[Closed] Another driver rams a crowd

Awful news to hear. This hate needs to stop

Just senseless, driver of van apprehended by members of the public, miracle he wasn't lynched.

Looks like it was a revenge attack. Targeting Muslims. We'll find out I expect as the driver has been arrested.

Pontyclun Van Hire 😥

Terrible news.

Sounds like the work of an idiotic senseless bigot

Sounds like the work of a terrorist

driver of van apprehended by members of the public, miracle he wasn't lynched.

Guardian reporting that a local Imam shielded the driver until the police arrived.

If it's terrorism one way round then it's terrorism the other too.

Doesn't stop the perpetrators being dicks though

Houns - Member
Sounds like the work of a terrorist

I don't disagree and this sadly proves that hate begets hate! It's a circle of idiocy

Terrible. Yes it's terrorism no matter who the victims are.

Sounds like the work of a terrorist

That was the sentiment of the crowd interviewed as the mosque - i.e. incensed that it was not being called terrorism from the first moment in the media but only an attack. Language has changed overnight.

I've got so say I instinctively think of terrorism as acts carried out by someone part of an organisation. But I guess any attack which attempts to illicit terror is terrorism.

There were also some muslims at the scene interviewed (radio 4) saying that this showed the white British population needed educating to rid the nation of anti muslim sentiment. Whilst that might be right that does feel a bit of pot and kettle to me.

Sounds like an EDL/BNP type idiot on some sort of revenge attack rampage. Shame the crowd didn't lynch him.

That was the sentiment of the crowd interviewed as the mosque - i.e. incensed that it was not being called terrorism from the first moment.

Now, though, this sounds like the work of a total and utter ****

I fear this will downgraded from "terrorism" if it turns out this is a revenge attack by some nut job non-Muslim guy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40322960

"When the guy came out from his van he wanted to escape, run away and he was saying 'I want to kill Muslims. 'I want to kill Muslims.'"

This is the United Kingdom we don't go lynching people !

I want to know what the white English community are doing to stop this type of extremism, it is their problem isn't it.

Terrible news.

Every white UK person should adorn their homes with "Not in my name" 🙄

I want to know what the white English [b]sub-chimp tossrag[/b] community are doing to stop this type of extremism, it is their problem isn't it.

[quote=kerley ]I want to know what the white English community are doing to stop this type of extremism, it is their problem isn't it.

van was hired in Wales

Did you mean British when you said English?

I want to know what the white English community are doing to stop this type of extremism, it is their problem isn't it.

What are you doing to stop extremism? It's everyone's problem.

My girlfriend missed that by about 10min (lives in Finsbury Park, she got off a bus under the train bridge and walked past the mosque entrance). if something had happened to her I wouldn't have become radicalised to perform a similar act. But then I'm not lacking in scruples or failing to see that division/hate ultimately achieves nothing.
Neither does pinning blame on one group for society's ills.

I want to know what the white English community are doing to stop this type of extremism, it is their problem isn't it.

When you say white do you mean non muslim?

I'm sure there's white muslims.

I am with Houns hate does indeed beget hate. Well done to whoever got hold of the driver, and held him till police arrived. Yes the perpetrator is a terrorist.

Well done to whoever got hold of the driver, and held him till police arrived.

That would have been an/the Imam.

deadkenny

I fear this will downgraded from "terrorism" if it turns out this is a revenge attack by some nut job non-Muslim guy.

gordimhor
Yes the perpetrator is a terrorist.

I can't understand why you would "fear" an attack being downgraded, other than some kind of white guilt or misplaced desire to create equivolence between all acts of violence. If the police investigate, find he's a lone madman and decide that he acted alone for no reason other than his own psychopathy or hatred then that's not a terrorist act.

My understanding of terrorism is basically [i]"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."[/i]

He could well be a terrorist, assuming he has laid out a manifesto or system of beliefs that his attack was part of. Even more so if he's part of an established group who have been carrying out attacks like this for political or religious or ethnic goals. There are degrees to everything and the less people he acted with, the less people subscribe to his manifesto, and the less people regulalry carry out attacks like this (or are likely to) then the less of a credible terrorist threat he becomes.

