http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40146916
Quote'Fatalities' after central London vehicle and stabbing incidents
More than one person has died after an incident involving a vehicle and stabbings in the London Bridge area of the capital, police have said.
Armed police responded to reports of a van hitting pedestrians on the bridge in central London.
The Met Police said officers were also at Borough Market nearby where they were responding to reports of stabbings in the restaurant and bar venue.
The force said it was also attending a reported incident in Vauxhall.
Downing Street said Prime Minister Theresa May, who has been campaigning in the general election, was returning to No 10 to receive further briefings from security officials.
It said the prime minister will chair a meeting of the government's Cobra emergency committee later.
Meanwhile, Facebook said it has activated its safety check so people in London could let friends and relatives know they were safe.
'Van hit five people'
Transport for London said London Bridge has been closed in both directions due to a "major police incident".
Bus routes were being diverted and the neighbouring Southwark Bridge has also been shut, it added.
TfL said there were further closures in Borough High Street, where armed police and counter-terrorism specialist forces were later seen. On the north side of the river, Lower Thames Street was closed.
BBC home affairs correspondent Tom Symonds said a security guard who oversees a number of pubs in the London Bridge area said he saw four people stabbed by three attackers.
BBC reporter Holly Jones, who was on the bridge, said a van driven by a man was "probably travelling at about 50 miles an hour" before it hit a number of people.
"He swerved right round me and then hit about five or six people. He hit about two people in front of me and then three behind," Ms Jones told the BBC News Channel.
Five or six people were being treated for injuries after the vehicle mounted the pavement and hit them, she said.
"I'd say there are about four severely injured people. They all have paramedics assisting them at the moment."
She said the van, which was travelling from the direction of central London, headed towards the south side of the river.
Ms Jones later reported seeing a man being arrested by police. She said he was handcuffed and had his shirt off.
She said a French woman was among the injured. She had told said she did not know where two people who had been with her were.
Speaking to the Press Association, Will Orton described being in a pub in the area and seeing people coming running inside.
"We didn't really know what was going on," he said.
"We thought maybe there was a fight or something outside. And then there were almost hundreds of people coming inside.
"The bouncers did a really good job, they shut the doors and locked everyone in. There was panic - it seemed like it was literally outside the door. People were coming inside and saying they had witnessed people being stabbed."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeHHvnFS4Bs
its gone up to three incidences all in one night.
Sad for people to be injured and killed.
Allah rewards mass murderers. A religion like no other.
Quran 9:111
Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph. Al-Walaa' wal-Baraa' (http://ahmadjibril.com/students/alwalaa.html)
QuoteAl-walaa means loyalty and al-bara means disownment. In the context of Islam al-walaa is loyalty to Allah and whatever He is pleased with as well as friendship and closeness to the believers, whereas al-baraa is freeing oneself from that which is displeasing to Allah and disowning the disbelievers.
After loving Allah and His Messenger (s.a.w.), Allah obligates us to love those who love Allah and His Messenger (s.a.w.) and hate those who oppose Allah and His Messenger (s.a.w.). The Islamic Belief System('Aqeedah) obligates every Muslim to love the people of 'Tawheed and hate the people of Shirk.
This obligation is from the religion of Muhammad(s.a.w.) Allah the Exalted said:
"O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and Christians for friends. They are Awliyaa(friends) to each other. And the one among you that turns to them is one of them. Indeed, Allah guides not an unjust people." (5:51)
The above verse forbids Muslims from taking any of the People of the Book, specifically, and any of the disbelievers as a Mawlaat (friend).
Allah also forbade the believer from supporting the Kuffaar, even if they are blood relatives. Allah the Exalted said:
"O you who believe! Do not take your fathers and your brothers as Awliyaa, if they love disbelief (Kufr) instead of faith ( Eemaan). If any of you do so, they are wrongdoers." (9:23)
Allah the Exalted said:
"You will not find any people that believe in Allah and the Last Day loving those who oppose Allah and his Messenger (s.a.w.), even though they were their fathers, sons, brothers, or relatives...." (58:22)
Relax. None of this has anything to do with Islam.
