Angry Trump Nazi follower attacks Limeys

Why did this happen? Who is behind it? Three guesses and the first two don’t count. Here is what the narrative will say however: it isn’t the obvious perp for the obvious reason, you mendacious anti-globalist, anti-multiculti racialists! Mind not the coincidence of the date, either

Comments are closed.

  1. InsipiD

    So 4 people are dead in an attack on Britain, because the Muslim terrorists won’t leave anybody alone, and somehow American gun control is the topic?

    Thumb up 0

  2. Hal_10000

    Because the criminal / terrorist had a knife and car instead of a gun, 4 are dead instead of 50+.

    Well, except the last time they attacked London, they killed 50+.  The idea of these car attacks is not death toll; it’s creating fear.

    Awful day.  London is a great city and the British are great people. First time I was in London, I walked across that Bridge to see Big Ben and Parliament. And next time I’m there, I’ll do the same because fuck terrorists.

    Thumb up 2

  3. CM

    Well, except the last time they attacked London, they killed 50+.  

    Be interesting to see if it’s local ‘inspired by’ fuckwits (or fuckwit) again. Glad not to be there in the middle of it this time.

    Thumb up 0

  4. ilovecress

    So 4 people are dead in an attack on Britain, because the Muslim terrorists won’t leave anybody alone, and somehow American gun control is the topic?

    Sorry – that’s my bad, couldn’t resist the bait from WVR

    My old stomping ground. A good friend of mine works in the commons (thankfully he wasn’t there yesterday though)

    Be interesting to see if it’s local ‘inspired by’ fuckwits (or fuckwit) again.

    Reports are that he was already known to counter terrorism, and was a lone actor.

     The idea of these car attacks is not death toll; it’s creating fear.

    The chat amongst my facebook friends right now is how much the Londoners have taken it in their stride, but those outside of London are being more hysterical (I don’t mean that in a pejorative way)

     

    Thumb up 0

  5. AlexInCT *

    Reports are that he was already known to counter terrorism, and was a lone actor.

    From now on that is what they will be more often than not Cress. That’s because multiculturalists are too afraid of saying the dude that talks like a terrorist, walks like a terrorist, and promises to commit acts of terrorism, isn’t really a terrorist. Or something..

    And as Hal pointed out: these guys are not really after body count but out to destroy western civilization through the creation of rampant fear and general paralysis. And so far they are winning, because we refuse to even acknowledge we have a war on our hands…

    Thumb up 0

  6. ilovecress

    Alex I don’t understand what you wrote.

    Are you saying that because ‘Multiculturalists won’t say they’re terrorists’ (whatever that means) we’ll get more lone actors rather than coordinated attacks?

    (Small point – you’re not a terrorist until you commit terrorism. That’s not a multicultural position, it’s the way our society works. So I’m not sure what ‘multiculturalists’ have to do with anything.)

    And the second part. A really good way to spread fear across a civilisation is to declare war on anyone who ‘walks like a terrorist’. It’s also a pretty good way to create more terrorists.

    What in your opinion isn’t being done, that should be being done?

    Thumb up 0

  7. CM

    What should be done is not to give any publicity to these local nutjobs who have decided to use the nutjob cause de jour as an excuse for extreme murderous violence.  Hell don’t even publish their names or their photos. Not all terrorists are the same, and not all acts are the same. When something like this happens we should concentrate on the victims and the heroes and look to see if any security changes are needed. But you can’t stop a lot of this sort of thing happening, you can only ensure that you don’t encourage it (the bombers of 2005 were certainly ‘inspired’ by the invasion of Iraq, for example), and minimise the potential for damage.

    Thumb up 1

  8. CM

    And as Hal pointed out: these guys are not really after body count but out to destroy western civilization through the creation of rampant fear and general paralysis. And so far they are winning, because we refuse to even acknowledge we have a war on our hands…

    No way are they succeeding. Just because you say they are, because it’s convenient for you, doesn’t make it true. ISIS are now close to losing their only main city in Iraq. The odd nutter doing something in a major city is a far cry from foreign well-trained terrorists undertaking going into and carrying out massive attacks throughout the West with abandon. No matter how hard you close your eyes and wish it was the same thing.

