Terror (in inverted commas) attack in London

http://news.sky.com/story/1600631/man-wielding-large-knife-held-after-tube-attack

I say terror, as that’s what the media are saying…Hope no-one from here was involved. Made me ” oh ffs!” as it’s early here in Oz and that was the first news story I read. The vid I saw doesn’t appear, in my eyes, to be a terrorist, more mental health but I’m sure they will find some link to terror somewhere to justify bombing the crap out of somewhere else.

Mods feel free to delete if the topic has already come up – didn’t see anything but you da boss.

doesn’t appear, in my eyes, to be a terrorist, more mental health

Is there necessarily a clear distinction between the two?

Depends on the persons skin colour and ethnic race.

Not white english = terrorist
White english = mental health

MrsFry

GP, WM.

Same as in the states mass shooting etc. Is a gunman Paris was terrorists. We seem to forget who we used to call terrorists.

as of 06:57 today

Amazing how many people don’t understand the words ‘get back’ 🙄

Looked like a man with a knife to me.

Between this, the Sydney siege and the San Bernardino murders, it seems like these are people who were likely to snap and act like arseholes anyway (all three crimes were not uncommon in their respective societies) but have decided to justify their arseholishness with terrorist ideology…as opposed to other arseholes that spend time learning how to be murderous arseholes and prolly wouldn’t have murdered without the ideology.

Another stabbing in Leytonstone, probably wouldn’t even make the local papers if he hadn’t shouted ‘Syria’

It’s amazing that you can judge someone has mental health problems from watching that.

As per above, its not a terrorist incident if he doesn’t shout “this is for bombing Syria”, but he did. Stabbing people as a result of political views is by its very definition a terrorist incident. Trying to achieve political aims / exoress a view via violence. FWIW I’d include throwing firecrackers at police horses the same way.

Terrorists have a recognised cause, nutters generally don’t.

FWIW I’d include throwing firecrackers at police horses the same way

aye, or sending police horses to attack citizens

@ 1:25 in thatvideo – wtf is the woman doing running at the officers like that? She could have easily been snotted for her actions.

There have been a spate of stabbings and shootings by teenagers recently, take a look at recent news stories. I does seem like it’s gathering momentum.

aye, or sending police horses to attack citizens

😯

Strangely in my 52 years I’ve never been attacked by a police horse. I have been far too close to terrorist incidents though as have friends and colleagues including one who was on the Lockerbie Pan Am flight

@ 1:25 in thatvideo – wtf is the woman doing running at the officers like that? She could have easily been snotted for her actions.

@wilber indeed, the advice published last week in France explictly says don’t run at the police (#3) in these sorts of situations you could get shot

Strangely in my 52 years I’ve never been attacked by a police horse

Odd, me neither. And I bet you haven’t thrown a firecracker at one.

Maybe those things have never happened to anyone

@scaredy – google up the last anonymous/guido fawkes demonstration in London, the one a month ago. Police horses and policeman injured as a result of exactly that

@Jam – google up Orgreave

There’s a right wing Facebook thing going round at the minute berating Corbyn for saying “This is the price you pay for going to war” about the beheading of the Manchester taxi driver. A lot of jambalayas are frothing at the mouth and saying he has no right to say that, but surely he’s correct and the same logic applies here? If you poke an sleeping bear it will attack you. If you leave it alone it probably won’t.

Bombing in Syria has put us in more danger than we were ever in before.

I actually feel safer now.
Last year I felt that Isis were not being taken seriously enough and were taking ground at an alarming rate.

And while I understand people may feel we face a greater threat now we are bombing them, i believe that may be true in the short term but that threat would be nothing compared to the threat they would pose if the were allowed to go on unchallenged.

jambalaya – Member
@scaredy – google up the last anonymous/guido fawkes demonstration in London, the one a month ago. Police horses and policeman injured as a result of exactly that

POSTED 1 HOUR AGO # REPORT-POST
scaredypants – Member
@Jam – google up Orgreave
Can we keep it to something recent? 31 years is a bit of a long time and I’m sure you will accept many things have changed for the better in that time.

if the were allowed to go on unchallenged.

Who was suggesting that then?

Crazy people will use any justification for their actions, especially issues that are in the public eye at the time.

