ISIS claims responsibility for London attack Watch

Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#1

The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the deadly attack near London Bridge on Friday, saying via its Amaq news agency that the attacker was one of its fighters.
The suspect in the attack had served a prison sentence for a terror conviction, it has emerged.
Police said the attacker was previously convicted of terrorism offences in 2012 and had been released from prison on licence after agreeing to wear an electronic tag.
"To the best of my knowledge, the attacker was compliant with conditions imposed after his release from prison", an officer from the British counter-terrorism police said in a briefing on Saturday, adding that the police had found no evidence that anyone else was involved in the attack after carrying out searches in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent.
After visiting the scene and speaking with police, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that people convicted of terrorist offences should not be "out on early release":
"It is clear to me that this guy was out, he had served half of his sentence, he was out on automatic early release, and I have long said that this system simply isn’t working. It does not make sense for us as a society to be putting terrorists, people convicted of terrorist offences, of serious violent offences out on early release," he said.
"And we argue that people should serve the tariff, serve the term of which they are sentenced. And that’s my immediate takeaway from this," he added.
London Bridge attack: what happened?

Police say the attacker had attended an event celebrating a network bringing people together from criminal justice and higher education institutions.
It was held at Fishmongers' Hall on the north side of London Bridge.
The suspect began stabbing people inside the building before continuing on the bridge, where he was overwhelmed by members of the public, police said.
A video widely shared online shows three men — one armed with a narwhal tusk and another with a fire extinguisher — trying to pull the suspect to the ground.
Another verified video shows a man standing by the suspect — holding what looks like the tusk shortly — before police shot him dead.
George Robarts, a translator who was on the bridge at the time of the attack, said an unidentified man ran through the traffic and jumped the central partition to tackle the attacker with several other people.
"We ran away but looks like he disarmed him," he said. "Amazing bravery."
Officers had been called at 13:58 GMT on Friday and had confronted the suspect by 14:03, according to the Metropolitan Police.









https://www.euronews.com/2019/11/29/...ts-of-shooting
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 week ago
#2
They will do, anything to make them feared and look bigger than they are.

Scum the lot of them.
12
reply
ahmed bakri
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 week ago
#3
they claim responsibility for every disaster to make people fear them.... dirt bags the lot of them.
12
reply
Blue_Cow
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 week ago
#4
To be expected, I suppose. Has there been any attack involving a radical Islamic terrorist that they haven't claimed responsibility for yet?
5
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 week ago
#5
Yeah. I burnt my toast the other day. ISIS claimed responsibility for that.
12
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 week ago
#6
If organisation X publicly calls for people Y to do action Z, and they are the only ones making that call, when person Y does action Z, it is only reasonable to assume that organisation X is at least partly responsible.
1
reply
SteveObolowongai
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 week ago
#7
I reckon if my bus broke down next week, ISIS would take responsibility
4
reply
savemeplease
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 week ago
#8
(Original post by Andrew97)
Yeah. I burnt my toast the other day. ISIS claimed responsibility for that.
i cackled so hard-wait.

ISIS also claimed responsibility for climate change too!
1
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 week ago
#9
Will they be claiming responsibility for half the planet's pest control issues too?
0
reply
lewis6969
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 week ago
#10
will they claim responsibility for al baghdadis death too?
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 20
#11
Report 1 week ago
#11
(Original post by QE2)
If organisation X publicly calls for people Y to do action Z, and they are the only ones making that call, when person Y does action Z, it is only reasonable to assume that organisation X is at least partly responsible.
Except that (1) Y have been doing Z for long before X have been calling for it to happen and (2) in this case, Y possibly would have done Z even without X calling for it, i.e. X's statements did not constitute a causal influence for Y to do Z and was merely coincidental to it.

We know (1) to be true and have insufficient evidence to make a factual determination on (2), but we do know that (3) X claims credit for a lot of Ys doing a lot of Zs and that this is to their benefit, which suggests that such claims should be taken with an extra pinch of salt.
1
reply
lewis6969
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 week ago
#12
i thiught isis has almost entirely been destroyed
1
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 20
#13
Report 1 week ago
#13
(Original post by lewis6969)
i thiught isis has almost entirely been destroyed
You can defeat a caliphate's control of territory and its ability to command a structured militant force, but you can't destroy an ideology or lone wolf attacks that are inspired by that ideology.
1
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 week ago
#14
'isis claims responsibility for opening of envelope'
0
reply
lewis6969
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 week ago
#15
(Original post by Palmyra)
You can defeat a caliphate's control of territory and its ability to command a structured militant force, but you can't destroy an ideology or lone wolf attacks that are inspired by that ideology.
fair point
1
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 week ago
#16
(Original post by Palmyra)
Except that (1) Y have been doing Z for long before X have been calling for it to happen and (2) in this case, Y possibly would have done Z even without X calling for it, i.e. X's statements did not constitute a causal influence for Y to do Z and was merely coincidental to it.

We know (1) to be true and have insufficient evidence to make a factual determination on (2), but we do know that (3) X claims credit for a lot of Ys doing a lot of Zs and that this is to their benefit, which suggests that such claims should be taken with an extra pinch of salt.
That is merely a reason why X might not be responsible for any given action, not that they aren't or cannot be responsible.
Therefore X's claim cannot be dismissed.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 week ago
#17
(Original post by gjd800)
'isis claims responsibility for opening of envelope'
If ISIS had been publicly calling on Muslims to open envelopes, and a Muslim subsequently opened an envelope, their claim to responsibility cannot simply be dismissed. It is only reasonable to assume that the opening of the envelope may indeed have been inspired by ISIS's encouragement.
0
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 week ago
#18
(Original post by QE2)
If ISIS had been publicly calling on Muslims to open envelopes, and a Muslim subsequently opened an envelope, their claim to responsibility cannot simply be dismissed. It is only reasonable to assume that the opening of the envelope may indeed have been inspired by ISIS's encouragement.
Well, I didn't dismiss it
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 week ago
#19
(Original post by gjd800)
Well, I didn't dismiss it
I didn't say you did, did I?
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 20
#20
Report 1 week ago
#20
(Original post by QE2)
That is merely a reason why X might not be responsible for any given action, not that they aren't or cannot be responsible.
Therefore X's claim cannot be dismissed.
My contention was not that X's claim can "be dismissed".

Instead, I argued that we don't have sufficient information to make the factual findings necessary to allocate responsibility. Further, in lieu of such information, we should be reluctant to attribute responsibility to such cases in general. Thus, contrary to your initial assertion, it is not "reasonable to assume" responsibility (of X) in this case.
Last edited by Palmyra; 1 week ago
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you work while at uni?

Yes I work at university (108)
33.33%
No I don't (153)
47.22%
I work during the holidays (63)
19.44%

Watched Threads

View All