ISIS, Al Queda etc are fairly well established terrorist groups. They have funding, and networks all over the world. They carry out attacks (both organised and inspired) in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia and the U.S. We know they'll continue to do these things. They produce propaganda magazines like Dabiq and Rumiyah, and they execute hundreds of people in well produced and edited videos. Forty thousand foreign fighters travelled to Syria to fight with ISIS and they are now urging their followers to go Africa and South East Asia instead. They repeatedly tell us exactly what they believe.

Calling everything terrorism doesn't help anything.

kerley
I want to know what the white English community are doing to stop this type of extremism, it is their problem isn't it.

Not being English I wouldn't know, but what political or religious texts do white English people adhere to which advocates attacking people like this? Is there something analogous to jihadism and martyrdom?

nation of anti muslim sentiment. Whilst that might be right that does feel a bit of pot and kettle to me

Well in this case it sounds like the guy was actually black.

The racists.

Funny how were not foaming at the mouth in fake grief and lynching those jumping to conclusions in this thread.

#heaintnorealwhitebruv

#heaintnorealfridgebruv

Etc etc

This is the United Kingdom we don't go lynching people

Islam is a peaceful religion, why would anyone be surprised that the driver was detained but protected by followers of that faith so he can face appropriate justice?

Hate begets hate

Understand what is meant, but I disagree. Just as the perpetrators of Manchester, London Bridge, Bataclan, etc., are not representatives of the religion as a whole, there is no point in associating the innocent victims of this terror attack with them either. So it's not hate begets hate; it's innocent victims of another hate crime carried out by a twisted individual.

Otherwise when we find out who the terrorist was in this incident, and find out what he 'represents' you may as well say anyone else of that leaning then becomes a target.

Hyperbole, but just suppose it turns out he likes brass band music, does that make all followers of brass band music targets and if someone then does attack a brass band convention would you then be saying 'hate begets hate' in the same way?

[yes, I realise that opens the wormcan on whether the Koran does or doesn't call for death to infidels, etc., whereas I'm not aware of it being even a debating point in the world of brass bands, but you know what i mean]

Hate doesnt beget hate? Wheyyyyyy lets bomb the **** out of everyone we dont like - because nothing we do has any consequences - we're not responsible for our own collective actions as a society!

He could well be a terrorist, assuming he has laid out a manifesto or system of beliefs that his attack was part of.

he was saying 'I want to kill Muslims. 'I want to kill Muslims.'"

I can't understand why you would "fear" an attack being downgraded,

Because we'll get the "its one thing for white people to me killed by Muslim extremist terrorists to be called terrorism, but when a white English guy does it to us its less important" type argument fuelling division.

His intention was to kill or maim, and strike terror or worry to those using Mosques. He's a terrorist plain and simple. Thoughts with the injured.

Do you feel responsible for this man's actions then? Collectively or individually?

I don't. I dissociate myself absolutely from ***** like this.

Theotherjon - not yet in this case - as I get the feeling the bloke will turn out to be a Christian lunatic.

If he turns out to be an atheist though, I will do some soul searching with my atheist mates in regards to our views about Muslims and whether we ideologically fuelled a campaign of terror. 😆

Islam is a peaceful religion

In this given situation, that fact that the attacker was subdued and protected from serious harm by the Imam shows that the Imam was a respected individual with his head screwed on, nothing more, nothing less, and kudos to him for that.

I don't think that any (Abrahamic) religion can [i]truely[/i] claim to be a 'religion of peace. (Unless they also accept that they are a religion of incompetence; because they all seem fairly bad at the 'peace' malarkey.)

Another tragic symptom of our failing mental health education and support systems.
60+ million people on a small island - we need to exponentially increase education and mental health funding if we are to stand a chance of maintaining a truly tolerant and peaceful society.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/23/uk-muslim-leaders-condemn-cowardly-london-attack

But equally I'd ask the other - if it genuinely was 'the word of islam' to commit these attacks, then we'd be seeing many millions more attacks.

