FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Retracing route of London terror attacker

Retracing route of London terror attacker

(1:54) Three people died and at least 40 were injured when an attacker drove a car at speed along a pavement in Westminster, London. He then stabbed a policeman and was shot dead in the grounds of the Houses of Parliament. Islamic State claimed responsibility.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (211 days ago)

Of course the sensible thing to do would be to ban all cars because it's now known they can be used as a weapon to kill and injure many people. Also, ban knives because the policeman was stabbed with one. What surprises me is that he was shot dead with a weapon people in the UK want banned.

This isn't an isolated case of someone driving a vehicle to kill many people.

ReplyVote up (101)down (83)
Original comment

Of course the sensible thing to do would be to ban all cars because it's now known they can be used as a weapon to kill and injure many people. Also, ban knives because the policeman was stabbed with one. What surprises me is that he was shot dead with a weapon people in the UK want banned.

This isn't an isolated case of someone driving a vehicle to kill many people.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (211 days ago)

Really, is that what surprises you?

What surprises me is that when something like that happens in the UK, it is instantly international headline news. Meanwhile in Rothschild, WI, in just one of the many shootings in the USA on the same day as the London attack, the same number of people were shot dead by an attacker. That hardly makes the news in Wisconsin, let alone abroad.

The last 2 terrorist attacks in the USA had the same death toll as every terrorist attack in the UK since 2005 combined, including last Wednesday. But I'm sure guns have nothing to do with it.

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

Really, is that what surprises you?

What surprises me is that when something like that happens in the UK, it is instantly international headline news. Meanwhile in Rothschild, WI, in just one of the many shootings in the USA on the same day as the London attack, the same number of people were shot dead by an attacker. That hardly makes the news in Wisconsin, let alone abroad.

The last 2 terrorist attacks in the USA had the same death toll as every terrorist attack in the UK since 2005 combined, including last Wednesday. But I'm sure guns have nothing to do with it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (211 days ago)

Comparing results of a country with over 300 million citizens to one that only has 64 million is a bit crazy. It would be like comparing the number of deaths caused from old age is higher in the USA than in the UK so we should do something about that.

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

Comparing results of a country with over 300 million citizens to one that only has 64 million is a bit crazy. It would be like comparing the number of deaths caused from old age is higher in the USA than in the UK so we should do something about that.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (211 days ago)

No - I wasn't comparing totals, I was comparing the number of fatalities per incident.

Just because a country has a higher population, it doesn't mean that each terrorist incident should have a higher number of casualties, right?

Looking at it another way, the last 8 terrorist incidents in the USA had a mean fatality count of 6.9. The average in the UK over 8 attacks was 1.3.

And I'm being generous here by only including terrorist attacks, rather than the shootings and murders the USA has on daily basis that regularly have a worse fatality count than the Westminster attack.

ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment

No - I wasn't comparing totals, I was comparing the number of fatalities per incident.

Just because a country has a higher population, it doesn't mean that each terrorist incident should have a higher number of casualties, right?

Looking at it another way, the last 8 terrorist incidents in the USA had a mean fatality count of 6.9. The average in the UK over 8 attacks was 1.3.

And I'm being generous here by only including terrorist attacks, rather than the shootings and murders the USA has on daily basis that regularly have a worse fatality count than the Westminster attack.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (211 days ago)

You're being disingenuous. We're not trying to compare total deaths by firearm - rather than per capita.

LINK says you're 10 times more likely to be killed by a gun than people in other developed countries.

LINK says the odds of being killed by a gun in Japan are the same as being killed by lightning in the USA

You cannot deny more people per million are shot in the USA compared with countries with strict gun control (and are not at war, so don't look up stats for Syria)

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

You're being disingenuous. We're not trying to compare total deaths by firearm - rather than per capita.

LINK says you're 10 times more likely to be killed by a gun than people in other developed countries.

