London terror attack confirmed by Met Police

Ulysses Gaze

Neighbours told of their shock after seeing pictures of Osborne being arrested by police.

Dave Ashford, 52, said: ?Someone called me and said it was him and I said ?It can?t be?. Then I saw the picture on the news and said ?S***, it?s him?.?

Another neighbour said: ?He had lived on the estate for a few years. He?s always been a complete c*** but this is really surprising.?

Makes a change from the usual "He was a quiet man. Kept himself to himself."

Timberrrrrrrr

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Makes a change from the usual "He was a quiet man. Kept himself to himself."

Nah, that's reserved for the auld serial killers

youreadthat

Welsh terrorism must be crushed!

Really Interested

youreadthat wrote: »

Welsh terrorism must be crushed!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meibion_Glyndŵr

Fear No Evil

The terrorist that died in Paris earlier, I hope he burned to death in the car crash.

Mountainsandh

Fear No Evil wrote: »

The terrorist that died in Paris earlier, I hope he burned to death in the car crash.

I don't think so, did you see the footage ? I think he got somewhat burnt but the cops dragged him out. It looks like the cops threw in one or two of these fire extinguishing balls into the car, so it didn't burn completely.

Anyway he's dead, however it happened. Ironic, ridiculous death either way.

Fear No Evil

No haven't seen the footage. Cops should have left him to roast. Sick bastard could have slaughtered dozens, men, women and children.

Captain Obvious

Fear No Evil wrote: »

No haven't seen the footage. Cops should have left him to roast. Sick bastard could have slaughtered dozens, men, women and children.

Hide yo women, hide yo children. They killin erryone up in there.

riffmongous

I saw this picture of the London attacker a minute ago



Looks like he's doing a jihadi salute

Madagascan

devnull wrote: »

Nagnata wrote: »

Why? He has good time for the Irish, in fact the only people he has a issue with is Muslims. Be they Arab, white, black, what ever. He used the name Tommy Robinson to protect his family.

So why has he had four different names?

Brave man him.

Because so many people want to kill him.
Dosent matter now as he's so well known.
He still gets threats every day including ones that threaten to kill his Children.

Has he got Police protection?
No.
Has anyone be prosecuted for the threats on his Wife and Children?
No.

prinzeugen

Fear No Evil wrote: »

No haven't seen the footage. Cops should have left him to roast. Sick bastard could have slaughtered dozens, men, women and children.

The police did that at Glasgow airport.

weldoninhio

Billy86 wrote: »

He has already commented - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/terrorism-terrorism-says-london-mayor-10646307

Sadiq Khan today declared "terrorism is terrorism" as he condemned last night's Finsbury Park attack.

London's first Muslim mayor vowed not to let terror divide the capital after one person died and 10 were injured when a van ploughed into worshippers outside the north London area's mosque.

...

Mr Khan told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "This is a truly horrific terrorist attack on our city that deliberately targeted innocent Londoners."

He added: "Terrorism is terrorism whether it’s Islamist inspired, or inspired by others.

...

"London has been through an extremely difficult time, it’s been a tough few weeks.

"But I’m so confident that we’re going to come through this. We'll be strong, we’ll stay strong. We will not allow these people to divide us."

Mr Khan's comments come after the mosque lashed out at the media for not immediately calling a deadly attack an act of terror.

The driver was probably radicalised after seeing all of the Muslim attacks on Paris, Brussels, Berlin and London. These attacks will just keep on happening until the Muslims realise that indiscriminate bombing/killing civilians is not the answer.

Right??

B_Wayne

B_Wayne wrote: »

Salman Abedi was banned from the mosque after he objected to the Imam condemning ISIS, he had not been there in 4 years... Why don't you find that part relevant? Why doesn't Tommy feel the need to report on that part?

Tommy is a hateful football hooligan, if it was a Muslim who had committed the crimes he perpetrated, you would be happy to call them dangers to society...

Who would? Not sure what you are implying here but unless you can read minds then no.