You make the correct point - within any group, however you define it - men, women, white, people born in July, men called Dave, followers of islam..... there will be a proportion of idiots. But most will be decent people. Just as we don't think all people called Dave are idiots because you know one who is.

@v8ninety - The problem with all the Abrahamic faiths is when ****wits decide to focus on a badly translated passage* and either take it literally or interpret it to their own means that move away from the underlying message.
All three have as a core tenet that you shouldn't be a dick and don't do bad things in 'Gods' name (I'm paraphrasing a smidge)

There are a significant amount more muslims, christians and jews out there living peaceful lives and doing nice things than there are the absolute bellends going around spreading hate and murdering people and justifying it on religious grounds.

*The king james bible translation has a lot of hate and death to answer for

Another tragic symptom of our failing mental health education and support systems.
60+ million people on a small island - we need to exponentially increase education and mental health funding if we are to stand a chance of maintaining a truly tolerant and peaceful society.

I don't think this is the case., Not saying that we shouldn't be providing more education and mental health focus but the two things are not necessarily linked. The UK doesn't have a monopoly on having a certain proportion of nutters or vulnerable people in our midst and in fact compared to other countries we're pretty good. I think the press is doing a great job of playing into the hands of the nutters and fanning the flames of all the negative sentiment that is going on. As Jo Cox says, there is more that unites us than divides us, but you wouldn't get that from the press.

What is missing in all of this is any sensible and open debate. There is too much of "if you don't believe in this, then you are a xxxxxxist". We've seen it with Brexit where if you voted to leave yo're apparently stupid, with criticism of islam your racist (not sure why as Islam is a religion not a race) and other topics. People have become nasty and aggressive rather than curious and objective - and the politically correct liberal crowd are to blame. It seems the only loser out of this is freedom of speech where people are now afraid to talk openly, and when this happens you lose the opportunity to tackle peoples opinions and change them and these opinions go underground and fester unchallenged. Tolerance works both ways and when you have a segment of our society who refuses to tolerate any focus on their religion or criticism of it and demand special treatment, then there is bound to be some fall out of that - it is inevitable. If we want a liberal and open society then all members of it have to subscribe to certain rules submit themselves and their beliefs to scrutiny and challenge and criticism.

I'm waiting to hear ISIS have claimed credit for the attack.

More seriously I'm getting really worried about the world my two little boys will grow up in.

and the politically correct liberal crowd are to blame

Hmmm. Balanced view 😉

What is missing in all of this is any sensible and open debate. There is too much of "if you don't believe all Muslims are a murderous threat to our way of life, then you are a xxxxxxist". We've seen it with Brexit where if you voted to remain you are apparently a terrorist-appeasing, idiotic champagne-socialist with your calls to 'protect' Muslamics from so-called hate your(sic) a child-raping approving, terrorist-supporting, race-baiting idiot (not sure why as Islam is a third-world child-raping terrorist organization not a race) and other topics. People have become nasty and aggressive rather than curious and objective - and the uneducated, racist, xenophobic, knuckle-dragging Nationalist crowd are to blame.

ftfy. And around it goes.

More seriously I'm getting really worried about the world my two little boys will grow up in.

I've got kids too so I fully appreciate this sentiment. But people have been killing each other and being shit to each other since humans began. And they'll do so until humans are gone. As a species we are nothing if not consistent.

@thrgreatape; sage words I think. We are probably not even as good as killing each other than we used to be...

You're right about the need for tolerance Wobbliscot. The trouble is that a tolerant society has to tolerate people who argue a case for intolerance but do so within the law.
Society needs to be more open and equal. We can't just blame "other" people for all societies problems, not even those people you might describe as "politically correct".Creating division in society along lines of ethnicity, gender faith or income is bad for us all. Then you add in the tripe that parts of the media spout day in day out, and you end up with a lot of fear and mistrust and isolation.
Better provision for education could certainly help to prevent this.
Better provision for Mental Health services and importantly better understanding of mental health issues would help too.

