Vehicle collides with pedestrians in London Finsbury Park
Scroll to see replies
Original post by SMEGGGY
Original post by SMEGGGY
Original post by queen-bee
Omg,some of the white supremacists on this thread justifying the attack make me feel so 
(You know who you are)
Go **** yourselfs.
As for the The attack. Something needs to be done against the rise of anti Muslim hatred. They are the largest victims of terrorism. Much love <3
(You know who you are)
Go **** yourselfs.
As for the The attack. Something needs to be done against the rise of anti Muslim hatred. They are the largest victims of terrorism. Much love <3
Muslims are the largest victims of terrorism in the UK?
Original post by SMEGGGY
I thought she initially said it was.
Well to be a terror attack, it usually has to be politically, religiously or ideologically motivated. This attack as horrific as it is, probably didn't fall into this category, and more in the category of hate/revenge.
I usually dislike the DailyMail, but it is reporting more details than others at the moment (due to pretty much quoting witness statements): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4616452/Man-arrested-van-ploughs-people-outside-mosque.html
Some interesting reports:
Today, Toufik Kacimi, chief executive of the Muslim Welfare House, said the suspect had shouted 'I did my bit' after carrying out the attack.
Another witness, who wanted to be identified as Abdulrahman, which is not his real name, said he was one of the people who helped to remove the driver from the van.'He wanted to run away and was saying, "I want to kill Muslims",' he said.'So he came back to the main road and I managed to get him to the ground and me and some other guys managed to hold him until the police arrived, for about 20 minutes I think, until the police arrived.'Abdulrahman claimed the driver said "kill me" as he was held on the ground.
He said: 'The driver jumped out and then he was pinned down to the floor and people were punching him and beating him, which was reasonable because of what he's done.'And then the imam of the mosque actually came out and said "Don't hit him, hand him over to the police, pin him down".'
'Our imam went there and saved the life of the attacker. There is a wild video which you can see filmed by one of our worshippers and you can see clearly our imam saving the life of this guy and the guy at this time was saying “I did my bit”.'
Good on the Imam, in these situations, it would have been very easy for people to have killed him.
Original post by NickLCFC
The person who did this was a WHITE MAN. This was an Islamophobic terrorist attack.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Islamophobia is a much bigger problem in the UK than so-called "Islamic terrorism".
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Islamophobia is a much bigger problem in the UK than so-called "Islamic terrorism".
I would think this was sarcasm but you got 27 reps so idk.
PM May very well managed speech, words were well thought out. Good on her. Let the haters not divide British communities.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Reformed2010
She is a younger version of Theresa May. Has as much common sense or compassion as a turd.
No, TM is a decent, intelligent lady.
Posted from TSR Mobile
When this is the UK's fourth terror attack in only four months, it makes me think that there's more that can be done to stop this, because the problem runs pretty deep.
Sure, we can arrest this guy and put him in prison so that he can't "kill all Muslims" now, but this is just dealing with a symptom of the problem. Something needs to change, or else attacks like this will keep happening again and again.
Personally I believe that:
- Punishments are not harsh enough. People commit these attacks knowing perfectly well they will get arrested or shot by police, but they still do it. We need to issue extreme penalties so that there is genuine fear of the consequences.
- People who have been identified as radicalised terror threats or extreme mental health cases should not just be allowed to walk free, as an accident waiting to happen. I'm specifically thinking of the London Bridge attack where one perpetrator was already known to the authorities as a risk, and I don't see why he was allowed to walk the streets and hire vans as he pleased.
- We need to look at why this "Islam vs. the rest of the world" subtext is taking hold in some people's minds. Why do people perceive Muslims and non-Muslims to be enemies of each other? I think that from all sides, we need to seriously consider things like our foreign policy, inclusiveness and integration into society and media reporting, and how they might be impacting our long term safety and security.
These three areas should be addressed to that people are no longer inclined to commit such attacks in the first place, physically restricted in their ability to commit them even if they are inclined to, and made to think twice and thrice about the repercussions upon themselves if they commit an attack even after that.
Sure, we can arrest this guy and put him in prison so that he can't "kill all Muslims" now, but this is just dealing with a symptom of the problem. Something needs to change, or else attacks like this will keep happening again and again.
Personally I believe that:
- Punishments are not harsh enough. People commit these attacks knowing perfectly well they will get arrested or shot by police, but they still do it. We need to issue extreme penalties so that there is genuine fear of the consequences.
- People who have been identified as radicalised terror threats or extreme mental health cases should not just be allowed to walk free, as an accident waiting to happen. I'm specifically thinking of the London Bridge attack where one perpetrator was already known to the authorities as a risk, and I don't see why he was allowed to walk the streets and hire vans as he pleased.