LINK says the odds of being killed by a gun in Japan are the same as being killed by lightning in the USA

You cannot deny more people per million are shot in the USA compared with countries with strict gun control (and are not at war, so don't look up stats for Syria)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (211 days ago)

Did you look up the stats for Columbia and Venezuela where guns are illegal and compare that to Isreal where guns are legal? That will prove that it has nothing to do with the number of guns owned per capita and if they are legal or not.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

Did you look up the stats for Columbia and Venezuela where guns are illegal and compare that to Isreal where guns are legal? That will prove that it has nothing to do with the number of guns owned per capita and if they are legal or not.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (210 days ago)

Do you really think it would prove that? Or would it prove that actually, access to weapons is only one factor, albeit a very significant one? Perhaps the general state of security, the sophistication of crime agencies and whether the country has armed terrorist groups like FARC in operation, all might be kind of important too?

But bearing in mind (I would hope) that USA has fairly rigorous security measures, it's hard to find the excuses that Columbia and Venezuela have without involving your access to guns. The very fact that you have to compare yourself to places like that in order for your fatality figures to look respectable should tell you a lot.

The undeniable, indisputable, painfully obvious fact is, that terrorist attacks involving just knives or bladed weapons on average kill far fewer than attacks with firearms.

If you disagree, tell us why you think the average fatality count per terrorist incident is lower in the UK than in USA.

ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment

Do you really think it would prove that? Or would it prove that actually, access to weapons is only one factor, albeit a very significant one? Perhaps the general state of security, the sophistication of crime agencies and whether the country has armed terrorist groups like FARC in operation, all might be kind of important too?

But bearing in mind (I would hope) that USA has fairly rigorous security measures, it's hard to find the excuses that Columbia and Venezuela have without involving your access to guns. The very fact that you have to compare yourself to places like that in order for your fatality figures to look respectable should tell you a lot.

The undeniable, indisputable, painfully obvious fact is, that terrorist attacks involving just knives or bladed weapons on average kill far fewer than attacks with firearms.

If you disagree, tell us why you think the average fatality count per terrorist incident is lower in the UK than in USA.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (211 days ago)

Hah! Bob, you beat me to it!

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

Hah! Bob, you beat me to it!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (211 days ago)

Glad to see you're finally getting on board the green agenda and agree banning cars is a good idea because they kill so many people.

It's not true to say Brits want to ban guns - the law is that you cannot own one without a licence.

Would you think it a good idea for any half-wit to be able to walk into Walmart and buy land-mines, hand-grenades or SAM missiles whenever it took their fancy? Well, I'd say most people over here feel the same way about gun ownership.

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

Glad to see you're finally getting on board the green agenda and agree banning cars is a good idea because they kill so many people.

It's not true to say Brits want to ban guns - the law is that you cannot own one without a licence.

Would you think it a good idea for any half-wit to be able to walk into Walmart and buy land-mines, hand-grenades or SAM missiles whenever it took their fancy? Well, I'd say most people over here feel the same way about gun ownership.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (211 days ago)

Although each state varies regarding licensing, one thing in common federally is that you cannot buy a gun from Walmart without going through a background check. Walmart does not sell land-mines, hand grenades, or SAM missiles.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

Although each state varies regarding licensing, one thing in common federally is that you cannot buy a gun from Walmart without going through a background check. Walmart does not sell land-mines, hand grenades, or SAM missiles.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (211 days ago)

I'm pleased to hear Walmart doesn't sell such weaponry - presumably because they (and you) agree it's good to keep highly dangerous weapons under control.

Or do you think it would be a good idea for half-wits to buy hand-grenades even with a background check?

ReplyVote up (101)down (87)
Original comment

I'm pleased to hear Walmart doesn't sell such weaponry - presumably because they (and you) agree it's good to keep highly dangerous weapons under control.

Or do you think it would be a good idea for half-wits to buy hand-grenades even with a background check?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (211 days ago)

Interesting how you try to change the subject from actual mass murder devices terrorists are using such as cars and knives to land minds, SAM missiles, and grenades.

ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment

Interesting how you try to change the subject from actual mass murder devices terrorists are using such as cars and knives to land minds, SAM missiles, and grenades.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (211 days ago)

<sidesteps question altogether>

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

<sidesteps question altogether>

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (211 days ago)

What? Have you turned into Mad?

I was talking about landmines and grenades because I thought we could both agree it's a bad idea to sell them to the general public.I would extend that thought to include guns.

What point do you think we're discussing here?

ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment

What? Have you turned into Mad?

I was talking about landmines and grenades because I thought we could both agree it's a bad idea to sell them to the general public.I would extend that thought to include guns.