#Notallmuslims - (just enough to keep you in terror)
A rational model ...
1. Some people in each country are nuts in a criminal way
2. The way they are nuts, depends on their culture/nationality (Islamic culture produces Islamic nuts, no question)
3. Japanese for instance hava a "thing" about suicide and swords
4. When the nuts of each country, stay in the country of their origin, their criminality stays in their own country
5. When criminality of your country, stays in your own country, then this is a mental health/police issue
6. When people of different cultures intermix, then the criminal nuts will do their thing sometimes outside their home country
7. When criminality occurs in a country other than the home country, it becomes an international incident it wouldn't be at home
8. To avoid international incidents, everyone should stay at home
9. Therefore non-British should stay out of Britain for example, and Brits should stay in Britain (mad dogs and Englishmen etc)
10. Therefore not only stop all immigration, but stop all emigration and all tourism, then these incidents are domestic not international
I am sure the authorities would love to stop issuing visas, and invalidate all passports. Spain for instance will no longer have to worry about rowdy Brits. Spanish real estate will no longer be distorted by Costa Del Sol bungalow purchases by Brits etc. And Schengen is the stupidest idea the Germans ever came up with, it should be stopped at once.
This is not criminality.
This is a religious world war, jihad for world domination for Allah.
But it is impolite to say that.
So it is mental breakdown, lone wolf, criminal act, oppression, economic disenfranchisement, colonisation, any thing you can think of except the real cause - Islam.
That is Taboo.
https://youtu.be/ULJtLrCVCRA
Quote from: pr126 on June 04, 2017, 06:24:26 AM
This is not criminality.
This is a religious world war, jihad for world domination for Allah.
But it is impolite to say that.
So it is mental breakdown, lone wolf, criminal act, oppression, economic disenfranchisement, colonisation, any thing you can think of except the real cause - Islam.
That is Taboo.
Are all nut cases, crypto-Muslims? If Islam is the problem, how come the thousands of Muslims aren't killing you non-Muslims every day? Are they just lazy? Just bad Muslims?
Yes, because you freely import workers and tourists from foreign countries ... for various reasons ... you are open to invasion. Former Jewish Hungarians for example ;-)
The Germans have been problematic for even longer, from 100 BCE until 1900+ CE ... over 2200 years. What is your final solution?
Who is the barbarian? Only the British have burned the White House. Shall the US bomb Buckingham Palace? Why should I imagine that the British aren't hostile to the US?
Atheists would argue ... making all religion illegal. Others would argue for extermination of religious people (that would be an effective ideology to justify the killing of billions of people (as per the need to repair the environment)).
I wonder what Baruch thinks is their motivation:
Is it Wall St bs destroying their lives? Is it the fact that they live in a hot desert part of the world and their brain is getting cooked? What is the cause of the extremists being so angry? Obviously some kind of mental problem going on that they keep making attacks.
I was reading CNN website. Apparently Trump spent the day making offensive remarks about the London attack. Have to wonder why the Republicans in Congress are putting up with him. There doesn't have to be any crime committed to impeach him; incompetent is good enough.
Quote from: fencerider on June 05, 2017, 03:10:28 AM
I wonder what Baruch thinks is their motivation:
Is it Wall St bs destroying their lives? Is it the fact that they live in a hot desert part of the world and their brain is getting cooked? What is the cause of the extremists being so angry? Obviously some kind of mental problem going on that they keep making attacks.
I was reading CNN website. Apparently Trump spent the day making offensive remarks about the London attack. Have to wonder why the Republicans in Congress are putting up with him. There doesn't have to be any crime committed to impeach him; incompetent is good enough.
I can only speculate. But usually, based on American behavior, it has to do with intoxicants and sports. So I vote for Qat (the Somali drug of choice) and Soccer. Think of this as the Arabian way of hooliganism. The terrorists are just showing solidarity with their IRA brothers. The 9/11 guys were discovered to be very-un-Muslim party animals before their attack. Also they are probably paid by the PM .. who is using this attack as a reason for full GCHQ control of the Internet.
