Van Slams Into Pedestrians Near London Mosque Leaving "Number Of Casualties", Driver Arrested

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: uncommitted

It was obviously a lot easier to determine this guys motive than people running around with fake explosive vests yelling Allah Akbar.

What we know so far about the Finsbury Park terror attack

Theresa May chaired a meeting of the Cobra emergency committee on Monday morning.

The attack was declared a terrorist incident within eight minutes, she said.

May said that the early assessment was that the attacker acted alone. Security minister Ben Wallace said that the attacker was not known to security services. He added: “We are aware of a rise in the far right”.

8 minutes... this must be a world record for determining a motive. They also came to the conclusion that this guy must be a part of the "far right".

It was declared a terrorist incident because it was a pre-meditated attack directed at a specific target group. I take it you are questioning what 'far right' means in this case? I can't help your lack of knowledge, the only person who can do that is you.

originally posted by: MysticPearl
Biggest problem here is there will be a response by Islamic extremists to this. Expect an attack which kills many.

Start of a civil war. England created this though. At a certain point citizens were going to respond. But the response will only see more bloodshed.

What tripe. Attacks against Muslims have been on the increase for many years, as have attacks on other communities. I'm sure your media of choice would prefer not to detail that too much as it upsets their narrative.

AS AngryCymraeg has written, when the IRA were blowing up civilians in the 70's and 80's the vast majority of people had the sense to know that not every white Catholic was a terrorist.................. seems a lot of people today (and certainly a significant proportion on ATS) are somewhat less intelligent these days.

a reply to: uncommitted

I understand your point completely and I'll repeat that I don't condone violence.
But... When the IRA bombed people they were rightly condemned by the authorities and the media.
We were not blaming the victims for being Eirephobics or vilifying anyone who spoke out against the violence.
Nor was it used as a platform by self promoting, second rate celebrities and their fantasy of Utopia.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: uncommitted

It was obviously a lot easier to determine this guys motive than people running around with fake explosive vests yelling Allah Akbar.

What we know so far about the Finsbury Park terror attack

Theresa May chaired a meeting of the Cobra emergency committee on Monday morning.

The attack was declared a terrorist incident within eight minutes, she said.

May said that the early assessment was that the attacker acted alone. Security minister Ben Wallace said that the attacker was not known to security services. He added: “We are aware of a rise in the far right”.

8 minutes... this must be a world record for determining a motive. They also came to the conclusion that this guy must be a part of the "far right".

It was declared a terrorist incident because it was a pre-meditated attack directed at a specific target group. I take it you are questioning what 'far right' means in this case? I can't help your lack of knowledge, the only person who can do that is you.

Yeah I think you missed his point entirely, I mean, intentionally.

Whenever a muslim attack occurs, you know full well the muslim (or his support team) openly state "we did this because muhammed commands it" or "the quran says it". That's undeniable.

But, you know full well, the immediate response is either "we're unsure of the motive" or even more pathetic, "it's in response to western aggression in the middle east".

But in THIS case, "it's islamophobia" followed quickly by the cries of "anyone opposed to the most hateful, intolerant, bigoted, mysoginist, anti semetic, homophobic, supremacist ideology that has EVER existed (islam), is a racist". Those cries come from the low IQ crowd.

I'm sure his post was just pointing out the WILLFUL IGNORANCE of the liberally-diseased mind.

a reply to: Breakthestreak

Or it simply could be motive is hard to establish. Bottom line is we can't read minds so we have to guess as to the motivation. This involves research which takes time. They have to look in to the persons background and see if there is any associations with say radical Islam. And if the person didn't write there intentions down you have to go on poponderance of the evidence

a reply to: dragonridr

Yeah ok, we'll just ignore the part where they say "you insulted muhammed" and "the quran demands it" or (my personal favourite) "she brought shame to the family by allowing herself to be seen without a viel". Or any number of straight-outta-muhammed's-mouth reasons that these so called "extremists" openly state as their motive.

I mean, it's pretty obvious the only thing that is NOT the motive, is islam itself. Right?

There were a series of threads on /pol/ which rapidly concluded that this was almost certainly an accident, the likely cause people running onto the main road and flagging down the van, the driver of which has made the quick decision to turn off into the dimly lit side street and run over the group attending the collapsed man.