- We need to look at why this "Islam vs. the rest of the world" subtext is taking hold in some people's minds. Why do people perceive Muslims and non-Muslims to be enemies of each other? I think that from all sides, we need to seriously consider things like our foreign policy, inclusiveness and integration into society and media reporting, and how they might be impacting our long term safety and security.
These three areas should be addressed to that people are no longer inclined to commit such attacks in the first place, physically restricted in their ability to commit them even if they are inclined to, and made to think twice and thrice about the repercussions upon themselves if they commit an attack even after that.
The left is going crazy over this JK Rowling etc but if it was the right we would be 'exploiting a tragedy'
Original post by SMEGGGY
Original post by mashbbk
I thought she initially said it was.
Well to be a terror attack, it usually has to be politically, religiously or ideologically motivated. This attack as horrific as it is, probably didn't fall into this category, and more in the category of hate/revenge.
I usually dislike the DailyMail, but it is reporting more details than others at the moment (due to pretty much quoting witness statements): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4616452/Man-arrested-van-ploughs-people-outside-mosque.html
Some interesting reports:
Good on the Imam, in these situations, it would have been very easy for people to have killed him.
Well to be a terror attack, it usually has to be politically, religiously or ideologically motivated. This attack as horrific as it is, probably didn't fall into this category, and more in the category of hate/revenge.
I usually dislike the DailyMail, but it is reporting more details than others at the moment (due to pretty much quoting witness statements): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4616452/Man-arrested-van-ploughs-people-outside-mosque.html
Some interesting reports:
Good on the Imam, in these situations, it would have been very easy for people to have killed him.
This person hates Muslims (hate crime) and according to authorities and witnesses did it to further a cause (taking revenge for Islamic terrorist). Which crosses the line from a hate crime to an act of terror. Hence why the police are treating it as a suspected terrorist attack.
It was political motivated violence. Also known as, you guessed it. Terrorism.
Original post by Reformed2010
There is no legal or academic consensus on what is terrorism. However, what there is agreement on is this. All acts of terror are hate crimes not all hate crimes are act of terror. However, if you dislike a group of people and then that hate motivates you to violently attack them to support a cause (political and or religious) it is usually agreed by legal and academic experts that is terrorism.
This person hates Muslims (hate crime) and according to authorities and witnesses did it to further a cause (taking revenge for Islamic terrorist). Which crosses the line from a hate crime to an act of terror. Hence why the police are treating it as a suspected terrorist attack.
It was political motivated violence. Also known as, you guessed it. Terrorism.
This person hates Muslims (hate crime) and according to authorities and witnesses did it to further a cause (taking revenge for Islamic terrorist). Which crosses the line from a hate crime to an act of terror. Hence why the police are treating it as a suspected terrorist attack.
It was political motivated violence. Also known as, you guessed it. Terrorism.
Believe me, I am not going to be against people calling this terrorism, but was this actually politically motivated violence, or simply a hate crime? Also, I don't think taking revenge for Islamic terrorism is to further a cause, but again, merely hate crime.
Would your interpretation mean, that black people hating and subsequently killing white people on the back of a cop killing black people, also be defined as a terror attack?
Again, I have no problem if they both were classified as terror attacks, I just felt there was a distinction.
It's very interesting how when this happens the politicans are quick to jump around saying "there can be no islamophobia!", but when the other attacks happened which were perpetrated by Muslims themselves, there was almost no mention of Islam amongst politicians.
It really is pathetic how sympathetic they are being to these people when it is their ideology which is driving the terrorist attacks and also the hatred/'islamophobia' against them.
But sure god forbid we offend the muslims who won't accept responsibility and enjoy pointing the finger elsewhere.
It really is pathetic how sympathetic they are being to these people when it is their ideology which is driving the terrorist attacks and also the hatred/'islamophobia' against them.
But sure god forbid we offend the muslims who won't accept responsibility and enjoy pointing the finger elsewhere.
Original post by glad-he-ate-her
Did I say we shouldn't condemn them?
All I said is the white people who say this was revenge are sympathising with acts of terror.
All I said is the white people who say this was revenge are sympathising with acts of terror.
You completely ignored the post you were replying to.
Original post by tazarooni89
When this is the UK's fourth terror attack in only four months, it makes me think that there's more that can be done to stop this, because the problem runs pretty deep.
Sure, we can arrest this guy and put him in prison so that he can't "kill all Muslims" now, but this is just dealing with a symptom of the problem. Something needs to change, or else attacks like this will keep happening again and again.