Greatape +1

More seriously I'm getting really worried about the world my two little boys will grow up in.

They are much less likely to die than someone was not that long ago. Not dying from many illnesses that would have killed you, not dying in cars that were not as safe, not dying in world wars, not dying at a young age (living longer) etc,. etc,.

Death is of course just one aspect to it.

I worry for my kids in many ways, but i also think they will be the ones who fix these problems.

I think we are at peak nobhead about now. Yes, we've always had wars and violence, but when you talk to a child and explain that some people detest others because of the colour of their skin, it gets pretty short shrift.

We just have to make sure that we, their parents don't **** it up so bad that there's nothing left for them to work with when they reach the age where they can make a difference. And don't try to make them 'in our image' because our image is quite a tawdry one IMHO.

It's within our lifetime (some of us!) that segregation was a fact of life. I do believe things are getting better, and will continue to do so. Hideous as they are to the people affected, these are bumps in the road in the grand scheme, and our kids have the ability to drive a **** off big steamroller over them if we allow them to.

People have become nasty and aggressive rather than curious and objective - and the politically correct liberal crowd are to blame.

The fault with race based hate does not lie at the door of liberals and lefties it lies at the door of the right wing and the religious extremists.

Liberal lefties dont kill folk they disagree with they just "maul them to death" for posting idiotic things on the internet...I am sure you have experienced this many, many times.

I assume all parents worry and always did . mine probably worried about a nuclear war killing me [ or my own stupidity in a bike more likely], theirs about genuine food poverty or another world war etc. Its what parents do as we know some aspects of the world are heinous and we just hope our kids never experience it .

I've always said this kind of shit is not defined by religion, it's defined by ignorant, intolerant losers regardless of which colour, race, religion they are.

I'm almost tempted to log on to the sun/mail site to see how many 'they had it coming' comments there are.

If the iman did indeed shield the attacker then it speaks volumes about what Islam or indeed any religion should really be about. Im not sure I'd have been so forgiving.

he was saying 'I want to kill Muslims. 'I want to kill Muslims.'"
That'll do for me.

Not really, revenge isn't terrorism. Terrorism wants to achieve something through terror.

This 'blame it all on liberal left political correctness' trope has me curious. For some reason it reminded me of an old guy I know. He is a staunch Brexiter, goes out of his way to book white cab drivers (wouldn't book a non-white one), denigrates 'foreigners' in most situations (except for the Swiss, Austrian and Australian for some reason) - anyway - to cut a long story short:

I've never been a footie-fan, and likewise I've never fully got my head around football hooliganism/violence. Always used to wonder why US football was a peaceful family thing by comparison. So one day, in discussion, I decided to pick the brain of this old English guy (him being football-crazy) about when and why football violence began in the UK? He thought for a few seconds, then absolutely floored me:

"It was the middle-class hippies".

'Whaaat?'

"Yes. They were too PC to hit their kids, let them get away with anything, there were no football hooligans before the PC brigade. It was a working-class sport. The hippie-dippy brigade ruined it"

I didn't buy it, so countered with 'violence begets violence?', and declared that most of the aggressive idiots I knew whilst growing up also had violent parents or peers, they were most often poorly educated, ie their peers and fathers were also knuckle-dragging, chauvinist hooligans. The old guy just shook his head and maintained that it was the liberal 'elite'.

I'm not saying that I am right, or that he is right - just that it amazes me how one's world-view/prejudice can be projected into almost any consideration, possibly destroying any chance of objectivity whatsoever.

Liberal lefties dont kill folk they disagree with they just "maul them to death" for posting [s]idiotic things[/s] things they dont agree with on the internet...I am sure you have experienced this many, many times.

There were also some muslims at the scene interviewed (radio 4) saying that this showed the white British population needed educating to rid the nation of anti muslim sentiment. Whilst that might be right that does feel a bit of pot and kettle to me.

Asking for a bit more understanding isn't exclusive to any one set of people.
It's what we do.

