ISIS Asian attack in London yesterday,

David Morton

Lifetime Supporter
Why is nobody mentioning the events in London yesterday?
Is it fear of the bogey man dressed up as an asian?
There were so many warnings - countless I think - that I and Keith
broadcast on this very website. I am pleased that nobody on this site was involved. I am perplexed as to why some arsehole asian did this henious act If I was on the streets with a machine gun, and God should be pleased I'm not, I think that it would be very difficult to refrain ever again. ps I have some really good asians as friends so don't try any stupid diatribes about me being a racist.
 
One of the things that I admire about the English, and that I think sets them apart from others, is the way they don't let terrorists drive them into the behavior that the terrorist is trying to provoke... Usually anyway.
I guess being directly involved in a horrendous war, i.e. having much of the country bombed nightly during the Second World War, and then the effects of the troubles, forged resilience and made them less prone to irrational behaviour.

Best wishes to all over there and I hope no one has been directly affected.

Tim.
 

Malcolm

Supporter
Why is nobody mentioning the events in London yesterday?
Is it fear of the bogey man dressed up as an asian?
There were so many warnings - countless I think - that I and Keith
broadcast on this very website. I am pleased that nobody on this site was involved. I am perplexed as to why some arsehole asian did this henious act If I was on the streets with a machine gun, and God should be pleased I'm not, I think that it would be very difficult to refrain ever again. ps I have some really good asians as friends so don't try any stupid diatribes about me being a racist.

As was quoted in the House of Commons today

Those who carry out such wicked and depraved actions as we saw yesterday can never triumph in our country and we must ensure that it is not hatred, violence and division, but decency goodness and tolerance that prevails in our country (Liam Fox)

Comments like yours above do not really help in my view, and that is not calling anyone a racist. From this and your post in the paddock rules thread this morning, it looks like you got out of bed the wrong side, so suggest, go back to bed and try again.

Fortunately we have fantastic police and security services here as well as other public bodies. Thoughts and prayers go to the victims and those having to deal with this horrendous situation.
 
Why is nobody mentioning the events in London yesterday?
Is it fear of the bogey man dressed up as an asian?
There were so many warnings - countless I think - that I and Keith
broadcast on this very website. I am pleased that nobody on this site was involved. I am perplexed as to why some arsehole asian did this henious act If I was on the streets with a machine gun, and God should be pleased I'm not, I think that it would be very difficult to refrain ever again. ps I have some really good asians as friends so don't try any stupid diatribes about me being a racist.

I too am very sorry about the attack in London.
The very fact that we are compelled to say "Asian" when BS political correctness won't let us say Islamic ("Islamic State in Iraq and Syria= ISIS") is quite troubling. As we are not going to do anything about it, we had better get ready for this to be a way of life. God forbid we offend anyone.
 

Keith

Moderator
Interesting and playing Devil's advocate here (See what I did there?, I don't see anything particularly wrong with what David said above Malcolm and as for what he posted regarding religion and politics, that made a lot of sense. It is impossible to separate religion & politics because they both seek the same end goal. Power.

As for David's comment about the muted response to the attack, well I think it is just because it was not entirely unexpected and I guess that there is some relief that it was on a small scale as it could have been much much worse.

It is important to "carry on" and it is also interesting to note that most of the victims were foreign visitors. Such is the demographic of central London these days.

Salute to the rapid response of the armed cops, and to the bravery of the cop who tackled the assailant unarmed and lost his life in the process. So much for 'stab-proof' vests.

Of further concern is London Mayor Sadiq Khan's assertion that "terrorist attacks are part & parcel of living in a major city".

President Trump immediately Tweeted: "You have to be kidding, right?"

Hats of to Donald on that one. However, others may have a different view?

What say you? Do we have to expect to be attacked at anytime if we live in a major city? Or is this a thinly veiled threat? Given his name and religion there is bound to be unease and it certainly isn't the cleverest thing he could have said.
 
On the other hand, how do you defend against a group that compels its followers to use a vehicle and a knife to slaughter innocent people? Fortunately the London police lit that asshole up so you won't have to spend tax dollars to convict and house, feed, and care for him for the duration.
 

Keith

Moderator
I too am very sorry about the attack in London.
The very fact that we are compelled to say "Asian" when BS political correctness won't let us say Islamic ("Islamic State in Iraq and Syria= ISIS") is quite troubling. As we are not going to do anything about it, we had better get ready for this to be a way of life. God forbid we offend anyone.