    You should get a column in The Daily Mail, Alex, they’d really eat your shit right up.

    Thumb up 0

  9. ilovecress

    So this may or may not be interesting. Obviously I’m a lefty, and a Brit, so all the news I’m getting is from the sources you’d expect. But I listened to Hannity on my way home and it really struck me how different the coverage was. I don’t mean in a ‘fake news’ kind of way or anything like that – more the tone.

    Hannity made it sound way scarier than I had heard it. (Obviously I’m not saying it wasn’t scary, again… tone). He played the statement from the Met that said that although they thought there was only one attacker, Londoners would understand them locking down Westminster to check there weren’t any other threats. Hannity took this as ‘other terrorists might be at large’. He focused a lot on the people in the London Eye (which was locked down) and how terrifying it must have been for them. He went into a huge amount of detail about the knife and the stabbing. Not that he’s wrong, just struck me how different the tone was.

    He also did this weird bit about how “even though he wasn’t meant to say that it was Islamic Terrorism, he was going to tell it like it is”. Like he was standing up against the PC brigade. A lot of “we’re not meant to say this but we all know what type of people do this sort of attack.” The thing is, everyone is saying it was Islam Inspired. Even the police statement said that. He seemed to think that ‘the left’ was too scared to attribute it to Islam (which is, I think what Alex was saying?) but that’s not true. Channel 4 even (incorrectly) named the guy, and his links to hate preachers. He had Farage on, who went out of his way to not say ‘Islam’ – as if someone was stopping him – but honestly, no one is. Everyone was saying it was probably Islam. I thought that was weird.

    The other thing he talked a lot about was about the ‘Islamification’ of the UK, and specifically that this was a result of the ‘no go areas’ in London. Now I’m not going to say he’s incorrect (as a Londoner myself, I don’t know of any Muslim No-Go areas. I mean Brick Lane possibly, but I go there for curry all the time.) – anyway, my point is that it seemed just sort of accepted that UK and Europe are deeply divided and that living there must be some sort of hellscape. But that just isn’t my experience, and to be honest doesn’t factor into my thinking.

    One small thing that I think was really interesting though is the complete absence of any mention of Tobias Ellwood. He was the MP who tried to resuscitate the cop. Not that he’s the most important part of the story, just that my bubble talked about him a lot, and the US bubble didn’t mention him at all. Maybe it’s because when it’s close to home you want to focus on the heroes rather than the horror. But just seemed to me a real illustration about how the narrative played out differently.

    I dunno if I have a huge overarching point of anything – just think it’s useful to hear what media you’re not getting. I definitely heard a lot of phrases I recognised that I hadn’t heard anywhere else apart from here, and a lot of accepted concepts that I would characterise as at least debatable. I’m sure you guys would say similar things if you listened to an hour of Maddow or something.

    Thumb up 0

  10. blameme

    ILC, I think it is really the inherent bias most people have as well as how things, at least to me, are much more PC here.

    First, Hannity is biased strongly that Islamic Terrorism is a huge threat. So, anything that happens regarding that will be “amped up” in tone and response. My guess is you’d find the same things on the left when gun violence erupts somewhere.

    Second, rightly or wrongly, there is a view here in the US that the previous administration not only wouldn’t say Islamic terrorism but would go out of their way to protect Islam when anything happened linked to terrorism. Seemed most press conferences would go – “First, I’d like to say all good Muslims abhor this attack. Second, we’re sorry for the loss of innocent life.”

    But, Hannity is also a loud obnoxious troll who will do what it takes to amp up his audience too. Again, bias. And every side has it depending on their favorite hot button issues.

    Thumb up 0

  11. richtaylor365

    What should be done is not to give any publicity to these local nutjobs who have decided to use the nutjob cause de jour as an excuse for extreme murderous violence.  Hell don’t even publish their names or their photos. Not all terrorists are the same, and not all acts are the same. When something like this happens we should concentrate on the victims and the heroes and look to see if any security changes are needed. 

