Posted on 08/14/2018 1:06:03 AM PDT by Mr Radical
It’s 6 hours
London is 5 hours ahead of NYC. It's 6:00 PM there now. 1:00 PM in NY.
“I wonder what his motive could be. I assume the police are clueless.”
I wonder what kind of “mental illness” this attacker will turn out to have ?
Could be from africa with the refugee people piling into Europe. Frankly I really don’t care about Europes attacks anymore... they brought this on themselves and no turning back now. They wanted the world’s populations dumped into their countries and now they have to deal with it.
Don’t blame the people....blame those who constantly holler they have a mental illness to avoid prosecution...THEY are the ones you need to throw mud at.
Apparently, the Brits need to Dhimmi a little harder. Maybe make some more rape-gang offerings, a few more Sharia courts, etc...
I’m guessing Somali.
Having watched several videos of what happened, the only explanation that comes to mind is “Sudden Jihad Syndrome”. No motive that a rational human being can comprehend. Thank God he was stopped by a well-placed barrier, it could have been much worse; I suspect he was attracted by and aiming for the two cops in high-viz jackets who dodged his car with inches to spare.
Good point.
We shouldn’t have to be vigilant against terrorism.
Non-muslim culture never had to worry about it for hundreds and thousands of years.
There is the subtle implication there that is easy to miss.
Sorry you had to see those terror attacks.
There should be no mercy for those who perpetrate them.
See? Christians do it, too. So get off your high horse and just get used to being vigilant./s
The article clearly states: Several people are injured after car 'intentionally ploughs into cyclists at 50mph'
A car does something and the police arrest the first black man they see.....
Thanks Mr Radical.
“I’m guessing Somali.”
You were close; he’s a Muslim originally from Sudan:
Whether or not that is true, had the same statement been made by another public official in almost any Western country it would not have raised an eyebrow or attracted adverse comment. It would simply have seemed a rather bland statement of the obvious reality, however regrettable that reality might be. True, the syntax was clumsy and laid itself open to misinterpretation, something an experienced politician like Khan would probably have avoided had this been a prepared statement rather than an off-the-cuff in a live radio interview (as this was). But there are plenty of good reasons for suspecting Khan without the need to invent spurious ones.
I’m also sceptical of the notion that a Muslim’s religion necessarily defines his politics. British Muslims come from a wide variety of sects and cultures, many of them (not just Sunni/Shia) mutually hostile. The idea that they form some kind of unified political bloc is pretty far-fetched.
Incidentally, the constant references to Khan by US commentators, often in the most unlikely contexts, does become a little tedious. Perhaps it’s because the political significance of the London mayoralty is assumed to be greater than is the case. There are other Muslims much closer to power. Sajid Javid has a reasonable chance of becoming the next Prime Minister, but I can’t remember his name ever appearing here.
does become = do become. I’m getting too old to do without a post-edit function.
It very likely could have been a trial run.
I looked up several sources' definition of terrorism. Most closely follow the one that comes up when I do a simple web search:
Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Now, one can quibble about what does or does not constitute "unlawful", and / or "political", but, uh, I cannot name a major culture in which terrorism by such a definition has not been a tactic at some point or another "for hundreds and thousands of years". The news of it has just become more widely and quickly disseminated by modern communications.
Was the firebombing of German cities in WW2 "terrorism"? That's a dicey one - it somewhat depends on who you talk to.
Was what Native Americans (and foreign powers backing them) did to some of Daniel Boone's family members, friends, etc., "terrorism"? At the very least it was savagery -- and ol' Daniel & company did a lot of it right back, too. (Reading his diaries is a bit eye-opening.)
Has terrorism in the "West" ramped back up in the last couple decades? Absolutely. But, golly, just an eyeblink in time ago, in my neck of the woods the threat of Native Americans turning me into a reverse porcupine and then scalping me was MUCH greater than the threat of terrorism is today (even if I visit tourist spots in London.)
IMO, complaining that we shouldn’t have to be vigilant against terrorism is sort of like me, living in a rural area, complaining that I should not be vigilant about ticks, what with the spread of tick born diseases. Threats come and go -- todays are lesser than in the past, overall.
That said, I believe the proper gripe against the good Mayor (/s) is that it is foolish at best, and evil if done with realization of consequences, to pursue policies that increase the risk of terrorism, for inane reasons such as often given by libs, and THEN say "we have to be vigilant...".
This will be forgotten too, just like the other attacks by m*slims. And m*slims will continue killing innocents. Those who speak out against the murders will be jailed, and those who encourage them will be praised.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.