Reports of Van hitting Pedestrians on London Bridge in UK

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**feeder**

Ketara wrote:
I've read a few more testimonies, and the general gist seems to be 'bit of an over-aggressive weirdo but a family man'. No traceable membership of any far-right organisations as things stand, and the security services had never heard of him. Fits the 'lone wolf' pattern more than anything, in that he seems to have just been swallowing online propaganda of far-right wingers. He just separated from his wife a few months beforehand, took to drink, was regularly abusive to people in the street in that period. His mother claims he was already on medication for mental health issues and had been for months, that'll be easily traceable if the case so it's likely to be true. There's also video footage of him shouting 'Kill me' after he's been pinned down and they're fighting off the mob, he actually wanted to die at that point.

All the above speaks to me of a very deeply unhappy man with various problems, who couldn't take it anymore and decided to launch a terror attack in line with some deeply held xenophobic beliefs. He probably thought he'd get shot by the police or something, and that would be that. Most likely not out of a desire for matyrdom, but rather deep depression or suchlike. If he was on anti-depressants already but kept drinking, alcohol usually prevents the drugs from working properly, so that could be a contributing factor.

This profile is fairly consistent with most spree killers, regardless of motivation. It's only in the alt-right circlejerk of Breitbart, Rebel media and others that there is some vast conspiracy of well connected and highly trained super killers, waiting to pounce.

**Ketara**

feeder wrote:
Ketara wrote:
I've read a few more testimonies, and the general gist seems to be 'bit of an over-aggressive weirdo but a family man'. No traceable membership of any far-right organisations as things stand, and the security services had never heard of him. Fits the 'lone wolf' pattern more than anything, in that he seems to have just been swallowing online propaganda of far-right wingers. He just separated from his wife a few months beforehand, took to drink, was regularly abusive to people in the street in that period. His mother claims he was already on medication for mental health issues and had been for months, that'll be easily traceable if the case so it's likely to be true. There's also video footage of him shouting 'Kill me' after he's been pinned down and they're fighting off the mob, he actually wanted to die at that point.

All the above speaks to me of a very deeply unhappy man with various problems, who couldn't take it anymore and decided to launch a terror attack in line with some deeply held xenophobic beliefs. He probably thought he'd get shot by the police or something, and that would be that. Most likely not out of a desire for matyrdom, but rather deep depression or suchlike. If he was on anti-depressants already but kept drinking, alcohol usually prevents the drugs from working properly, so that could be a contributing factor.

This profile is fairly consistent with most spree killers, regardless of motivation. It's only in the alt-right circlejerk of Breitbart, Rebel media and others that there is some vast conspiracy of well connected and highly trained super killers, waiting to pounce.

People like that come from all walks sadly, from bullied schoolboy shooters in the US, to the occasional Daesh inspired one. It's not the same as the ISIS trained/groomed extremists any more than it is the same as the IRA mortar attacks, and does, I believe, deserve a slightly different tone in the reporting. A terror attack it is, but with a very different motivation at the core. Sometimes people just have their life go so far wrong that they can't see a way out but the extreme.

**feeder**

Ketara wrote:

People like that come from all walks sadly, from bullied schoolboy shooters in the US, to the occasional Daesh inspired one. It's not the same as the ISIS trained/groomed extremists any more than it is the same as the IRA mortar attacks, and does, I believe, deserve a slightly different tone in the reporting. A terror attack it is, but with a very different motivation at the core. Sometimes people just have their life go so far wrong that they can't see a way out but the extreme.

Is it your contention that the van attack at the mosque and the van attack on London bridge have a "very different motivation"?

**Frazzled**

feeder wrote:
Ketara wrote:

People like that come from all walks sadly, from bullied schoolboy shooters in the US, to the occasional Daesh inspired one. It's not the same as the ISIS trained/groomed extremists any more than it is the same as the IRA mortar attacks, and does, I believe, deserve a slightly different tone in the reporting. A terror attack it is, but with a very different motivation at the core. Sometimes people just have their life go so far wrong that they can't see a way out but the extreme.

Is it your contention that the van attack at the mosque and the van attack on London bridge have a "very different motivation"?

Terrorism motivated by X...

**feeder**

Frazzled wrote:
feeder wrote:
Ketara wrote:

People like that come from all walks sadly, from bullied schoolboy shooters in the US, to the occasional Daesh inspired one. It's not the same as the ISIS trained/groomed extremists any more than it is the same as the IRA mortar attacks, and does, I believe, deserve a slightly different tone in the reporting. A terror attack it is, but with a very different motivation at the core. Sometimes people just have their life go so far wrong that they can't see a way out but the extreme.