    Well said. I can’t remember a comment of yours I agreed with [looking up in the air for evidence of flying pigs] but I agree with that. But let’s add a few more things, such as; not flying off the handle  when a terrorist attack happens and crying out for blanket bans of guns, knives or cars, when these instruments are used by the terrorist to kill people. And lets stop making excuses for some cultures’ obstinate  inability to assimilate and expect/demand that when living in whatever country they choose, to respect/obey the laws of the land.

    Cress, I agreed with your comments as well, not so unusual. But remember that initially all the UK reports labeled the attacker as “Asian”, this has been a tried and true tactic to deflect or mask Islamic extremism. Granted that “Asian” has a different connotation here in America then in the UK, there it is used to describe Indian or Pakistani roots, but the UK press do this specifically to avoid the religion of the terrorist and focus on ethnicity for the purpose of ignoring that the perpetrator is Muslim. Some textbook examples of this can be found here and here, this is intentionally done to cloud responsibility, to mitigate it as a problem of culture. By using ethnic descriptors instead of ideological ones, the press actually promotes xenophobia.

    Thumb up 0

  12. ilovecress

    But remember that initially all the UK reports labeled the attacker as “Asian”, this has been a tried and true tactic to deflect or mask Islamic extremism

    This is what I mean about the difference in perspective. I’m not sure why you think it was a tactic to do anything? To what ends?

    The initial report was that it was “an Asian man in his 40’s”.  The reason it was described this way is because that’s what eye witnesses said. Before you find out who the guy is, you’re just guessing at his religion (even if the probability is high). The fact that it was probably Islam inspired was being talked about right from the start. The Muslim Council of Britain put a statement out before the police did.

    With the troubles in the 80’s initial reports probably described them as ‘white men in their 40s’rather than “Irish Men in their 40’s.’(By the way, Martin McGuiness funeral yesterday…. not sure how I feel about that…)

    Thumb up 0

  13. richtaylor365

     I’m not sure why you think it was a tactic to do anything? To what ends?

    Answered in my post, did you read it? Did you look at the 2 examples provided?

    Thumb up 0

  14. ilovecress

    I did read the posts…firstly your two examples are the same example. But I’ll ask what difference saying that they were Muslim would make? As opposed to saying, for instance that they were Rotherham FC fans? Especially when coming from police, ethnicity is a descriptor, religion isn’t (because you can’t see it)

    I’ll rephrase my question. if you think my side is deliberately not mentioning when people are Muslims, and instead using ‘Asians’, why are we doing this? I get that you’re saying it’s to cloud responsibility – but my question is why you think we give a shit about clouding responsibility? I’m not sure what you think we’re trying to achieve.

    Thumb up 0

  15. CM

    Yes Rich I also think you’re seeing a conspiracy here when there is none.

    Difference in perspective, as cress notes. Probably what happened when you came right of the gate complaining about judicial activism in relation to Brexit. In the US that seems to be the knee-jerk to a decision you don’t like. Not so much in the UK.

    Thumb up 0

  16. richtaylor365

     but my question is why you think we give a shit about clouding responsibility?

    Why you don’t give a shit about clouding responsibility is irrelevant, why the UK media and officials wants to cloud responsibility is rather obvious, it is used as a cover to ignore the ideology behind the attack (radical Islam) and focus on ethnicity,  which is harder to link to Muslim extremism. The misplaced PC Obama/Hollande/Merkel model of avoiding to identify the  attackers as proponents and followers of a radical Islamist ideology.

    Hell, even the Sikhs and Hindus living in London are on to their game, hence their complaints in the article provided. They don’t like being placed in the same risk category as the more radicalized Muslims, those doing the attacks. By using the “Asian” ethnic descriptor right out of the box (like they are prone to do) implying that Indians and Pakistani’s are part of the same ideological group is misdirection by design. It’s why the squishy can’t bring themselves to call it what it is, radical Islamic extremism, and it’s why (as my link explained) that the Muslim men involved in the sex trafficking ring were purposefully described as a “network of Asian” offenders by the press. Don’t want to offend anyone.

    Thumb up 0

  17. CM

    Do you have any evidence that the media knew of the perp’s nationality and religious affiliation when they reported him as just ‘Asian’? At least that would make your theory plausible.