Billy86

weldoninhio wrote: »

The driver was probably radicalised after seeing all of the Muslim attacks on Paris, Brussels, Berlin and London. These attacks will just keep on happening until the Muslims realise that indiscriminate bombing/killing civilians is not the answer.

Right??

Both sides need to resist radicalisation and violence, in this instance it was an white Englishman who was the terrorist against Muslims. Of course if we're holding both sides to the same standard, some would like to see Englishmen profiled and those who supported him on social media afterwards locked up and/or kicked out of their own country.

Will I Am Not

Billy86 wrote: »

Both sides need to resist radicalisation and violence, in this instance it was an white Englishman who was the terrorist against Muslims. Of course if we're holding both sides to the same standard, some would like to see Englishmen profiled and those who supported him on social media afterwards locked up and/or kicked out of their own country.

Is there any particular reason you only posted in this thread (that was started when 3 Muslim men murdered a bunch of people) when a British man murdered a Muslim?

jmayo

Mountainsandh wrote: »

An attack in Paris on Champs Elys?es this afternoon by the way, don't want to be opening another thread.
One guy in a car full of explosives drove into a police van. The guy was on the S files (known for terror related threat). Car went on fire. Guy is dead.

The guy had a hand weapon, a Kalachnikoff, and a bottle of gaz in the car, but they haven't finished the examination yet so there could be more.

No injuries or deaths other than your man. He drove head on into the police van, not clear how he died, I think the crash did it from what I understand.

Shows how normal the situation has become that there isn't much discussion about this attack.
And this was a guy in a car with an AK, a handgun and gas canisters who targeted a police vehicle on the most prominent street in France's capital city. :rolleyes:

There isn't even a thread here.

Hell it hasn't even gotten entered into "what is or isn't a terrorist attack" thread.

jmayo

Billy86 wrote: »

Both sides need to resist radicalisation and violence, in this instance it was an white Englishman who was the terrorist against Muslims. Of course if we're holding both sides to the same standard, some would like to see Englishmen profiled and those who supported him on social media afterwards locked up and/or kicked out of their own country.

Ehh who are these both sides ?

Was this guy a member or supporter of a particular organisation ?
Was this guy a member or supporter of a particular political party ?
Was this guy a member of a particular religious group ?

Billy86

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

Is there any particular reason you only posted in this thread (that was started when 3 Muslim men murdered a bunch of people) when a British man murdered a Muslim?

Yeah, getting a bit sick of the zero thought "deport them" - "where to?" - "to where they came from!!" - "they were born and lived their lives in the UK, so where to deport them to" - "I don't know, just deport them!" type nonsense that goes back and forth and back and forth each and every time. It gets repetitive and boring pretty quickly.

jmayo wrote: »

Ehh who are these both sides ?

Was this guy a member or supporter of a particular organisation ?
Was this guy a member or supporter of a particular political party ?
Was this guy a member of a particular religious group ?

Muslims committing terrorism, hatred and crimes against natives and natives committing terrorism, hatred and crimes against Muslims.

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

Yeah, getting a bit sick of the zero thought "deport them" - "where to?" - "to where they came from!!" - "they were born and lived their lives in the UK, so where to deport them to" - "I don't know, just deport them!" type nonsense that goes back and forth and back and forth each and every time. It gets repetitive and boring pretty quickly.

This is a valid point.
But isn't there 3000 who are listed Jihadis who are trained fighters and who actually fought in a war against Britain?
Were they originally UK citizens? It seems to be.
But where is the logic in allowing them to leave the country and fight against Britain in a war, then allowing them back into the country they were fighting against.
The logic is quite literally mad.

I'm trying to understand did this happen in any other documented war throughout history?

Billy86

M!Ck^ wrote: »

This is a valid point.
But isn't there 3000 who are listed Jihadis who are trained fighters and who actually fought in a war against Britain?
Were they originally UK citizens? It seems to be.
But where is the logic in allowing them to leave the country and fight against Britain in a war, then allowing them back into the country they were fighting against.
The logic is quite literally mad.