Is it your contention that the van attack at the mosque and the van attack on London bridge have a "very different motivation"?

Terrorism motivated by X...

Right, X being hate/fear of the other, formented from what should be obvious lies.

**Frazzled**

Thats a remarkably good definition of a lot of terrorism and hate crimes in general. Good job!

**feeder**

Frazzled wrote:
Thats a remarkably good definition of a lot of terrorism and hate crimes in general. Good job!

Thanks! Something infinite monkeys on typewriters something even a stopped clock something.

**skyth**

Ketara wrote:
Henry wrote:
Ketara wrote:
You're painting your own prejudices onto the media here.

No, just seeing the same depressing predictable crap that we can expect to see from the gutter.

Considering we've gone from 'The press is demonstrating crass apologism and trying to deflect accusations of terrorism onto mental health' to 'One paper didn't run the word terror on the frontpage, and a few others mention potential mental health motivations (whilst still calling him a terrorist)? I'm not really seeing a problem here.

Your stated accusation here ' they're making damn sure they get their racist dog-whistles in to highlight he's different from other terrorists - he's mentally unstable, that's the real reason, not like them muslim terrorists! This is apologism.' is ludicrous in conception to begin with. If two people are locked up for stealing, and one did it because he's a kleptomaniac, the other because he's an immoral git, is it morally wrong to mention those differing motivations in the reports if they're true?

Your knee-jerk reaction against the evils of the press demonstrates your own symptomatic bias against them rather than any evidence presented thus far. I mean, you haven't even attempted to establish whether or not he does have mental health problems or not! For all you know, he had half a dozen severe conditions that genuinely impelled him in this direction, but oh no. Any potential mental health problems must just be a cop out by the evil media, right? Everyone knows people make up mental problems all the time, eh?

Now if only when a Muslim commits a terrorist act, the press would instantly go on about them having a mental health issue...

**Relapse**

skyth wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Henry wrote:
Ketara wrote:
You're painting your own prejudices onto the media here.

No, just seeing the same depressing predictable crap that we can expect to see from the gutter.

Considering we've gone from 'The press is demonstrating crass apologism and trying to deflect accusations of terrorism onto mental health' to 'One paper didn't run the word terror on the frontpage, and a few others mention potential mental health motivations (whilst still calling him a terrorist)? I'm not really seeing a problem here.

Your stated accusation here ' they're making damn sure they get their racist dog-whistles in to highlight he's different from other terrorists - he's mentally unstable, that's the real reason, not like them muslim terrorists! This is apologism.' is ludicrous in conception to begin with. If two people are locked up for stealing, and one did it because he's a kleptomaniac, the other because he's an immoral git, is it morally wrong to mention those differing motivations in the reports if they're true?

Your knee-jerk reaction against the evils of the press demonstrates your own symptomatic bias against them rather than any evidence presented thus far. I mean, you haven't even attempted to establish whether or not he does have mental health problems or not! For all you know, he had half a dozen severe conditions that genuinely impelled him in this direction, but oh no. Any potential mental health problems must just be a cop out by the evil media, right? Everyone knows people make up mental problems all the time, eh?

Now if only when a Muslim commits a terrorist act, the press would instantly go on about them having a mental health issue...

Didn't that happen with the one who decapitated that elderly woman in her garden? I seem to recall there was much about him being mentally ill and not a terrorist.

**gianlucafiorentini123**

Relapse wrote:
skyth wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Henry wrote:
Ketara wrote:
You're painting your own prejudices onto the media here.

No, just seeing the same depressing predictable crap that we can expect to see from the gutter.

Considering we've gone from 'The press is demonstrating crass apologism and trying to deflect accusations of terrorism onto mental health' to 'One paper didn't run the word terror on the frontpage, and a few others mention potential mental health motivations (whilst still calling him a terrorist)? I'm not really seeing a problem here.

Your stated accusation here ' they're making damn sure they get their racist dog-whistles in to highlight he's different from other terrorists - he's mentally unstable, that's the real reason, not like them muslim terrorists! This is apologism.' is ludicrous in conception to begin with. If two people are locked up for stealing, and one did it because he's a kleptomaniac, the other because he's an immoral git, is it morally wrong to mention those differing motivations in the reports if they're true?