    As for this banal ‘PC’ thing…..didn’t you just agree with me about denying the guy coverage? That would be a specific and deliberate strategy for an intended purpose, nothing to do with being politically correct. But when you subscribe to this banal ‘anti-PC’ mentality, it’s obviously difficult (impossible maybe) to consider anything but through that lens.

    Thumb up 0

  18. ilovecress

     it is used as a cover to ignore the ideology behind the attack (radical Islam) and focus on ethnicity,  which is harder to link to Muslim extremism. 

    Yes but my question is why the editors of various UK publications would want to do that. Are you saying that it’s so they don’t offend anyone? What’s the grand plan here.

    And again, they use the descriptor ‘Asian’ the same as they would ‘Black’ or ‘Caucasian’. That’s why they use it right out of the box, because that’s all they have. When they confirmed he was a Muslim, they said he was a Muslim.

    The front page of the Lefty Guardian Newspaper names him and states his conversion to Islam.

    DC Mark Rowley said he was inspired by international and Islamist related terrorism – which was reported by the BBC, ITV and Channel Four

    Teresa May said that it was Islamist inspired in her televised speech to the House of Commons.

    By the way, you’re conflating some things with your link. The case in the article you provided aren’t anything to do with terrorism. It was a case in 2012 that was badly handled by the police (it also wasn’t in London by the way).  It’s only in the aftermath of that case I’ve heard anyone discuss the ‘call them Muslims not Asians’ thing. But I could be wrong.

    In fact, I only really heard the thing about him being named as an Asian man on Facebook in posts where people were complaining that he wasn’t being called Muslim.

    Thumb up 0

  19. richtaylor365

    Yes but my question is why the editors of various UK publications would want to do that

    Again, already answered in above post, no need repeating myself.

    By the way, you’re conflating some things with your link. 

    No conflation, both illustrate a concerted effort by the UK press to portray Muslim men  or an obvious Muslim attack as “Asian”.

    In fact, I only really heard the thing about him being named as an Asian man on Facebook in posts where people were complaining that he wasn’t being called Muslim.

    The Telegraph described him as Asian guy in his 40’s.

    The Daily Star described him as black or Asian male.

    The Daily Mirror -“reportedly Asian in appearance”.

    Google them yourself if not convinced.

    And again, they use the descriptor ‘Asian’ the same as they would ‘Black’ or ‘Caucasian’. That’s why they use it right out of the box, because that’s all they have. 

    Or, they could (and do all the time) focus strictly on outward appearance of ethnicity as a dodge, “Asian”, to broaden out the ethnic label to avoid the impression that this “Asian” guy just might be Muslim after all.

    Again, one might dismiss this tactic as unintentional if it was not used so often in the past.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  20. CM

    I don’t understand how first reports of Asian is anything other than as accurate as its possible to be at the time. It would be irresponsible to go further than the information available. No agenda required.

    Thumb up 0

  21. richtaylor365

    Speaking of squishy;

    When challenged by MP Michael Tomlinson to reject the notion that Khalid Masood was an “Islamic” terrorist, Prime Minister May didn’t hesitate to pop out of her chair in thunderous agreement.

    “I absolutely agree,” she declared. “And it is wrong to describe this as ‘Islamic terrorism.’ It is ‘Islamist terrorism.’ It is a perversion of a great faith.”

    Islamic versus Islamist?

    Tomato, tomahto.

    Seriously?

    At least she didn’t call it “man -made disaster”.

    More on this nonsensical Islamist/Islamic hairsplitting;

    The term “Islamist” is in common use to refer to Muslim individuals and organizations that adhere to Islamic law’s political aspects (most notably its denial of any legitimacy of a separation between religion and the state) and consequently most fiercely oppose America, Israel and the West in general. The implication is that Islam itself, in its authentic form, has no requisite political aspect, and no incompatibility with Western values or democratic government.