If this issue with Syria and ISIS wasn’t going on at the moment, he’d probably be blaming the lyrics on the new Adele album for telling him to go and kill people.

Who was suggesting that then?

Lots of people here last year were saying leave them to it.

Going unchallenged apart from the forces of Assad, Jordan, France, Australia, Canada, Iran, Russia, the Kurds and several other nations? But yes our bombs will make all the difference.

No-one said ‘leave them to it’. They said that bombing is a knee jerk response that’s likely to be ineffective, kill countless civilians, and possibly increase support for ISIS.

But it’s ok, it was only lefty appeasers that were saying that, like this fella:

http://www.thenational.scot/news/nato-general-sir-richard-shirreff-warns-air-strikes-on-syria-are-useless.10604

Thank god we ignored them.

Grim I am talking over a year ago when they was not being bombed left right and center and plenty of people were saying leave them to it.

Lots of people here last year were saying leave them to it.

Well it wasn’t until last year that the Tory Home Secretary decided that ISIS was a terrorist organisation – is that what you mean?

And btw you do realise that there are other options with regards to challenging ISIS apart from the UK bombing targets a few thousand miles away?

In the last year, according to our government, as the result of UK military operations in Iraq an estimated 330 ISIS fighters have been killed, and knowing the nature of propaganda that’s probably an exaggeration.

In the same period ISIS strength grew to probably twice its strength a year ago. The 330 ISIS killed by UK air strikes have been replaced by many thousands more.

How many decades to you expect it will take to remove the threat of a terrorist attack, including a knife-wielding nutter, from major UK cities?

Drac, educated guess, he’s known to mh services. Give it a day or two. You’ll see.

I’m confused – is this a terror attack that the government are downplaying the seriousness of because it’s an inevitable consequence of our bombing Syria?

Or is it an unrelated incident that the government are playing up into a terror attack to justify our bombing in Syria?

Sorry, you’ll have to forgive me, I’m not sure which page of the conspiracy theories manual we are on today?

As far as I’m aware ninfan the government hasn’t made any comment with regards to this incident. So you are indeed confused or simply yet again talking gibberish. HTH.

How many members are die hard fighters who have travelled to the region to join them, how many joined as they felt they had to ether because through threat or simply to survive due to monetary gain as apparently there fighters draw a wage.

I would not only target the fighters but would concentrate more on there equipment, military and industrial to disable there military capability and ability to generate income and stop them from resupplying them.

Small arms would be an issue as Kalashnikovs can be easily knocked up in a small workshop but tanks and more significantly advanced equipment should be harder to come by and easier to cut off.

Back to my first point with regard to the fighters how many would fight to the last if certain defeat was looming and how many would desert given the opportunity to or had the money dried up.

And yes I do feel safer now they have been recognised to be a serious threat and now know they will not be allowed achieve there ultimate goals whatever it eventually takes.

Also there was an expert (what made him an expert I don’t know) on the radio saying that due to the ease of being able to get your hands on guns in America to expect more lone wolf/nutter/terrorist gun attacks there and due to it being much harder for people without direct contact to terrorist organisations or organised crime here to get firearms to expect more lone wolf/nutter/ terrorist knife attacks here.

Quite applicable here…

Shootings by Ben Freeman[/url], on Flickr

Quite applicable here…

How so ?

Isn’t the fact that the guy said “this is for Syria” the reason he is being labelled a terrorist.

Rather than guesswork based on his religion ?

Drac,educated random judgemental guess, he’s known to mh services.

Isn’t the fact that the guy said “this is for Syria” the reason he is being labelled a terrorist.

“This is for Syria” sounds more like the random ramblings of someone with mental health issues than evidence of a planned and executed terrorist outrage.

If this was an ISIS terrorist strike on the UK then their standards appear to have dropped significantly.

Perhaps the two UK air strikes on ISIS targets in Syria have degraded their capabilities far more than one might have been hoped?

If this was an ISIS terrorist strike on the UK then their standards appear to have dropped significantly.

I made no comment on his effectiveness, or his mental health status.

Simply saying that guessing his motives based on his religion wasn’t a factor in the news reporting, as was claimed at the top of the page.

He stated his motives, feel free to disagree with him though.