There is a very old Intel experiment, to see if psychos can be weaponized. The Germans tried it 1933 - 1945 with some success, and the US saved and imported all their scientists (Operation Paperclip) ... and that is what led to the LSD experiments. The CIA has even tried psychically staring at goats. Maybe MI6 puts something in their Guiness?
Fake news? Americans believe every word of it. That's what they want to see..
https://youtu.be/c36oCX0ZI7I
Quote from: pr126 on June 05, 2017, 07:10:03 AM
Fake news? Americans believe every word of it. That's what they want to see..
That's a wild generalization built on a fake fact about American consumption of fake news. CNN is a propaganda outlet and a medium to advertise consumer products, with but only a secondary interest in accurate information. I don't question you there, but you should qualify that only SOME Americans want to see this propaganda. America is roughly divided down the middle between the left (SOME of which want to see this kind of propaganda) and the right (MOST of which choose to watch FOX news, which is actually more fake than CNN). In fact, the right has a much stronger commitment to fake news consumption than the left, witnessed by the fact that America voted for Donald Trump as president. The Trump Administration, as you know, has even gone so far as to originate the concept of the "alternate fact," which in straight terms refers to facts created to suit the needs of the administration, rather than to reflect reality. Please don't take your anger out on all Americans. Roughly half appear to be on your side, and they are on your side regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the news.
Quote from: pr126 on June 05, 2017, 07:10:03 AM
Fake news? Americans believe every word of it. That's what they want to see..
We are very gullible, because our hearts, if not our brains, are in the right place ;-)
Truthiness ... didn't that start under George W, and continue under Barak?
Quote from: Baruch on June 05, 2017, 07:01:29 AM
I can only speculate. But usually, based on American behavior, it has to do with intoxicants and sports. So I vote for Qat (the Somali drug of choice) and Soccer.
maybe we should get them addicted to the stoner strains of marijuana. Have the CIA pay them to stop growin poppies and start growin weed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmWJMuC_Jx8
Quote from: fencerider on June 05, 2017, 11:46:22 PM
maybe we should get them addicted to the stoner strains of marijuana. Have the CIA pay them to stop growin poppies and start growin weed
Only if we import the MJ, we must not do anything here, other than invest ... everything else must be imported. To promote this, we have to discourage local production of anything.
Quote from: fencerider on June 05, 2017, 11:46:22 PM
maybe we should get them addicted to the stoner strains of marijuana. Have the CIA pay them to stop growin poppies and start growin weed
Better yet, send them all Quaaludes... For free. Lots of them.
Comment from a blog: (http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/europes-rising-islamic-insurgency.html)
QuoteThese people are not normal criminals and the normal criminal courts are not constituted to deal with an insurgency. Criminal courts deal with crime. This is war.
To squeeze the jihad into a box made for civilian crime is a category error and will be ineffective.
Enemy combatants out of uniform and attacking civilians is a war crime. The remedy is courts martial. All residing in a Western country swearing loyalty to Daesh and intending the imposition of Sharia have rendered themselves subject to court martial.
Quote from: pr126 on June 07, 2017, 08:02:09 AM
These people are not normal criminals and the normal criminal courts are not constituted to deal with an insurgency. Criminal courts deal with crime. This is war.
To squeeze the jihad into a box made for civilian crime is a category error and will be ineffective.
Enemy combatants out of uniform and attacking civilians is a war crime. The remedy is courts martial. All residing in a Western country swearing loyalty to Daesh and intending the imposition of Sharia have rendered themselves subject to court martial.
I'm not sure where I stand on this. When 9-11 happened, the US had a big debate about prosecuting in courts vs military tribunals. Each has it's merits, and back then I leaned toward civilian courts. I perceived acts of terrorism as criminal activity, and I didn't want to puff up some Jihad's ego thinking his acts were worthy of a military tribunal, like he was recognized as a soldier of Allah, rather than just an out of control vandal or arsonist. The tribunals won out and no one has talked about it since then until now.
