Herkybird | 04 Jun 2017 1:38 a.m. PST |
In case you are just waking up, there was another terrorist attack on London last night. 3 men in a white van ran over people and then got out of the vehicle and attacked people in bars and on the street with knives. Casualties at this moment are 7 dead and around 50 wounded. The 3 attackers were wearing false bomb vests, and were shot dead by police within 8 minutes. As ever, my thoughts are with those affected, and my appreciation to the good people in the emergency services who are doing an excellent job. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 04 Jun 2017 1:50 a.m. PST |
Another sad day. Thoughts for the victims and hopes that those people calling for the general election to be postponed don't get their way. That would be a big win for the terrorists – time to show that life will carry on as near to normal as possible and that such attacks be treated for what they are – insane actions by a deranged and brainwashed minority subverted by a false religious/political cult in the Muslim world. |
parrskool | 04 Jun 2017 3:30 a.m. PST |
…Just my opinion, but I believe the media coverage, especially the non-stop reports on tv are feeding the attacks by giving the publicity the criminals crave. Just encourages others with this "over the top" reporting. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 04 Jun 2017 4:01 a.m. PST |
Agreed. Starve terrorists of publicity and you take away one of their objectives. |
Spaceadmrodkalker | 04 Jun 2017 4:20 a.m. PST |
Yes let's not talk about it or cover it in the news. Brilliant idea. |
Bill Rosser | 04 Jun 2017 5:06 a.m. PST |
Cover it, just don't make it a circus. Straight reporting, not over the top sensationalism. Example: "7 dead and 50 wounded in terrorist attack. More news when we know more" Instead we get foolish statements from talking heads who know nothing about what is actually going on, so they ponder the ramifications or make stuff up to fill up time. The less intelligent they are, the bigger their ratings seem to be. |
Jcfrog | 04 Jun 2017 5:30 a.m. PST |
As long as the causes are not allowed to be named, the origin of the scourge and everything is done to cover it up, there is no end to it. There should be a word or several before " terrorist" ( which is is a mode of attack). Like fighting " landings" in ww2. The saints will die , surprised in their own homes. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 04 Jun 2017 5:58 a.m. PST |
Oh, you have to cover it. You just don't need a media circus, you don't need to name the attackers, you don't need to make it front page news for a week. A couple of paragraphs with a warning for people to be vigilant. |
Supercilius Maximus | 04 Jun 2017 6:34 a.m. PST |
Agreed – far too much "rolling news" of the "in case you only switched on in the last 10 seconds, here is what I was saying 11 seconds ago…" variety. Did anyone else notice that another death, in nearby Vauxhall, was dismissed as an "unrelated" stabbing with no further details given? |
Guthroth | 04 Jun 2017 6:35 a.m. PST |
This about sums up Londons approach to terrorism link |
basileus66 | 04 Jun 2017 6:45 a.m. PST |
Wish it would be that easy, Garrison! Media outlets survive thanks to a public starved for news. If a media decides to inform just the bare facts, as known, others will take its place and make a circus of it. And then the perps will up the ante, to make the next attack more spectacular, more brutal, than the one before. Do they not react if we decapitate a soldier out of duty? Let us kill dozens of kids with a bomb! Sooner or later they will recognize us. There is only one thing that can stop them: catch them before they act. Harder sentences for wannabe jihadists; bigger intelligence collection and analysis departments in the police forces, and bigger budgets; and ease the process to obtain arrest warrants against suspects of planning an attack. That combination will stop terror attacks more efficiently than anything else. |
Henry Martini | 04 Jun 2017 6:46 a.m. PST |
You may not believe it, but the media ghouls here in Oz give the same blanket non-stop coverage to these incidents… as long as they happen in Oz, the UK, or the US. If the victims are unfortunate enough to reside outside the 'developed' world a big explosion with a high casualty total might merit at most a couple of minutes of TV news-time. |
Jeigheff | 04 Jun 2017 7:22 a.m. PST |
I believe that yesterday's London murderers have much darker motivation than seeing their names in the news. |
Supercilius Maximus | 04 Jun 2017 9:37 a.m. PST |
Obviously we must mention their names, just to inform those who may have vital information that they can bring forward. However, subsequent mentions are not necessary, nor is the constant, all-day repetition of the same (and usually very limited) set of facts. Frankly, the massive news coverage given to these people and their deeds is disproportionate to their value. As I understand it, these scumbags think they are going to go to "paradise" for their deeds. It would be interesting to see how they would re-act to the knowledge that their bodies (living or dead) would be defiled post-atrocity, by being smeared with pork fat for example, and the dead – whether whole or in parts – being disposed of secretly at a randomly selected landfill site with the rest of the rubbish. As I understand it, this would prevent them entering "paradise" and deny their family the privilege of burying them. Maybe this would make them think twice? As far as I am concerned, anything – however "barbaris" it may seem to the tree-hugging fraternity – that will make them re-consider committing an atrocity is worth considering at this stage. |
Cardinal Ximenez | 04 Jun 2017 11:05 a.m. PST |