A consideration of the distances involved and lack of any real damage to the van as it came to rest at the bollards within the side street has to conclude that the van can't have been travelling at much more than 20 mph when taking the corner, upon stopping the driver left the van and went toward the victims rather than attempting escape, likely distraught and apologetic.

The Government in this case are actively suppressing the truth and preferring the False narrative in order to rapidly advance their suppression of the internet and the British people in general, all statements involving he said this or did that are unfounded.

London attack was accident part 1

Part 2

Part 3

a reply to: Kantzveldt

Well, word fail me. 4chan used as a cite????
No.
Don't.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I haven't cited anyone those were my own conclusions as well as others, having looked at all the available evidence this was clearly an unfortunate series of events beginning with the man collapsing within the side street.

I will add, that to exploit this incident in the manner they have is utterly obscene, they orchestrate our destruction based upon lies and unfounded speculation of the media, and participate in a grotesque parody of false grief and outrage.

a reply to: Kantzveldt


Seriously? Words fail me too!

a reply to: Breakthestreak

How can you say I've missed the point in my response to a post you didn't write, and then use it as an excuse to go into the familiar rant of the right and then going into the usual sh!te about it all being about 'liberals'.

Grow up or give up, you just come across as a loser.

Can you 4 chan lot stay on your toxic site

a reply to: Kantzveldt

If this turns out to be the case then it will most certainly inflame the current situation.

There were claims of up to three "attackers" which turned out to be false.

There were claims that these "attackers" had knives and people were stabbed. This turned out to be false.

Hmmmm. Now why would the victims of an accident deliberately lie about those things?
What would be gained from that?

I mentioned elsewhere that in today's world of 24 hour, live news it takes, on average, 12 hours for a clear picture to emerge. This 12 hour window allows for all sorts of wild speculation and anyone wishing to propagandise an incident has ample opportunity to poison the waters and a lot of the early speculation is very difficult to undo.

So far today's news (and I haven't seen much) has said that the driver does not appear to have any history of racism or radicalization.

If someone has used this event as a political tool then its absolutely beyond disgusting. Things are bad enough at the moment without people trying to further stir the pot. I'll reserve judgement for now because we do not have all the full facts but we do need to keep an eye on this.
I hope you are wrong but this government is not to be trusted one tiny bit and Mrs May should keep her filthy, lying claws away from the internet.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Yeah that and new labour before them was politically and ideologically slightly right of centre anyway. Still... can't pass up an opportunity to attack the invisible Librools.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Yes very seriously, travelling along the main road he wouldn't even have been aware of the small group attending the man within the side street and certainly couldn't have planned for such, the only question is what caused his decision to turn off the main road and into that sign posted Dead end, the most likely explanation is people running into the road and flagging him down prompting that sudden decision, likely to simply avoid them.

a reply to: Tulpa

Yes they were jumping on any suggestion from the mob that gathered around the incident that conformed to the narrative they were hoping for, deliberate and terrorism related, all of which are unfounded, there will be witnesses that know exactly what caused this but you're not going to hear from them or see the CCTV.

a reply to: Kantzveldt


Well, you are entitled to your opinion. Even if you are a scotch egg short of a picnic!

a reply to: Kantzveldt


Have to say, I don't buy the accident line.

I do think it was deliberate, but more a sort of crazy spree killing thing than actual terrorism. Security services say he wasn't on their radar, so that pretty much guarantees he wasn't a member of any far right group like National Action or (If they still exist) C18 and the White Wolves.

If this was planned, he would never have driven down that dead end street.

a reply to: oldcarpy

All you are saying there is that you prefer to trust the Government and MSM and don't feel the need to look into things yourself, good luck with that.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Not much a crazy killing spree were the only person that died was already collapsed and in need of medical attention, of course that didn't prevent the likes of Corbyn making out this was the greatest tragedy ever to befall humanity.

a reply to: Whereismypassword

This was ATS infiltrating 4chan silly...

a reply to: Kantzveldt


Is that what I am saying? Thanks for letting me know.

Am I a sheep, then?

a reply to: Kantzveldt


I agree with you about the hype.

The fact he didn't kill any more just strikes me as more evidence that he was someone who just lost it one day and went off to try and raise some hell.

Well done for proposing a different thing though, this is a conspiracy site after all, even if the mentally deficient want to call you names for it.