Part of the question revolves around whether terrorism actually is war. Was the Oklahoma bombing by Timothy McVeigh an act of war? That was clearly terrorism, and all terrorism is clearly terrorism, but not necessarily war. The waters are further muddied by the US response to terrorism. OK, so we don't have an official war going on. Ha! We are just engaged in "military actions." Ha, again! President after president insists we are not at war with Islam, and that's kind of true, not withstanding the fact that we bomb the heck out of Islamic Countries, although our actions are incidental byproducts of dealing with terrorism.
It seems strange to get tied up in the semantics at such times. What we need is the most effective way to stop this shit, and no one seems to know how to do that. Should terrorists be tried in courts or military tribunals? What does it really matter? At a minimum, they should be locked up for life. Does the proper classification make that big a difference? And if it does, maybe we should rethink why the classifications seem to be so important.
And if we are going to get serious about combating terrorism, we need to stop combating it with rhetoric and symbolism. Instead of combating terrorism, we politicize it, and use it in in campaign rhetoric, much as Nero fiddled during the burning of Rome.
I'm not claiming to know answers here, but there should be come competent minds in government that could do something to help, except that no one is actually helping. This is supported by observing the obvious increase in terrorism. It's getting worse rather than better. It sure looks as though no one is helping. It's possible it was going to get worse no matter how we react.
And remember too, we are not dealing with rational people here. We are dealing with religious fanatics that behave in unpredictable ways for reasons they don't even understand themselves, and our own response is to capitalize on the political value of terrorism to further our own agenda. Maybe our own politicians have the best attitude; Rejoice in terrorism wherever it occurs, so you can use it to your own advantage. It reminds me of Alfred E. Newman's campaign slogan, "What Me Worry?"
Here is Rahm Emanuel with his version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb-YuhFWCr4
Quote from: pr126 on June 07, 2017, 08:02:09 AM
Comment from a blog: (http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/europes-rising-islamic-insurgency.html)
Don't know how Brits do this, but enemy soldiers out of uniform don't get courts-martial ... they are tried and executed as spies (not eligible for prisoner of war status). So you are prepared to do this to the entire Muslim population of GB (GB or EU citizens, non-citizens)?
As far as attacking civilians being a war crime .. this happens all the time, but there is no trial if you win the war. Right now Daesh is winning.
In WW II, in the US, would you have gone farther than FDR, branded all Japanese in the US ... spies, and executed them? Did Britain execute all Germans and Italians living in GB in 1939/1940? Deportation won't work, they just keep coming back.
Rahm Emanuel's dad is Mossad. Nut doesn't fall far from the tree.
"What we need is the most effective way to stop this shit, and no one seems to know how to do that." ... what people want in general, is a bloodless capitulation of opponents. That simply doesn't happen in the real world. Also opponents are future allies, and vice versa (see Germany today). Life is complicated that way ... don't tell the Black/White thinkers. Pacifists (who aren't Gandhi) aren't up to any challenge at all. The governments have created sheeple, but such human-animal hybrids are helpless.
Quote from: SGOS on June 07, 2017, 08:54:03 AM
I'm not sure where I stand on this. When 9-11 happened, the US had a big debate about prosecuting in courts vs military tribunals. Each has it's merits, and back then I leaned toward civilian courts. I perceived acts of terrorism as criminal activity, and I didn't want to puff up some Jihad's ego thinking his acts were worthy of a military tribunal, like he was recognized as a soldier of Allah, rather than just an out of control vandal or arsonist. The tribunals won out and no one has talked about it since then until now.
Part of the question revolves around whether terrorism actually is war. Was the Oklahoma bombing by Timothy McVeigh an act of war? That was clearly terrorism, and all terrorism is clearly terrorism, but not necessarily war. The waters are further muddied by the US response to terrorism. OK, so we don't have an official war going on. Ha! We are just engaged in "military actions." Ha, again! President after president insists we are not at war with Islam, and that's kind of true, not withstanding the fact that we bomb the heck out of Islamic Countries, although our actions are incidental byproducts of dealing with terrorism.
It seems strange to get tied up in the semantics at such times. What we need is the most effective way to stop this shit, and no one seems to know how to do that. Should terrorists be tried in courts or military tribunals? What does it really matter? At a minimum, they should be locked up for life. Does the proper classification make that big a difference? And if it does, maybe we should rethink why the classifications seem to be so important.