Bigotry and ignorance?
Just the same.

If a trait or behaviour is universal, attributing it to just one group is really unhelpful.
It's so prevalent and basically renders pretty much every debate on the subject irrelevant.

It's an awful thing to have happened.

Love to all.

If a trait or behaviour is universal, attributing it to just one group is really unhelpful.
It's so prevalent and basically renders pretty much every debate on the subject irrelevant.

It's an awful thing to have happened.

Love to all.

+1000

oldtalent - Member - Block User - Quote
Liberal lefties dont kill folk they disagree with they just "maul them to death" for posting idiotic things on the internet...I am sure you have experienced this many, many times.

I get the feeling you've experienced it lots oldtalent. You do post a lot of idiotic shite here. Do you do it everywhere else as well?

but when you talk to a child and explain that some people detest others because of the colour of their skin, it gets pretty short shrift.

I've seen this too with my kids (14&12). They are quite happy to accept people for who they are with no predjudice. It gives me hope for the future.

Well in this case it sounds like the guy was actually black.

You sure about that? Just watched footage of them detaining him on telly.

The trouble tackling this is that while the Muslim terrorist is radicalised, the dude that will have done this (probably - based on what we know) will quite likely be a product of our society, ingrained from an early age. One look at the daily mail comments section tells me all I need to know about how ignorant a significant section of society are.

Both are hard to tackle, but the fact that such views are clearly deemed acceptable not just by sections of society, but by our press, is really quite depressing.

This is not to do with the colour of anyone's skin, it's classic human tribalism. Football Hooligans, Teenage Gang Culture, Religion, all group one lot together against the rest.

God knows what drove that guy to do what he did, at least with the ISIS and AlQuadea types at the root there is a 'cause' illfounded or not the perpetrator has been goaded into the belief that his actions will make thing better in some perverse way. White van man is not going to make things better in any way shape or form and now he's trashed his own life for what?

The Muslim community pointing out they'd seen it coming is all very well, but the switch argument is the provocation that some of their number even in low level activities in London get up to in the name of Sharia etc. This is shaping up to be a long hot summer of discontent, I doubt this will be the last we see and until the media is reigned in and as wobbliscot points out, a serious debate takes place (Which for example is impossible here without the ban hammer falling)it's unlikely we're all going to just get along fine.

Not really, revenge isn't terrorism. Terrorism wants to achieve something through terror.

This implies that the victims not only did something 'wrong' but that they somehow deserved it. I'm not aware that they did.

See also innocent people mown down by other extremists elsewhere.

They didn't deserve it but do we think he's a sensible thinking sort of a chap?

This implies that the victims not only did something 'wrong' but that they somehow deserved it. I'm not aware that they did.

"Revenge" implies that the nutter who drove the van thought his victims did something wrong.

This is either "terrorism" or a "hate crime". I'm not sure of the difference between the two, but I suppose there must be one.

Not really, revenge isn't terrorism. Terrorism wants to achieve something through terror.

The recent attacks in manchester in london are supposedly in revenge for our wars in the middle east- so they arent terroiism too?

This idiot was just responding in a way that benefits no one except the Jihadists who want to ramp up the cycle of violence

much discussion about how we should stop hate speech on facebook/google
but our press are able to spread their own message of hate and sow disunity
[img] [/img]

some of the stuff on twitter etc is depressing as you like, ranging from smug satisfaction to out and out islamaphobia

Same could be said of the London and Manchester attacks. I reckon revenge and payback was probably high on the agenda.

Interesting point was made on the radio that by doing this act the bloke has become exactly what he was so cross about in the first place. Just as the lad who blew himself up in Manchester had been convinced that innocent people were guilty of something, this bloke has been convinced of the same.

Some people will argue about anything!

terrorism
NOUN

mass noun
The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/terrorism

You sure about that? Just watched footage of them detaining him on telly.

The Guardian was reporting witnesses stated that, at least before the videos of the guy getting arrested hit the net.

The recent attacks in manchester in london are supposedly in revenge for our wars in the middle east- so they arent terroiism too?