I'm trying to understand did this happen in any other documented war throughout history?

I couldn't be certain re the last question, but not letting them back in I don't necessarily have issue with - it's the type of talk like deporting them when they are already residing in the UK, France, etc (not just those who went to Syria etc to train with terror cells, but those who flag as potential extremists etc - esp when errors on those have even seen 2 year olds and whatnot on said lists before) that doesn't make sense to me, not least of all for the reason of where do you deport them to since they're English born and bred? Random example but as it pertains to us if Timothy McVeigh was presented to us in the 1990s due to his Irish heritage the US would rightly have been told to f*** off because he's American, not Irish. The same would be true of an British terrorist with Algerian, Moroccan, etc ancestry. So there's even the logistical issue of there physically being nowhere to send them.

That one just boggles my mind, essentially. Not letting them back in after they go there to train though, not really any issue from me there.

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

I couldn't be certain re the last question, but not letting them back in I don't necessarily have issue with - it's the type of talk like deporting them when they are already residing in the UK, France, etc (not just those who went to Syria etc to train with terror cells, but those who flag as potential extremists etc - esp when errors on those have even seen 2 year olds and whatnot on said lists before) that doesn't make sense to me, not least of all for the reason of where do you deport them to since they're English born and bred? Random example but as it pertains to us if Timothy McVeigh was presented to us in the 1990s due to his Irish heritage the US would rightly have been told to f*** off because he's American, not Irish. The same would be true of an British terrorist with Algerian, Moroccan, etc ancestry. So there's even the logistical issue of there physically being nowhere to send them.

That one just boggles my mind, essentially. Not letting them back in after they go there to train though, not really any issue from me there.

Just to expand here it's not just to train though.
Should be no assumption, but Jihadis who live in Britain have fought and killed British soldiers. Then the UK let them back in and basically say "Hey since you were born here, no problem back you come. Thanks for killing our soldiers".
(Interesting to know how many actual confirmed KIA's for both sides of the conflict has been documented).

Ultimately if they are radicalized in Britain and were born in Britain then that's the underlying rout cause Britain is now dealing with. Deportation becomes a huge conundrum.

osarusan

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Just to expand here it's not just to train though.
Should be no assumption, but Jihadis who live in Britain have fought and killed British soldiers. Then the UK let them back in and basically say "Hey since you were born here, no problem back you come. Thanks for killing our soldiers".
(Interesting to know how many actual confirmed KIA's for both sides of the conflict has been documented).

I don't know how many would fit the profile, but if they are UK citizens only, what can be done with them?

Really Interested

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Just to expand here it's not just to train though.
Should be no assumption, but Jihadis who live in Britain have fought and killed British soldiers. Then the UK let them back in and basically say "Hey since you were born here, no problem back you come. Thanks for killing our soldiers".
(Interesting to know how many actual confirmed KIA's for both sides of the conflict has been documented).

Ultimately if they are radicalized in Britain and were born in Britain then that's the underlying rout cause Britain is now dealing with. Deportation becomes a huge conundrum.

The UK changed the law in 2015 it can now stop any person a citizen or not from returning to the UK from fighting in the ME.

jmayo

Billy86 wrote: »

Yeah, getting a bit sick of the zero thought "deport them" - "where to?" - "to where they came from!!" - "they were born and lived their lives in the UK, so where to deport them to" - "I don't know, just deport them!" type nonsense that goes back and forth and back and forth each and every time. It gets repetitive and boring pretty quickly.

Would you agree to deporting anyone who is not a native (i.e not born in the country but guest, visa holder, granted asylum, naturalised or given citizenship) if they engage in terrorism against other citizens or the state ?

Billy86 wrote: »

Muslims committing terrorism, hatred and crimes against natives and natives committing terrorism, hatred and crimes against Muslims.

The thing is you will probably say that anyone who is anti unchecked immigration, taking in god knows who as refugee is on one of those sides.
After all people who voice that opinion are labelled right winger, nazis, fascists, etc a fair amount of the time now.