And if we are going to get serious about combating terrorism, we need to stop combating it with rhetoric and symbolism. Instead of combating terrorism, we politicize it, and use it in in campaign rhetoric, much as Nero fiddled during the burning of Rome.
I'm not claiming to know answers here, but there should be come competent minds in government that could do something to help, except that no one is actually helping. This is supported by observing the obvious increase in terrorism. It's getting worse rather than better. It sure looks as though no one is helping. It's possible it was going to get worse no matter how we react.
And remember too, we are not dealing with rational people here. We are dealing with religious fanatics that behave in unpredictable ways for reasons they don't even understand themselves, and our own response is to capitalize on the political value of terrorism to further our own agenda. Maybe our own politicians have the best attitude; Rejoice in terrorism wherever it occurs, so you can use it to your own advantage. It reminds me of Alfred E. Newman's campaign slogan, "What Me Worry?"
In retrospect, the whole thing would have been better handled by Interpol as a crime.
We could have saved 16 years of war.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 14, 2017, 08:54:15 PM
In retrospect, the whole thing would have been better handled by Interpol as a crime.
We could have saved 16 years of war.
The whole point was 16 years of war ... just like in Vietnam. You are too generous about human corruption.
terrorism is not war, it is a tactic. The word was so severely abused that George Bush changed the definition of the word by repeatedly using it wrongly.
before George Bush the word terrorism meant extorsion, blackmail, etc. an act of violence to make people so afraid that the do something they would not normally do. Using a bomb does not automatically fit the definition of terorism (ok to say mass murder or bomber), and on the other end of the spectrum a violent act in which no one dies can be considered an act of terrorism (case in point- George Bush terrorized the Amercian people into accepting the Patriot Act which has provisions that violate the Constitution)
yes there is a big difference between calling a terrorist a criminal or an enemy soldier. A criminal has a right to a speedy trial, a right to know the charges against them. They can not be held indefinitely without charges being filed. and if they are found guilty they can be locked up for a long time. An enemy soldier can not be subject to any abuse or interrogation. They can be held indefinitely, but when the war is over they must be released; even according to U.S. law
In asymmetric warfare, you use non-uniformed irregulars. We did it to the British in the American Revolution. We are subject to asymmetric warfare ... and those combatants aren't military, and don't get military treatment. That isn't how S Vietnamese regulars treated Viet Cong when captured. In one famous scene during the Tet Offensive ... the non-existent Geneva convention rights of a Viet Cong operative, weren't observed much. Summary execution on the street. That is where we are heading, as society becomes completely criminal, top to bottom. Anti-fa are domestic Viet Cong. I would execute them without trial.
Quote from: fencerider on July 15, 2017, 02:01:08 AM
terrorism is not war, it is a tactic. The word was so severely abused that George Bush changed the definition of the word by repeatedly using it wrongly.
before George Bush the word terrorism meant extorsion, blackmail, etc. an act of violence to make people so afraid that the do something they would not normally do. Using a bomb does not automatically fit the definition of terorism (ok to say mass murder or bomber), and on the other end of the spectrum a violent act in which no one dies can be considered an act of terrorism (case in point- George Bush terrorized the Amercian people into accepting the Patriot Act which has provisions that violate the Constitution)
yes there is a big difference between calling a terrorist a criminal or an enemy soldier. A criminal has a right to a speedy trial, a right to know the charges against them. They can not be held indefinitely without charges being filed. and if they are found guilty they can be locked up for a long time. An enemy soldier can not be subject to any abuse or interrogation. They can be held indefinitely, but when the war is over they must be released; even according to U.S. law
Enemy soldiers can be interrogated. Interrogation does not require physical or psychological cruelty , just questions.
Correct. That and offering to feed the prisoner's smoking habit. I used to work with a professional interrogator (well, when he was deployed in Iraq). Which is funny, how that guy being interviewed by the FBI, over the Boston Marathon attack, suddenly was killed, even though he wasn't armed ;-(