    The problem with this is that it is a Western, artificial distinction, imposed by non-Muslims upon the Islamic world and lacking any real substance with reference to Islamic law as it has always been formulated by the Sunni and Shi’ite madhahib (schools of jurisprudence). Islam has always been political, and the union of religion and the state has always been essential to its political program; the idea that all this can and should be separated from Islam proper is the wishful thinking of Western analysts who do not wish to face the implications of the fact that these ideas represent mainstream Islamic thinking.

    Thumb up 0

  22. ilovecress

    What I’m asking is why the UK media would want to

    ignore the ideology behind the attack (radical Islam) and focus on ethnicity,  which is harder to link to Muslim extremism.

    I mean your assertion is that it’s editorial policy to report things in a certain way. Why don’t they want to link it to Muslim extremism?

    Google them yourself if not convinced.

    Telegraph lead article:

    Khalid Masood, 52, was named by Scotland Yard as the Isil-inspired extremist who was shot dead inside the gates of Parliament on Wednesday,

    Daily Star Lead Article:

    Khalid Masood’s ISIS-inspired hit on the country’s capital could spark a domino effect similar to the one felt in France.

    The Daily Mirror Led Article

    The attacker was a 52-year-old dad born in Kent who claimed to be a teacher.

    He had a string of convictions for violent crimes and was a Muslim convert fuelling fears he may have been radicalised in prison.

    This is seriously like a different reality.

    I googled ‘Asian in appearance’ and got a few articles that were published as breaking news, and mainly they were commenting on the photos coming out of the scene – so I’m assuming that the fact that he was Muslim wasn’t yet known.

    Thumb up 0

  23. CM

    Look at Rich’s narrative sources though cress, there aren’t interested in reality. It was obvious from the get-go that he was regurgitating some shit off nutbar blogs.

    Thumb up 0

  24. CM

    Similar to when Rich got his knickers in a massive twist over Michele Obama’s private party, I’ll bet he got that from a similar place.

    Thumb up 0

  25. richtaylor365

    What I’m asking is why the UK media would want to

    Why is May losing her mind over ridiculous Islamist/Islamic hairsplitting comparisons? Why does the UK media portray Muslim sex ring traffickers as “Asians”? Why is Sweden downplaying/hiding its Muslim rape  epidemic? Why are all European countries that accepted massive refugee influxes trying to put a happy face on an obvious problem? Why do you keep asking,over and over, already answered questions? Lots of mysteries out there for those that wish to remain in the dark.

    This is seriously like a different reality.

    Let me get this straight, you claimed that the only source you saw identifying this guy as Asian was from Facebook. I help you out with 3 big time UK papers that initially describe him as Asian, then you come back with revised articles showing that he was  later determined to be ISIL driven, and this is supposed to negate the earlier descriptions of him being Asian and make those magically disappear? Alternate reality indeed.

    Thumb up 0

  26. ilovecress

    Let me get this straight, you claimed that the only source you saw identifying this guy as Asian was from Facebook. I help you out with 3 big time UK papers that initially describe him as Asian, then you come back with revised articles showing that he was  later determined to be ISIL driven, and this is supposed to negate the earlier descriptions of him being Asian and make those magically disappear? Alternate reality indeed.

    Firstly, I just want to be clear for US readers- you can be Asian and Muslim. In fact most Muslims are Asian. We don’t refer to Asian as being Chinese or Korean. In the UK, Asian means Pakistani or Indian. So the reports weren’t revised away from him being Asian. The detail of him being Muslim was added. It’s like initially describing someone as ‘a white male’ and then later reporting that he’s also a Christian.

    My Facebook comment was about how odd it was that lots of people are suddenly talking about this Asian thing – even sharing the same article from 2012 as you did. I re-read it above, and I wasn’t being clear.

    This is what I claim:

    1. All sources initially claim the assailant was ‘Asian looking’. I just checked and this includes Breitbart.com. I claim they describe him this way because all they had to go on was a picture of him looking Asian. You claim that it is because of a media conspiracy to never mention Muslims
    2. As soon as his motives are confirmed, all media sources describe him as ISIL Inspired or Muslim. I claim that this is them reporting facts as they come to light. I’m not sure why you think the media conspiracy to never mention Muslims was dropped so quickly though.

     

    Thumb up 0