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Just to expand here it's not just to train though.
Should be no assumption, but Jihadis who live in Britain have fought and killed British soldiers. Then the UK let them back in and basically say "Hey since you were born here, no problem back you come. Thanks for killing our soldiers".
(Interesting to know how many actual confirmed KIA's for both sides of the conflict has been documented).

The Brits, much like French I think have been engaged in strategic removals of these people in the middle east battlegrounds where possible.
And yes it is one shoot to kill policy I agree with.

riffmongous

M!Ck^ wrote: »

This is a valid point.
But isn't there 3000 who are listed Jihadis who are trained fighters and who actually fought in a war against Britain?
Were they originally UK citizens? It seems to be.
But where is the logic in allowing them to leave the country and fight against Britain in a war, then allowing them back into the country they were fighting against.
The logic is quite literally mad.

I'm trying to understand did this happen in any other documented war throughout history?

Boer War would be one I'd say. John McBride went to South Africa to fight the Brits on behalf of the Boers, then came back to Ireland and later fought in the Rising

Billy86

jmayo wrote: »

Would you agree to deporting anyone who is not a native (i.e not born in the country but guest, visa holder, granted asylum, naturalised or given citizenship) if they engage in terrorism against other citizens or the state ?

Up until citizenship, absolutely. If they do hold citizenship it becomes a lot more troublesome regarding their rights and also potentially having anywhere to send them. I would imagine it's a lot more difficult to convince another nation to take one of your citizens (even if they are a citizen of that country too) than it is basically be able to tell them to take their citizen who was merely residing in your country.

The thing is you will probably say that anyone who is anti unchecked immigration, taking in god knows who as refugee is on one of those sides.
After all people who voice that opinion are labelled right winger, nazis, fascists, etc a fair amount of the time now.

Can't say I've ever been called any of those labels myself.

njs030

Billy86 wrote: »

I would imagine it's a lot more difficult to convince another nation to take one of your citizens (even if they are a citizen of that country too).

If a person holds citizenship in more than one country they can be stripped of one and deported to the other, there's no convincing needed.

For example I'm both a British and Irish citizen but either country could revoke citizenship if I broke enough serious laws in that country.

Really Interested

Billy86 wrote: »

Up until citizenship, absolutely. If they do hold citizenship it becomes a lot more troublesome regarding their rights and also potentially having anywhere to send them. I would imagine it's a lot more difficult to convince another nation to take one of your citizens (even if they are a citizen of that country too) than it is basically be able to tell them to take their citizen who was merely residing in your country.

Can't say I've ever been called any of those labels myself.

Irish law on citizenship

The Minister may revoke a certificate of naturalisation if he is satisfied—

that the person to whom it was granted has, by any overt act, shown himself to have failed in his duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State, or

Once a naturalised citizen has citizenship revoked then the minister may propose to deport.

DrWu

Billy86 wrote: »

Both sides need to resist radicalisation and violence, in this instance it was an white Englishman who was the terrorist against Muslims. Of course if we're holding both sides to the same standard, some would like to see Englishmen profiled and those who supported him on social media afterwards locked up and/or kicked out of their own country.

There's so much wrong with this post (both sides?). I'll just state that the authorities in the UK have been "profiling" white males for years (long before any Islamic terror threat), including far right and fascist groups, soccer hooligans as well as (white) Irish terrorists. Stop making this a race issue or some weird anti-English issue.

Billy86

DrWu wrote: »

There's so much wrong with this post (both sides?). I'll just state that the authorities in the UK have been "profiling" white males for years (long before any Islamic terror threat), including far right and fascist groups, soccer hooligans as well as (white) Irish terrorists. Stop making this a race issue or some weird anti-English issue.

You must have missed my follow up post - Muslims committing terrorism, hatred and crimes against natives and natives committing terrorism, hatred and crimes against Muslims.

I have not seen any claims to deport those who supported this attack on social media.

Also not sure where or how you got "anti-English" out of that to be perfectly honest. Though you do like to talk about the IRA an awful lot, so whatever floats your boat I guess.