Your knee-jerk reaction against the evils of the press demonstrates your own symptomatic bias against them rather than any evidence presented thus far. I mean, you haven't even attempted to establish whether or not he does have mental health problems or not! For all you know, he had half a dozen severe conditions that genuinely impelled him in this direction, but oh no. Any potential mental health problems must just be a cop out by the evil media, right? Everyone knows people make up mental problems all the time, eh?

Now if only when a Muslim commits a terrorist act, the press would instantly go on about them having a mental health issue...

Didn't that happen with the one who decapitated that elderly woman in her garden? I seem to recall there was much about him being mentally ill and not a terrorist.

He wasn't shouting about killing all westerners at the time and didn't appear to have any religious or politically motivated reasoning, he wasn't even a devout Muslim a heavy drinker and gambler, and some reports saying he had converted Buddhism, not exactly Islamic terrorist material if you ask me.

**Grey Templar**

Nostromodamus wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Nostromodamus wrote:
Unfortunately I know of more than a few friends and family stateside, as well as in the UK, hardening their hearts toward Muslims and condoning this kind of action as acceptable. Quite an eye-opener to see people you think you know harbouring such feelings.

It's not hard to see why they "harbor such feelings."

I know, just sad to hear them agreeing with the sentiment that driving a car into a group of Muslims somehow makes things better and was the correct course of action. I thought my friends and family were more intelligent than that, and beyond blaming a whole segment of society for the actions of fringe maniacs.

Racist nonsense removed - Lorek

**feeder**

Grey Templar wrote:
Nostromodamus wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Nostromodamus wrote:
Unfortunately I know of more than a few friends and family stateside, as well as in the UK, hardening their hearts toward Muslims and condoning this kind of action as acceptable. Quite an eye-opener to see people you think you know harbouring such feelings.

It's not hard to see why they "harbor such feelings."

I know, just sad to hear them agreeing with the sentiment that driving a car into a group of Muslims somehow makes things better and was the correct course of action. I thought my friends and family were more intelligent than that, and beyond blaming a whole segment of society for the actions of fringe maniacs.

Given the uptick in islamic terror attacks everywhere, it's becoming more and more difficult to believe it's just "fringe maniacs" who are performing these acts. You really cannot blame anybody who is becoming fed up with it. Repeating the mantra of "It's not all Muslims!" really starts to sound hollow.

Racist Dogwhistle Post Award of the Week goes too.....

**Frazzled**

Given the uptick in islamic terror attacks everywhere, it's becoming more and more difficult to believe it's just "fringe maniacs" who are performing these acts. You really cannot blame anybody who is becoming fed up with it. Repeating the mantra of "It's not all Muslims!" really starts to sound hollow.

I have to disagree on that. One cannot attack an entire ethnic group for the actions of a terrorist organization. To do so would mean that all Catholics and all Protestants are guilty of the terrorist attacks that occurred during the troubles in Ireland/Britain. All Muslims and all hindus would be guilty for the ethnic violence in India. All Buddhists and Muslims would be guilty for the crimes that occurred in southern Thailand.

All men would be guilty for the crime of rape, all women would be guilty of the crime of taking too long in the restroom...oh wait that last one is 100% correct...

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Grey Templar wrote:
You really cannot blame anybody who is becoming fed up with it.

We aren't blaming anybody for being “fed up” with it, we are blaming people for, you know, blaming the wrong people.

Grey Templar wrote:
Repeating the mantra of "It's not all Muslims!" really starts to sound hollow.

Well ain't you repeating the mantra that it's not all men, despite the continuous history of violence, horror, torture, rape, war crimes, etc by men?

Uhuh I forgot it's magically different!

**gianlucafiorentini123**

Grey Templar wrote:
Nostromodamus wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Nostromodamus wrote:
Unfortunately I know of more than a few friends and family stateside, as well as in the UK, hardening their hearts toward Muslims and condoning this kind of action as acceptable. Quite an eye-opener to see people you think you know harbouring such feelings.

It's not hard to see why they "harbor such feelings."

I know, just sad to hear them agreeing with the sentiment that driving a car into a group of Muslims somehow makes things better and was the correct course of action. I thought my friends and family were more intelligent than that, and beyond blaming a whole segment of society for the actions of fringe maniacs.

Given the uptick in islamic terror attacks everywhere, it's becoming more and more difficult to believe it's just "fringe maniacs" who are performing these acts. You really cannot blame anybody who is becoming fed up with it. Repeating the mantra of "It's not all Muslims!" really starts to sound hollow.