Personally I believe that:
- Punishments are not harsh enough. People commit these attacks knowing perfectly well they will get arrested or shot by police, but they still do it. We need to issue extreme penalties so that there is genuine fear of the consequences.
- People who have been identified as radicalised terror threats or extreme mental health cases should not just be allowed to walk free, as an accident waiting to happen. I'm specifically thinking of the London Bridge attack where one perpetrator was already known to the authorities as a risk, and I don't see why he was allowed to walk the streets and hire vans as he pleased.
- We need to look at why this "Islam vs. the rest of the world" subtext is taking hold in some people's minds. Why do people perceive Muslims and non-Muslims to be enemies of each other? I think that from all sides, we need to seriously consider things like our foreign policy, inclusiveness and integration into society and media reporting, and how they might be impacting our long term safety and security.
These three areas should be addressed to that people are no longer inclined to commit such attacks in the first place, physically restricted in their ability to commit them even if they are inclined to, and made to think twice and thrice about the repercussions upon themselves if they commit an attack even after that.
Sure, we can arrest this guy and put him in prison so that he can't "kill all Muslims" now, but this is just dealing with a symptom of the problem. Something needs to change, or else attacks like this will keep happening again and again.
Personally I believe that:
- Punishments are not harsh enough. People commit these attacks knowing perfectly well they will get arrested or shot by police, but they still do it. We need to issue extreme penalties so that there is genuine fear of the consequences.
- People who have been identified as radicalised terror threats or extreme mental health cases should not just be allowed to walk free, as an accident waiting to happen. I'm specifically thinking of the London Bridge attack where one perpetrator was already known to the authorities as a risk, and I don't see why he was allowed to walk the streets and hire vans as he pleased.
- We need to look at why this "Islam vs. the rest of the world" subtext is taking hold in some people's minds. Why do people perceive Muslims and non-Muslims to be enemies of each other? I think that from all sides, we need to seriously consider things like our foreign policy, inclusiveness and integration into society and media reporting, and how they might be impacting our long term safety and security.
These three areas should be addressed to that people are no longer inclined to commit such attacks in the first place, physically restricted in their ability to commit them even if they are inclined to, and made to think twice and thrice about the repercussions upon themselves if they commit an attack even after that.
If you dont mind dying for your cause and being a martyr, then just what sort of punishment do you have in mind that will make them fearful?
There are apparently 23,000 possible jihadis, but 3000 who pose some risk and 500 who they think pose the greatest risk. The London bridge person was in the 20,000 and the lowest for of assessed risk. They dont have unlimited resources, so they have to risk manage. there are also many thousands who they will have zero knowledge of.
I just dont get this idea about making them think twice.
Original post by Inexorably
It's very interesting how when this happens the politicans are quick to jump around saying "there can be no islamophobia!", but when the other attacks happened which were perpetrated by Muslims themselves, there was almost no mention of Islam amongst politicians.
It really is pathetic how sympathetic they are being to these people when it is their ideology which is driving the terrorist attacks and also the hatred/'islamophobia' against them.
But sure god forbid we offend the muslims who won't accept responsibility and enjoy pointing the finger elsewhere.
It really is pathetic how sympathetic they are being to these people when it is their ideology which is driving the terrorist attacks and also the hatred/'islamophobia' against them.
But sure god forbid we offend the muslims who won't accept responsibility and enjoy pointing the finger elsewhere.
Islam was mentioned many times, Theresa May herself stated “They are bound together by the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism that preaches hatred, sows division and promotes sectarianism.”
Also, the government, rightfully, doesn't want a backlash to happen on Muslims (a minority in the UK) by demonising Islam. Them however calling for people to not be Islamophobic, protects people from having Muslims who feel the country is against them. Win win for everyone?
Also, it is disgusting that you think Muslims are somehow responsible for terror attacks and that they enjoy finger pointing.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Reformed2010
There's nothing decent or intelligent about refusing to meet victims of preventable man-made disaster. Until you're mocked into doing it after several days.
She made a mistake. She's rectified it I'd say. We're talking about her managing of the incident today nothing else.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Inexorably
It's very interesting how when this happens the politicans are quick to jump around saying "there can be no islamophobia!", but when the other attacks happened which were perpetrated by Muslims themselves, there was almost no mention of Islam amongst politicians.
It really is pathetic how sympathetic they are being to these people when it is their ideology which is driving the terrorist attacks and also the hatred/'islamophobia' against them.
But sure god forbid we offend the muslims who won't accept responsibility and enjoy pointing the finger elsewhere.
