew that) and been on his way.

Poor guy.