Not sure where the "Asian" moniker came from. They mean different things between US and UK. To us an Asian is someone from the Indian sub continent whereas I have noted that in the US, all orientals are generally called Asians.

The guy on the deck yesterday (the perp) looked of African countenance to me but I could be wrong...

Can I say African? Is anyone offended?
 
Not sure where the "Asian" moniker came from. They mean different things between US and UK. To us an Asian is someone from the Indian sub continent whereas I have noted that in the US, all orientals are generally called Asians.

The guy on the deck yesterday (the perp) looked of African countenance to me but I could be wrong...

Can I say African? Is anyone offended?

Oh geeez, I think that might be a problem here in the US, of course it depends on what part of Africa, like South African would be those nasty white people.
 

Ian Anderson

Lifetime Supporter
Not sure where the "Asian" moniker came from. They mean different things between US and UK. To us an Asian is someone from the Indian sub continent whereas I have noted that in the US, all orientals are generally called Asians.

The guy on the deck yesterday (the perp) looked of African countenance to me but I could be wrong...

Can I say African? Is anyone offended?

Aimed at me?
Naah I have a thick skin

Ian
 

Ian Anderson

Lifetime Supporter
Daughter was recalled from her holiday yesterday and in at work with the Met today and out patrolling and doing the visible presence bit.

I hope the powers that be do not run the Armed Response Officer through the mill for shooting the attacker and doing what he is trained to do. He did what was needed when it was needed - to him I say thank you.

My condolences to the families of those caught up in this terrible situation.

Ian
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
I was appalled to hear of the recent attack on our friends in England! I understand the desire to help political refugees who need asylum because they are being targeted in their own home country, but the reason for the "requirement" that European nations allow a certain number of citizens from countries in which there is such turmoil quite frankly escapes me. There are plenty of countries in the area of the middle-east that could absorb some of the cultural flight...why does Europe have to be the destination?

I suppose the answer is that Europe may be financially better positioned to "support" the immigrants...but the percentage of immigrants who seem to be entering Europe in a "radicalized" state of mind is disturbing, at least. I recall long ago seeing news videos of people walking, long lines...trying to get out of the way of ISIS and their dastardly deeds. IMHO what we should be seeing is a concerted world-wide effort to eliminate the threat of ISIS and it doesn't look like the "diplomatic" efforts are having much success. We really need a multi-national force to march (?) INTO the areas where ISIS has such a stronghold to engage them on their OWN turf...and bring them to their knees (or, their graves). I know we've seen some such efforts, but IMHO they are too few and too far between...this needs to be a WORLD-WIDE effort, which COULD involve the very countries in which these political criminals are hiding. The logistics of managing that escapes me, though, but that's why there are highly regarded strategists in the military.

This isn't an issue that is going to go away easily. IMHO we (the citizens of our planet) will never have lasting peace until ALL religions promote peace and NO religion promotes jihad-like actions.

Until then, it is my belief that EVERY sovereign nation should have the right to and a method of controlling the individuals they allow in. Extreme vetting? I think it needs to go further...perhaps a sort of "quarantine" system that will house new arrivals long enough to get a grasp on their intentions and their associations to make a decision regarding whether they can stay long-term or not.

As we are seeing world-wide, the alternative isn't working too well.

I vote that we just put the radicalized population onto a boat and deliver them (uninvited and unexpected) to the North Koreans...THEY deserve the problems the civilized world is dealing with, too.

Doug
 
I was appalled to hear of the recent attack on our friends in England! I understand the desire to help political refugees who need asylum because they are being targeted in their own home country, but the reason for the "requirement" that European nations allow a certain number of citizens from countries in which there is such turmoil quite frankly escapes me. There are plenty of countries in the area of the middle-east that could absorb some of the cultural flight...why does Europe have to be the destination?