I feel for the families who now have instant, unexpected gaping holes in their lives. Awful. I often wish there would be more coverage of the victim's families and what we can do to help them. |
Jeigheff | 04 Jun 2017 11:42 a.m. PST |
Good points, Don Manser. Jeff |
VVV reply | 04 Jun 2017 11:44 a.m. PST |
There is only one thing that can stop them: catch them before they act. That indeed is the best solution and one I have suggested before. Fake websites where people can tell (the police) about their desire to become a terrorist. Fake applicants (the police) to those who are running websites supporting terrorists. |
Giles the Zog | 04 Jun 2017 12:53 p.m. PST |
The best thing is that the Police took them down within 8 minutes. Which is not bad in a metropolis, late at night, in the middle of a crowded situation. Without any collateral casualties. |
14Bore | 04 Jun 2017 1:13 p.m. PST |
The attackers are not doing it for publicity |
bruntonboy | 04 Jun 2017 1:21 p.m. PST |
The police shot a bystander as well as the lunatics. |
Guthroth | 04 Jun 2017 1:36 p.m. PST |
The shot bystanders injuries are not serious. Despite the accident I heartily approve of the police action in shooting down without delay any murderers wearing fake suicide vests. In fact anyone wearing a fake suicide vest. Don't give them any chance to hurt anyone. |
VVV reply | 04 Jun 2017 2:31 p.m. PST |
In fact anyone wearing a fake suicide vest. Don't give them any chance to hurt anyone. Remember that these people want to die. The fake suicide vests are a way to make that event more certain. Every time you shoot one, you are giving them exactly what they want. |
ITALWARS | 04 Jun 2017 2:33 p.m. PST |
They were not lunatics! |
skinkmasterreturns | 04 Jun 2017 4:13 p.m. PST |
The man saving his pint had the right idea,just as I would dash into my burning home to save my minis. Got to have priorities. |
Grelber | 04 Jun 2017 4:34 p.m. PST |
Things could have been worse. At least the attackers didn't manage to get their hands on guns or explosives! Grelber |
Henry Martini | 04 Jun 2017 5:15 p.m. PST |
Given the effect on the perpetrator of the average suicide bombing I doubt that there are sufficient identifiable remains to defile, SM. |
Supercilius Maximus | 04 Jun 2017 11:13 p.m. PST |
You'd be surprised – apparently they are taught to wear four pairs of underpants in order to protect those part needed for dealing with the however many virgins they are getting. |
Norman D Landings | 04 Jun 2017 11:24 p.m. PST |
Sorry Max, the issue of 'prevention from entering Paradise' has l-o-n-g been sidestepped by apologist clerics. Prima facie, a believer's physical body must be whole and intact in order for them to enter heaven. Obviously, this poses a bit of a problem when it comes to the issue of suicide bombing. The answer? Wahabist clerics have long proclaimed that martyrs are an exception – so holy, they enter paradise automatically at the moment of demise, regardless of what happens to their earthly body. |
Dwindling Gravitas | 05 Jun 2017 5:15 a.m. PST |
|
Vigilant | 05 Jun 2017 9:13 a.m. PST |
The accidental injury of people by police marksmen is the perfect example of why guns should not be readily available to the general public. If highly trained police can miss the criminals, imagine the damage a bunch of half drunk civilians could have done with guns, not to mention if the criminals themselves had easy access to guns rather than knives. The body count would have been much higher. |
Supercilius Maximus | 05 Jun 2017 11:35 a.m. PST |
|
Henry Martini | 05 Jun 2017 6:26 p.m. PST |
I heard an eyewitness report that the police fired on full automatic, so it's no wonder there was 'collateral damage'. Against attackers armed only with knives why would anything more than single-shot be required? |
Guthroth | 05 Jun 2017 11:06 p.m. PST |
Henry: They were shooting at men wearing what looked like suicide vests, so as a Londoner I entirely support the idea of putting as many bullets as possible into them as quickly as possible. Would you risk just firing once and merely wounding someone wearing a suicide vest ? |
Norman D Landings | 05 Jun 2017 11:48 p.m. PST |
Strongly doubt that there was any full-auto shooting – eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable, and AFAIK British police use semi-auto-only firearms. |
deephorse | 06 Jun 2017 1:58 a.m. PST |
A number of officers double tapping simultaneously could well sound like full automatic to the layman. After all, what is their experience of gunfire beyond TV and movies? I've heard the shooting as recorded on the mobile phones of people nearby. The BBC has broadcast it, no doubt others too. It was rapid but not full auto. Hearing what an eyewitness 'said' is not the same as hearing it for yourself, and conclusions should not be drawn from that. |
Supercilius Maximus | 06 Jun 2017 4:38 a.m. PST |
It was also quite common in N Ireland for "ear" witnesses to claim that soldiers had fired far more rounds than they had, or had been firing on full auto, due to the echoes caused by the combination of tall buildings and narrow streets. Seeing the vests would have forced the police to engage at longer range, which would also have diminished accuracy. In reality, you accept minimal civilian casualties to stop folk who are potential suicide bombers. |
martin goddard | 06 Jun 2017 5:09 a.m. PST |
Don't think anyone would believe the police would/could fire on fully automatic! |
Hafen von Schlockenberg | 06 Jun 2017 10:16 a.m. PST |
And popular confusion of "semi-auto" with "auto" is common enough. |
Jcfrog | 06 Jun 2017 11:43 a.m. PST |
link Also as las unofficially stated by French intel people. Vox clamens in deserto. Too many links interests, disconnected with the common good and short sighted. |
Old Glory | 06 Jun 2017 2:15 p.m. PST |
Many people have no ideal the difference between automatic and semi automatic even if they do hear the firing. Regards Russ Dunaway |