London terror attack

Tools    





Sowing skepticism preemptively, based on literally nothing but the race of the people heading the investigators, is pretty messed up.
Ok I deleted what I wrote.



Sadly, initial reports said only the terrorist was killed, but now we know he murdered two (wounded 3) before he was stopped (initially just by bystanders before police arrived - good show Londoners!).

Some interesting news discussion on the killer's termination by police - apparently he was wearing a mock-explosive vest or belt.

Questions arose: was shooting him on sight the wisest course? If the vest was real it could have had a dead-man's switch: where it explodes if the terrorist loses consciousness or is killed (i.e. takes his thumb OFF of a detonator switch). Or it could be detonated by someone else via radio wave or cell phone.

Police in this case felt the safest bet was that the terrorist did not have any of these more elaborate set ups and would have to detonate the vest manually, so they shot him with no option to surrender.

Turned out they made the right choice (as the vest did not have a dead man's switch) and the wrong choice as the terrorist was no longer a threat since the vest was a dummy (thus loosing a potential source of information, making an example of him by putting him through the justice system or allowing victim's families to carry out justice in other ways, and creating yet another Islamic Terrorist martyr.)

I guess it could be looked at as a deterrent or a warning (possibly to the public as well of what to maybe expect next time): unless your intention is suicide by cop, don't wear a mock explosive vest or come in with one ready to explode if or when they take you down.



What are we suppose to do here? Discuss the "facts" of this attack and reach the same point we reached on all the others? I mean, it's obvious what it's happening, don't you see? It's London people, raining all the time, no beaches, just pubs and fighting, what else would you expect? They eat fish with french fries. Now kidding's aside... I forgot what I was going to say. Oh yeah, this:



What do you mean by that?
In the original post he named the races/heritage of the people tasked with investigating the crime, preemptively implying some kind of bias. I appreciate his willingness to amend the post though.

Just in general I wish everyone were slower to judgment until the facts come in. Seems like the initial reports end up being wrong as often as not.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
In the original post he named the races/heritage of the people tasked with investigating the crime, preemptively implying some kind of bias. I appreciate his willingness to amend the post though.

Just in general I wish everyone were slower to judgment until the facts come in. Seems like the initial reports end up being wrong as often as not.

Just like every shooting in the US.. The first thing people think is "Please don't let it be my group".. I don't even pay attention to these little attacks. More happens in my backyard. But when millions are killed.... crickets. I never see anything on Yemen, Myanmar, Palestine, etc etc.. But 2 killed, and its a post on every message board.



Just like every shooting in the US.. The first thing people think is "Please don't let it be my group".. I don't even pay attention to these little attacks. More happens in my backyard. But when millions are killed.... crickets. I never see anything on Yemen, Myanmar, Palestine, etc etc.. But 2 killed, and its a post on every message board.
I said something similar in another thread, but it's actually perfectly rational: the media coverage corresponds to the unpredictability. When a place is constantly engaged in violent conflict, or someone is called because they live in a war zone, that's expected. There's a clear link between circumstance and result. People die every day and we all have to live life knowing that. What freaks people out, above and beyond our ability to internalize everyday horrors, is when it happens in places we think of as safe, to people who did not live in an unsafe place and did not make some choice (or end up in some circumstance) that they could have foreseen as dangerous.

It's not about the lives, it's about the arbitrariness and unpredictability.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
I said something similar in another thread, but it's actually perfectly rational: the media coverage corresponds to the unpredictability. When a place is constantly engaged in violent conflict, or someone is called because they live in a war zone, that's expected. There's a clear link between circumstance and result. People die every day and we all have to live life knowing that. What freaks people out, above and beyond our ability to internalize everyday horrors, is when it happens in places we think of as safe, to people who did not live in an unsafe place and did not make some choice (or end up in some circumstance) that they could have foreseen as dangerous.

It's not about the lives, it's about the arbitrariness and unpredictability.

I agree, but Myanmar and Yemen have not been involved in wars as far as I can remember. If you watch RT (Russian Today), you'll see the French Yellow Vest protests, but you probably won't see those in Hong Kong. Just like in US history, we never studied about East Timor, but we always heard about mass murder, apartheid, or genocide from our non-allies.



I just heard this - and not sure I got it all correct, so bear with me if I misheard any part of it...

Sounds like irony of ironies - a news report seemed to say the killer was attending a conference on prison reform & prisoner rehabilitation... and he was being held up as an example of successful rehabilitation (how an Islamic Terrorist could change his ways during incarceration and denounce the violence of his ideology and thus secure an early release).
Then, during the conference, this "rehabilitated" terrorist pulls out a knife and goes on a stabbing and killing spree!