I suppose the answer is that Europe may be financially better positioned to "support" the immigrants...but the percentage of immigrants who seem to be entering Europe in a "radicalized" state of mind is disturbing, at least. I recall long ago seeing news videos of people walking, long lines...trying to get out of the way of ISIS and their dastardly deeds. IMHO what we should be seeing is a concerted world-wide effort to eliminate the threat of ISIS and it doesn't look like the "diplomatic" efforts are having much success. We really need a multi-national force to march (?) INTO the areas where ISIS has such a stronghold to engage them on their OWN turf...and bring them to their knees (or, their graves). I know we've seen some such efforts, but IMHO they are too few and too far between...this needs to be a WORLD-WIDE effort, which COULD involve the very countries in which these political criminals are hiding. The logistics of managing that escapes me, though, but that's why there are highly regarded strategists in the military.

This isn't an issue that is going to go away easily. IMHO we (the citizens of our planet) will never have lasting peace until ALL religions promote peace and NO religion promotes jihad-like actions.

Until then, it is my belief that EVERY sovereign nation should have the right to and a method of controlling the individuals they allow in. Extreme vetting? I think it needs to go further...perhaps a sort of "quarantine" system that will house new arrivals long enough to get a grasp on their intentions and their associations to make a decision regarding whether they can stay long-term or not.

As we are seeing world-wide, the alternative isn't working too well.

I vote that we just put the radicalized population onto a boat and deliver them (uninvited and unexpected) to the North Koreans...THEY deserve the problems the civilized world is dealing with, too.

Doug

Finacially better than Saudi Arbia, Kuwait, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, they are their people, they share their beliefs, WTF?
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Salute to the rapid response of the armed cops, and to the bravery of the cop who tackled the assailant unarmed and lost his life in the process. So much for 'stab-proof' vests.

'Amen' to all of that...and sincere condolences to all those affected.


I can just imagine how this is likely to be received, but, I'm going to say it anyway because it's the truth:

As you all know, here in the U.S. all "cops" carry firearms all the time. There's a darned good logical reason for that which should not require explanation to anyone with a brain that functions normally. The horrific death of the British "Bobby" in the terror attack yesterday in no small measure was caused by the refusal of many in power there to recognize and accept the fact that a gun in one's hand (be he a 'LEO' or a civilian) is faaaaaaaaar more effective in instantly stopping/dropping an armed perp than summoning armed help via a 2-way radio or cell phone. Had the Bobby himself been carrying a firearm, there's a 99.9% probability that the terrorist would have been killed before he could have used his knife, and the Bobby would be at home with his family today. That's just plain inarguable fact, people, no matter how deftly one might attempt to spin reality.

The 'logic' employed by those who expect their unarmed LEOs to go up against armed criminals/terrorists/loons completely escapes me.





The Canadian government finally 'smartened up' and armed its border agents a few years ago AFTER an incident involving a couple of murder suspects out of California (who were trying to flee the U.S.) attempted to run the Canadian border at Blaine, Washington. U.S. LEOs ended that whole episode literally about 4 feet from the Canadian border. No Canadian agents were involved at all as I recall, but, that incident was quite enough to cause the Canadian government to change its 'no-guns-for-border-agents' policy. In light of that, and given what happened yesterday, one has to wonder just what it's going to take for the British government to wise up and arm its LEOs...as well as wise up about guns in general?
 
Last edited:

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
Finacially better than Saudi Arbia, Kuwait, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, they are their people, they share their beliefs, WTF?

Those are the very countries the "refugees" are attempting to flee, Al...despite the fact that they are financially capable of taking care of their population as well as Europe, the truth of the matter (to me, anyway) is that they aren't going to spend their money on their citizens when they are using it for military type programs...for example, supporting ISIS in their lethal attacks. Those countries are "ruled" by people who have a very "distasteful" agenda and it doesn't appear to me that they are not prioritizing the welfare of their own population with their resources. We've seen that the Mid-Eastern governments can actually turn against their own various factions...differing political groups like those who were in conflict in Iraq prior to the demise of Saddam Hussein, that sort of activity. Apparently Jihad is more than just warfare against other countries. It is truly a sad state of affairs...

Doug
 

Keith

Moderator
Two 'corrections' Larry & Doug..

1. The 'perp' was a British citizen born & bred here.

2. You may find this hard to comprehend but the members of the British Police force themselves overwhelmingly voted NOT to carry guns.

Seriously, and this is the wrong thread, you can cherry pick as many examples as you wish, but guns actually aren't the panacea for every security situation, and i get a little nauseated when it always seems to rear it's head. With an overwhelming sense of irony, I would say it's more than a little short sighted.