It really is pathetic how sympathetic they are being to these people when it is their ideology which is driving the terrorist attacks and also the hatred/'islamophobia' against them.
But sure god forbid we offend the muslims who won't accept responsibility and enjoy pointing the finger elsewhere.
Repetitive...
Islam is not behind muslim attacks of terror but a distortion of Islam by the perps. Racial hatred should not be tolerated.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by mashbbk
What I mean is, the guy you was quoting was making the joke of asking people to go and condemn the attacks, do stuff to stop this from happening etc - which obviously is ludicrous as like you said, default position is condemnation (and there is nothing you could have done to stop the attack).
Yet, Muslims were criticised (not buy you perhaps, but many others) for not making more of a public hoohaa with the condemnation (though from what I saw, Twitter, Facebook, media interviews etc all had just that!), some even to the point that we are responsible and that we need to do more to stop it (even after having reported said suspects several times to authorities).
Yet, Muslims were criticised (not buy you perhaps, but many others) for not making more of a public hoohaa with the condemnation (though from what I saw, Twitter, Facebook, media interviews etc all had just that!), some even to the point that we are responsible and that we need to do more to stop it (even after having reported said suspects several times to authorities).
However, when lack of condemnation is pointed out and condemnation suggested, a refusal to elicit a condemnatory response must surely raise eyebrows, at least?
Care to link me to some of these ISOC members (presuming they aren't troll accounts), if so that is quite worrying.
1. I'm permabanned from the Faith and Spirituality section (for discussing religious issues - yes, I know! I can't understand it either) so I can't tag posts.
2. One tends to fall foul of certain mods if you point out the extremist views of specific members.
Suffice to say that if you read through the pages after the Manchester attack (from post #3496) you will see people asking why they should condemn it, refusing to condemn it and also some regular posters who are almost daily condemners of attacks on Sunni Muslims, who make no mention of the attack, despite posting condemnations of incidents against Muslims on those same pages (the mods cleared up some of the more inflammatory posts) There are others who do explicitly condemn them as well.
Original post by mashbbk
Believe me, I am not going to be against people calling this terrorism, but was this actually politically motivated violence, or simply a hate crime? Also, I don't think taking revenge for Islamic terrorism is to further a cause, but again, merely hate crime.
Would your interpretation mean, that black people hating and subsequently killing white people on the back of a cop killing black people, also be defined as a terror attack?
Again, I have no problem if they both were classified as terror attacks, I just felt there was a distinction.
Would your interpretation mean, that black people hating and subsequently killing white people on the back of a cop killing black people, also be defined as a terror attack?
Again, I have no problem if they both were classified as terror attacks, I just felt there was a distinction.
I am Black British, so just nailing my flag firmly in this debate. Of course, being Black should not add much (if at all) weight to the strength of my argument.
If a Black American, in response to the unjustified murders of Black Americans by police officers, hates police officers and then resorts to using violence towards Police officers to resolve their anger. They are engaging in a political act of violence. Their cause is politically motivated (racial equality and justice) and they resort to violence (physically attacking Police officers) It is a murky grey area, I grant you that.
However the trouble I think you are having here is that there is a nuance difference between a White person, arguing with a Black person and in the heat of the moment using the N word and hitting them (hate crime). To a White person spending time planning on how they will inflict fear and pain on Black people, then carrying it out by shooting them while they pray in their Church.
This person traveled from Wales to London and planned an act of violence against Muslim people in order to take revenge. They did this in order to cause maximum fear and pain on Muslim people and achieve a sense of justice. That's not just hate, that person had a political agenda. To inflict pain and fear on British Muslims.
This is why some legal and academic experts believe the word terrorism is not useful. It should be called political or religious motivated crime.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- UAL accommodation recommendations
- Is anyone living around Slough going to Hertfordshire Uni next year ?
- London Finsbury Park or Greenwich
- UAL accommodation
- London Accomodation- Greenwich vs Finsbury Park
- Where do most domestic students at UCL/LSE stay for 2nd year?
- What would I get out for this essay I wrote for english language paper 2 question 5
- Driving test
- The Ethical Dilemma of Self-Driving Cars:
- Query about Driving Test
- Is it too late to get Wireless tickets?
- Overtaking a cyclist on zig zag lines by a crossing
- Tips on how to get a great score on your theory?
- Looking for vegan flatmates (preferably UCL students) to move in soon!
- Edexcel M1 ex2D Question 11b
- have you seen/heard ice cream vans this summer?
- Favourite places to walk your dog
- So will we be banned from driving petrol cars in 2030
- Driving a car
- Isaac Physics: Will they collide
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