Be careful mati, they'll say you're a Putin's bot. Aljazeera and RT are fake news, they're not controlled by the United States propaganda networks, you see. Yemen for instance, everything was okay in recent pre-war years, people that lived from the seas, fisherman's, also shepherds, peaceful people. Now talking history, everything changed in Yemen in 17 December of 2009, the Al-Majalla camp attack. The United States bombed for the first time Yemen, during the night, 82 people killed, 20 were children's, pregnant women's included, they said it was an al-Qaeda camp, no, they first said it was the Yemen government that attacked that camp, the news in the morning, later a local journalist (now dead) spread pictures of U.S. made Tomahawk missiles, then they said it was an al-Qaeda camp. Those who were in the field said you couldn't tell what was human or sheep flesh, everything was mingled, you see, they were shepherds. That's how the Yemen war we now see started. I would post pictures of the carnage, or a video of a young girl, maybe 8-years-old saying she saw her sister screaming without arms, but what for? It happened in Yemen, and they were mere shepherds, no, muslin shepherds, it's different you know.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
Be careful mati, they'll say you're a Putin's bot. Aljazeera and RT are fake news, they're not controlled by the United States propaganda networks, you see. Yemen for instance, everything was okay in recent pre-war years, people that lived from the seas, fisherman's, also shepherds, peaceful people. Now talking history, everything changed in Yemen in 17 December of 2009, the Al-Majalla camp attack. The United States bombed for the first time Yemen, during the night, 82 people killed, 20 were children's, pregnant women's included, they said it was an al-Qaeda camp, no, they first said it was the Yemen government that attacked that camp, the news in the morning, later a local journalist (now dead) spread pictures of U.S. made Tomahawk missiles, then they said it was an al-Qaeda camp. Those who were in the field said you couldn't tell what was human or sheep flesh, everything was mingled, you see, they were shepherds. That's how the Yemen war we now see started. I would post pictures of the carnage, or a video of a young girl, maybe 8-years-old saying she saw her sister screaming without arms, but what for? It happened in Yemen, and they were mere shepherds, no, muslin shepherds, it's different you know.
Yeah, shepherds are great, but Muslim ones? I laugh at the "guilty by association" smears. I chat a bit in the political rooms, and the tribalism makes me sick. It took only one man to force both political parties to do complete 180's on issues that used to define them. Tariffs, trade deals, war, Wall St.... Maybe they hate someone being consistent? Everyone went crazy when I said "If Bernie Sanders doesn't win, I'd rather have Trump" - but they never asked why. Curiosity is key to everything.



Just like every shooting in the US.. The first thing people think is "Please don't let it be my group".. I don't even pay attention to these little attacks. More happens in my backyard. But when millions are killed.... crickets. I never see anything on Yemen, Myanmar, Palestine, etc etc.. But 2 killed, and its a post on every message board.
Little attacks?

That's a bit tasteless.



Just like every shooting in the US.. The first thing people think is "Please don't let it be my group".. I don't even pay attention to these little attacks. More happens in my backyard. But when millions are killed.... crickets. I never see anything on Yemen, Myanmar, Palestine, etc etc.. But 2 killed, and its a post on every message board.
I just realized, as true as this is, the same could be said for the holocaust against Christians (as well as many others: Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, women, children, homosexuals, etc.) at the hands of jihadists that has taken place in the middle east & Africa (and extending into Europe, Asia & Pacific Islands) over just the last two decades.

People have caught wisps of it, but very little coverage and absolutely no taking into account the overall scope: entire villages of Christians in Africa slaughtered where hundreds in one day were literally butchered, hundreds of churches, synagogues & temples destroyed or burnt (sometimes with the congregations inside!), entire school campuses massacred, along with major attacks on super markets, malls, hotels, beaches, museums, theaters, concerts, hospitals, offices, stadiums, airports, subways, trains, buses, boardwalks, etc., leaving untold hundreds of thousands of innocents dead.

The culprit for why we know so little about the true scope of Global Islamic Terrorism is political correctness in the media.

I've heard some pragmatists joke that to give balanced coverage to all the world's major terror attacks carried out by jihadists, you'd need 7 channels devoted to reporting on nothing else but that, 24/7 with updates on new attacks every 10 minutes.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
I just realized, as true as this is, the same could be said for the holocaust against Christians (as well as many others: Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, women, children, homosexuals, etc.) at the hands of jihadists that has taken place in the middle east & Africa (and extending into Europe, Asia & Pacific Islands) over just the last two decades.

People have caught wisps of it, but very little coverage and absolutely no taking into account the overall scope: entire villages of Christians in Africa slaughtered where hundreds in one day were literally butchered, hundreds of churches, synagogues & temples destroyed or burnt (sometimes with the congregations inside!), entire school campuses massacred, along with major attacks on super markets, malls, hotels, beaches, museums, theaters, concerts, hospitals, offices, stadiums, airports, subways, trains, buses, boardwalks, etc., leaving untold hundreds of thousands of innocents dead.

The culprit for why we know so little about the true scope of Global Islamic Terrorism is political correctness in the media.

I've heard some pragmatists joke that to give balanced coverage to all the world's major terror attacks carried out by jihadists, you'd need 7 channels devoted to reporting on nothing else but that, 24/7 with updates on new attacks every 10 minutes.
Your starting point is late... We've been going to war in the Middle East based on lies. Why doesn't anyone say "Christians have killed millions and millions of people?" - because the media is Christian.

Put yourself in their place. Wouldn't you want revenge if your entire country (and every other Arab country) was wiped out, family, friends, everything you know?