Another major (presumably terrorist) incident. Now in Manchester.

[struth]

its not a good idea. they will just take and execute hostages.

[farflungstar]

Perhaps you're right.

[walpurgis]

Another nasty incident. Finsbury Park attack last night. I'm not surprised that something like this has happened. Sooner or later a backlash of some sort was inevitable and there's always some loon or group of loons about who will feel justified in 'taking up the sword' so to speak, in whatever ill judged or irrational manner. I doubt this will be the last occurrence of its kind.

[Marco]

Indeed. However, they're wrongly referring to it as another "terror attack".

What's happened now in Finsbury Park is fundamentally NOT a terror attack, nor was the idiot who carried it out, a 'terrorist'; it was an ill-conceived revenge attack against Muslims (by some unhinged racist loon), in retaliation for the recent [bonafide] terror attacks, committed on various innocent people, by radicalised Muslims.

The two are quite different!

Regardless, however, it's dreadful to see such abominations on humanity taking place again so soon after the last incidents. And I agree, that sadly that won't be the last of it either.

Marco.

[mikeyb]

Put them in front of a jury. The police could have shot them in the leg which they normally do - the area was clear so even if the fake suicide belt was real the worst it could have done was kill the twisted fuckers - which the police kindly did.

I think there's a shoot to kill policy but why?

Have you seen the video where they were shot in London, absolutely no chance of aiming for a leg, in a side street with a raving lunatic running at you with a knife and you kill him as you land on your arse with him almost on top of you.

[Barry]

Indeed. However, they're wrongly referring to it as another "terror attack".

What's happened now in Finsbury Park is fundamentally NOT a terror attack, nor was the idiot who carried it out, a 'terrorist'; it was a revenge attack against Muslims (by some unhinged loon), in retaliation for the recent [bonafide] terror attacks, committed on various innocent people, by Muslims.

Those two things are very different!

Regardless, however, it's dreadful to see such abominations on humanity taking place again so soon after the last incidents. And I agree, sadly that won't be the last of it either.

Marco.

No, it was a 'lone wolf' attack deliberately designed to instil terror into a targeted Muslim community. The Westminster attack was another lone wolf terrorist attack but with no specific target; apart from causing maximum mayhem and harm.

It is to the credit of the Muslim community at Finsbury Park that they were able to apprehend the perpetrator and turn him over to the police, and didn't lynch him there and then.

[walpurgis]

It is to the credit of the Muslim community at Finsbury Park that they were able to apprehend the perpetrator and turn him over to the police, and didn't lynch him there and then.

I suspect that was what he may have been hoping for, in some deluded vision of 'martyrdom' to justify his actions.

[Marco]

No, it was a 'lone wolf' attack deliberately designed to instil terror into a targeted Muslim community.

That may have been the net result, simply by way of his actions. However, I disagree that the scum involved this time was a 'terrorist', in the true sense of the word, certainly in the way of those who act on behalf of ISIS.

He was simply one of the many thousands of abhorrent racists, who sadly populate this country, and who need little excuse to abuse and attack innocent blacks and Muslims. That's rather different from an out-and-out terrorist, acting on behalf of an organised terror group.

It is to the credit of the Muslim community at Finsbury Park that they were able to apprehend the perpetrator and turn him over to the police, and didn't lynch him there and then.

Agreed, although I think he got a good kicking before the police arrived. The murdering vermin deserves a damn sight more than that, and I hope he gets it!

Marco.

[Tim]

I think there's a shoot to kill policy but why?

There is no UK Police 'shoot to kill policy' nor has there ever been. They are trained to shoot to stop, which means aiming for the central body mass, or in certain other circumstances, the head. The likelihood of this action is that they may die. The killers of Lee Rigby didn't die, so no shoot to kill policy, that's media hype and left wing propaganda.

But for goodness sake think about it, aiming to shoot someone in the leg who is marauding around trying to kill people and the firearms officers were likely moving toward them too. Almost impossible to achieve and very likely to fail, putting even more lives at risk. And with that imitation IED vest on they had no other option - just think about the media (and public) fury if armed officers had got there and not stopped them immediately? Also there were other people in the vicinity, some MOP were injured by the firearms action.

UK Police never 'normally' shoot people in the leg, if they have then they have missed.

[walpurgis]

And with that imitation IED vest on they had no other option

Yep. More or less what I said. You can't take chances.