If the motive is pure revenge, it fails to meet the definition of terrorism. If the motive is to achieve a political objective it does.

My gut feel is Isis have the political motive of provoking an attack on themselves so they can say to other states in their region it's a holy war and to provoke this crazy battle at Dabaq. So I'd call that a political motive, but who can really be sure.

If you can provide a credible source that there was no political motive then, yes, neither attack would have been terrorism.

The boundaries can be quite wooly too with people operating with multiple motives. We all do stuff for more than one reason all the time.

People have become nasty and aggressive rather than curious and objective - and the politically correct liberal crowd are to blame.

[img] [/img]

tpbiker - Member

Same could be said of the London and Manchester attacks. I reckon revenge and payback was probably high on the agenda.

Murder of Lee Rigby: "The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers" Terrorism, not terrorism? Westminster Bridge attack, Masood allegedly asid in his last Whatsapp message that he was waging jihad in revenge for attacks on muslims- Terrorism, not terrorism? 7/7 bombers- "Your democratically-elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. " Terrorism, not terrorism?

If this was a muslim driving into a crowd shouting allah akbar who would be asking if it's terrorism?

Murder of Lee Rigby: "The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers" Terrorism, not terrorism? Westminster Bridge attack, Masood allegedly asid in his last Whatsapp message that he was waging jihad in revenge for attacks on muslims- Terrorism, not terrorism? 7/7 bombers- "Your democratically-elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. " Terrorism, not terrorism?

The murderers of Lee Rigby said "Change your government." So on the face of it terrorism because there was a stated political motive. However I'm pretty sure one of them had a personality disorder so perhaps that was the real underlying 'motive'. Perhaps he just liked violence and wanted to down in what he perceived as a blaze of glory. Would he admit that to himself? Very hard to judge motives, we're not always honest with ourselves about motives.

Can you ever trust the perpetrator to be honest about the motive? What if this latest * says he sneezed and left the road by mistake? Would we believe him? If he comes out with a coherant political motive would we beleive him then? Or is he (perhaps like Masood) just a * who gets enough of a thrill out of violence he's prepared to die/spend the rest of his life in jail for one killing spree.

In the case of terrorism if your political objective is to provoke an attack you're hardly going to say so. The 9/11 guys could hardly say "We've done this to trick America into invading the middle east.".

a serious debate takes place (Which for example is impossible here without the ban hammer falling)

Nonsense.

even I accept [ and i have been [s]smitted[/s] smote by the hammer of the gods] that:it is never done to stifle debate .

The mods here are generally ok but please do you have to explain your decision so fully when you e-mail me ?

There is only so much I can read [ and comprehend] 😉

do you have to explain your decision so fully when you e-mail me

Well, ain't you the lucky one. I just get a curt explanation.

Post of the thread is that Alain Delon gif. So far...

a serious debate takes place (Which for example is impossible here without the ban hammer falling)

Serious debates are fine. Always have been.

The mods here are generally ok but please do you have to explain your decision so fully when you e-mail me ?

That'll be your comments copy and pasted, it's so you know which one and a reference for us in the future. Teasel's are exactly the same.

They didn't deserve it but do we think he's a sensible thinking sort of a chap?

I think he was radicalised.

That'll be your comments copy and pasted, it's so you know which one and a reference for us in the future. Teasel's are exactly the same.

No wonder he can't comprehend it, then. (-:

Depends who does it too, of course. Some will be more verbose than others. If it's biting sarcasm it's probably mine.

I think he was radicalised

Yep, but not by sinister people in the shadows - by the very media that is no doubt saying how outrageous it all is.

it was a joke [ and clearly a fail] they usually say negative use of the forum the post and then either deletion or ban

That said i have also received some lengthy ones explaining [ politely] why i should not be a dick and what will happen if i dont.

I have reformed of late [ hopefully] though I am sometimes too rude /strident

The day-to-day stuff like "negative use" is boilerplate text. We don't write that stuff, just hit a button and it auto-populates.