As of 2011 there were 2,786,635 Muslims in the UK say 10,000 of these support the terror attacks, I honestly doubt there are even that many that's less than 0.005%. Anyone with half a brain can see that its not the average Muslim carrying out these attacks but the most extreme.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Nostromodamus wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Nostromodamus wrote:
Unfortunately I know of more than a few friends and family stateside, as well as in the UK, hardening their hearts toward Muslims and condoning this kind of action as acceptable. Quite an eye-opener to see people you think you know harbouring such feelings.

It's not hard to see why they "harbor such feelings."

I know, just sad to hear them agreeing with the sentiment that driving a car into a group of Muslims somehow makes things better and was the correct course of action. I thought my friends and family were more intelligent than that, and beyond blaming a whole segment of society for the actions of fringe maniacs.

Given the uptick in islamic terror attacks everywhere, it's becoming more and more difficult to believe it's just "fringe maniacs" who are performing these acts. You really cannot blame anybody who is becoming fed up with it. Repeating the mantra of "It's not all Muslims!" really starts to sound hollow.

As of 2011 there were 2,786,635 Muslims in the UK say 10,000 of these support the terror attacks, I honestly doubt there are even that many that's less than 0.005%. Anyone with half a brain can see that its not the average Muslim carrying out these attacks but the most extreme.

The point is, that extreme fringe is growing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:
Racist Dogwhistle Post Award of the Week goes too.....

Oh give over. "Racist" gets thrown around so casually on Dakka Dakka that I just can't take it seriously.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:
Racist Dogwhistle Post Award of the Week goes too.....

Oh give over. "Racist" gets thrown around so casually on Dakka Dakka that I just can't take it seriously.

Alternatively, people could just stop trying to justify demonizing people because they're of a certain religion. It's really not that hard.

**Spinner**

Well, maybe there's some racism that should be addressed.

There's clearly some apologism going on for an obvious terrorist attack.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Oh give over. "Racist" gets thrown around so casually on Dakka Dakka that I just can't take it seriously.

How about hate crime apologist and terrorism enabler? Are those better?

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Spinner wrote:
Well, maybe there's some racism that should be addressed.

There's clearly some apologism going on for an obvious terrorist attack.

And a great deal of enthusiastic false equivalency...

I mean, anybody who chooses to murder people on the streets is a C***, whether they're Muslim or White British. And personally, I favour bringing back the death penalty for the most extreme crimes (serial killers, acts of terror that result in fatalities, etc). If I had my way, we'd execute mass murders like Anders Breivik, or any of the rare Islamist terrorists who get taken alive. This guy who attacked the Mosque, I would have executed if there were insufficient mitigating circumstances (mental illness etc) to commute the sentence down to Life imprisonment. So I'm hardly an apologist for this latest terror attack.

But FFS, lets keep things in perspective please. So far this year we've had one Right Wing terror attack in Europe that resulted in fatalities...whereas we've had how many (fatal) Islamist terror attacks? 3 in the UK alone?

All terrorism is bad, but one is blatantly and undeniably more frequent than the other...

**feeder**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Oh give over. "Racist" gets thrown around so casually on Dakka Dakka that I just can't take it seriously.

Did you just lump me in with the entirety of the Dakka population while complaining about generalizations?

I don't throw around "racist" casually. But when dreck likethis gets posted, I'll call it what it is.

To be clear, "Maybe all Muslims are terrorists", is racist, and should be addressed as such.

**Tactical_Spam**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:
Repeating the mantra of "It's not all Muslims!" really starts to sound hollow.

Well ain't you repeating the mantra that it's not all men, despite the continuous history of violence, horror, torture, rape, war crimes, etc by men?

Uhuh I forgot it's magically different!

A Y chromosome is not the same as an ideology. Get a better straw man.

**gianlucafiorentini123**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Nostromodamus wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Nostromodamus wrote:
Unfortunately I know of more than a few friends and family stateside, as well as in the UK, hardening their hearts toward Muslims and condoning this kind of action as acceptable. Quite an eye-opener to see people you think you know harbouring such feelings.

It's not hard to see why they "harbor such feelings."

I know, just sad to hear them agreeing with the sentiment that driving a car into a group of Muslims somehow makes things better and was the correct course of action. I thought my friends and family were more intelligent than that, and beyond blaming a whole segment of society for the actions of fringe maniacs.