No doubt it may happen in the UK one day, but it will be a day not welcomed by the majority of the population including it's Police community.
 
I think that this may be of interest and give some more information that people are not aware of:

Jordan and refugees:

"Of these, only 100,000 live in refugee camps, while another 1.3 million are hosted within local communities. In total, Syrians now make up 21 per cent of Jordan's 6.7 million inhabitants. To put this in perspective, 20 per cent of Britain's population amounts to 12.8 million people"

I think Jordan is doing quite a bit given these statistics. I haven't looked into other countries within the region.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
...guns actually aren't the panacea for every security situation...

Where did I say they were? No one thing will always be the answer to every security situation/problem/issue/challenge/confrontation just as having a gun won't guarantee one's survival in ALL situations. But, the undeniable 'self-defense' reality for anyone confronted by someone armed with a deadly weapon is: having a gun in the hand does beat having an entire S.W.A.T. team 'in the bush' any day of the week...each time...every time...ALL the time. No question. No debate.


...i get a little nauseated when it always seems to rear it's head.

...just as I get nauseated by the 'pixie dust' logic inherent in the majority of anti-gun arguments. :pleased:
:chug:


(Edit: In the end...HOW was the London terrorist finally stopped? He was S-H-O-T by a good guy with a gun. I rest my case.)
 
Last edited:

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
Two 'corrections' Larry & Doug..

1. The 'perp' was a British citizen born & bred here.

2. You may find this hard to comprehend but the members of the British Police force themselves overwhelmingly voted NOT to carry guns.

I knew the "bobbies" (as we called them when I was young...please let me know if this is now considered a derogatory term so I can quit) did not carry weapons. I had no idea it was the preference of the police force themselves.

Just curious...considering how things have changed since the refugee "invasion", do you think the vote would be the same if it were to be redone?

I must admit, I think that you Brits have the right idea...guns are strictly regulated so that the sporting enthusiast can still enjoy the hobby but not every "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" goofball (it's a line from a Jack Nicholson movie called "The Shining") can carry an AR15 into the local WalMart. The idea that the police could function in a "non-lethal" manner seems to perplex quite a few of our citizens here (as if the 2nd amendment entitled them to go cop hunting, or drunk hunting, or even political protester hunting), but the police in England seem to have been able to manage for a LONG time! It has always been my assertion that not every person who is resistant or rude to a police officer needs to be "punished", and for certain that NO police officer has the right to be judge, jury and executioner and deliver a capital punishment just because they were offended by the way a citizen addressed them or was resistant or ran from them or....well, you get the idea, our police departments seem to believe that the best way to enforce our laws is to shoot first and then let the lawyers ask the questions...IF the unlucky autistic individual knew what they were doing or not (yes, we have had autistic individuals here shot and killed by police because they did not follow a command...as if they had the ability to understand and make a decision with a police officer shouting at them and pointing a gun at them).

I'm sure you remember my "Worst thread title ever" thread...I guess I mention this all because if our police would function more like responsible individuals with some self-restraint perhaps we would have no need for weapons, like the population of England feels is adequate.

I realize this might be a changing issue for the European countries, maybe the population of England might feel that weapons ARE the answer...but many times I think they are the problem because they have fallen into the wrong hands. We do have many responsible gun owners who use guns for target practice/competitions as well as for hunting; we just also seem to have that lunatic fringe that believes that just because they believe that the 2nd amendment gives them the right to own guns it also gives them the right to use them in any manner that they feel would be desirable...with disastrous results. Gun ownership brings about responsibility, and one of those responsibilities is, IMHO, to do as little harm as possible if using a weapon is necessary, not to see how many shots you can put into a person's chest within a 2" circle from 75 feet away.

There is no real answer for this dilema as long as our society seems to think that violence is the correct answer to "how do we stop the violence". I really admire England for not allowing these despicable radicalized immigrants change their societal beliefs...you have it right, IMHO.

How to keep a citizen who was born and raised in your country from becoming radicalized is another issue, altogether....and one for which I have little to suggest as I have never been one to believe in violence.

Good lord, I hope this is a trend we can find a way to address without having to give all LEO's an AR15 or a bazooka...but there is validity in the other side's point that the (Jihadist, in particular) violence needs to be stopped!

I still say we deport them all to North Korea, whether or not that's where they came from. Let that goofball deal with them.

Doug
 
Back
Top