Given the uptick in islamic terror attacks everywhere, it's becoming more and more difficult to believe it's just "fringe maniacs" who are performing these acts. You really cannot blame anybody who is becoming fed up with it. Repeating the mantra of "It's not all Muslims!" really starts to sound hollow.

As of 2011 there were 2,786,635 Muslims in the UK say 10,000 of these support the terror attacks, I honestly doubt there are even that many that's less than 0.005%. Anyone with half a brain can see that its not the average Muslim carrying out these attacks but the most extreme.

The point is, that extreme fringe is growing.

Even if it is growing it still doesn't justify nor make it correct to say that the majority of Muslims support these attacks. The fringe element could double and it would still be a statistically tiny minority of the overall population of British Muslim's.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:
Repeating the mantra of "It's not all Muslims!" really starts to sound hollow.

Well ain't you repeating the mantra that it's not all men, despite the continuous history of violence, horror, torture, rape, war crimes, etc by men?

Uhuh I forgot it's magically different!

A Y chromosome is not the same as an ideology. Get a better straw man.

Yep, let's just ignore the social construction of gender so we can accuse people of making a straw man.

**Spinner**

And either way, it wouldn't excuse driving a vehicle into a crowd of random people.

The only thing this man knew about his targets was that they were Muslim. That was enough to make him want to kill them. That is exactly the sort of gak we should be against.

**Tactical_Spam**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:
Repeating the mantra of "It's not all Muslims!" really starts to sound hollow.

Well ain't you repeating the mantra that it's not all men, despite the continuous history of violence, horror, torture, rape, war crimes, etc by men?

Uhuh I forgot it's magically different!

A Y chromosome is not the same as an ideology. Get a better straw man.

Yep, let's just ignore the social construction of gender so we can accuse people of making a straw man.

Yep, let's just ignore basic biology and empirical evidence so we can accuse people of making a straw man.

Does this ring-around-the-rosy of flippancy help the conversation?

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

feeder wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Oh give over. "Racist" gets thrown around so casually on Dakka Dakka that I just can't take it seriously.

Did you just lump me in with the entirety of the Dakka population while complaining about generalizations?

I don't throw around "racist" casually. But when dreck likethis gets posted, I'll call it what it is.

To be clear, "Maybe all Muslims are terrorists", is racist, and should be addressed as such.

Agreed. But Grey Templar didn't say that, did he? He said that the minority of Muslims who commit violent acts is growing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Yep, let's just ignore the social construction of gender so we can accuse people of making a straw man.

AlmightyWalrus: "DNA is a social construct!"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spinner wrote:
And either way, it wouldn't excuse driving a vehicle into a crowd of random people.

The only thing this man knew about his targets was that they were Muslim. That was enough to make him want to kill them. That is exactly the sort of gak we should be against.

Agreed.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Nostromodamus wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Nostromodamus wrote:
Unfortunately I know of more than a few friends and family stateside, as well as in the UK, hardening their hearts toward Muslims and condoning this kind of action as acceptable. Quite an eye-opener to see people you think you know harbouring such feelings.

It's not hard to see why they "harbor such feelings."

I know, just sad to hear them agreeing with the sentiment that driving a car into a group of Muslims somehow makes things better and was the correct course of action. I thought my friends and family were more intelligent than that, and beyond blaming a whole segment of society for the actions of fringe maniacs.

Given the uptick in islamic terror attacks everywhere, it's becoming more and more difficult to believe it's just "fringe maniacs" who are performing these acts. You really cannot blame anybody who is becoming fed up with it. Repeating the mantra of "It's not all Muslims!" really starts to sound hollow.

As of 2011 there were 2,786,635 Muslims in the UK say 10,000 of these support the terror attacks, I honestly doubt there are even that many that's less than 0.005%. Anyone with half a brain can see that its not the average Muslim carrying out these attacks but the most extreme.

The point is, that extreme fringe is growing.

Even if it is growing it still doesn't justify nor make it correct to say that the majority of Muslims support these attacks.

Nobody here is saying that.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Are we now arguing that gender roles don't exist and that men are inherently scumbags?

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Are we now arguing that gender roles don't exist and that men are inherently scumbags?

I don't know, you tell me. Are you?

**Tactical_Spam**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Are we now arguing that gender roles don't exist and that men are inherently scumbags?

They do exist and should stay that way. Call me old-fashioned. Men and women can both become scumbags. How each one manifests that is different, however.

But we aren't talking about that are we? We are talking about the rise in extremism.