What point do you think we're discussing here?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (211 days ago)

The poor libtard fumduck standard distraction technique when they are overwhelmed by an argument . We the educated people see through it and always have done .

Roll on the elections.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

The poor libtard fumduck standard distraction technique when they are overwhelmed by an argument . We the educated people see through it and always have done .

Roll on the elections.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Jackson (211 days ago)

This is a tragedy and our innocent people have (again) been murdered by madmen! We are now calling them evil, predicable and cowards! However, Before we had the war on terror, we did not have these fears.

US and NATO actions have killed from the air, HUNDREDS of thousands of CIVILIANS, total innocents, men women and children while sleeping or at weddings and funerals or even out shopping or playing. We have misplaced tens of millions of people and left their countries in rubble! After having pissed off so many people who want revenge at all costs, maybe, the World would be a safer place if we let them live in their own Countries without us intervening? If our leaders are not happy with a kill ratio of approximately 8,000 to 1 - maybe, then, it would be better to stop these interventions. However, we better not hold our breath, as our leaders Continue to further provoke countries like China and Russia.

ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment

This is a tragedy and our innocent people have (again) been murdered by madmen! We are now calling them evil, predicable and cowards! However, Before we had the war on terror, we did not have these fears.

US and NATO actions have killed from the air, HUNDREDS of thousands of CIVILIANS, total innocents, men women and children while sleeping or at weddings and funerals or even out shopping or playing. We have misplaced tens of millions of people and left their countries in rubble! After having pissed off so many people who want revenge at all costs, maybe, the World would be a safer place if we let them live in their own Countries without us intervening? If our leaders are not happy with a kill ratio of approximately 8,000 to 1 - maybe, then, it would be better to stop these interventions. However, we better not hold our breath, as our leaders Continue to further provoke countries like China and Russia.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (211 days ago)

Here here.

The "terrorist" attacks in the west are a reaction to western foreign policies.

ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment

Here here.

The "terrorist" attacks in the west are a reaction to western foreign policies.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (211 days ago)

I think western foreign policy is the excuse that Islamists use to recruit and give themselves a purpose. That's not to say I support western foreign policy, but if it was limited to foreign aid, Islamists would find another reason to kill anyone who thinks different to them - and that includes moderate Muslims.

To say "The "terrorist" attacks in the west are a reaction to western foreign policies" suggests that western foreign policy is the core problem, whereas I think religion is the core problem.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

I think western foreign policy is the excuse that Islamists use to recruit and give themselves a purpose. That's not to say I support western foreign policy, but if it was limited to foreign aid, Islamists would find another reason to kill anyone who thinks different to them - and that includes moderate Muslims.

To say "The "terrorist" attacks in the west are a reaction to western foreign policies" suggests that western foreign policy is the core problem, whereas I think religion is the core problem.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (210 days ago)

LINK

Skim through section 2.3 of this DoD report from 2004. Although it's a few years old it's still highly relevant.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

LINK

Skim through section 2.3 of this DoD report from 2004. Although it's a few years old it's still highly relevant.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Jackson (210 days ago)

I agree with you to a point. In India there was nearly 700 years of peace, under Muslim rule, until the British went there. In the first 3 years, 50 million Indians starved to death. Shortly thereafter, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus were divided. There was also 200 years of the Crusades that almost destroyed the Muslims. In the Middle East, all religions lived in relative peace, until the Western policies have turned them against each other. The same has happened in China, Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Bosnia All places where the Western policies have sought to divide and conquer, leaving behind Centuries of animosity amongst populations. In the last 15 years, under various excuses, we have brought war to at least 7 countries that lie in rubble.

It is not the citizen in the West, that has done this - it is our leaders who follow a policy of global population management. As the populations of, Africa, Asia and Russia can suddenly outgrow western influence. But if the West had not caused them a millennia of decimation of their population
Maybe they would look to us kindly.

This is just being portrayed as a religious war, when in reality it is a war against humanity. History will judge us very badly - any way we will write it!

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

I agree with you to a point. In India there was nearly 700 years of peace, under Muslim rule, until the British went there. In the first 3 years, 50 million Indians starved to death. Shortly thereafter, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus were divided. There was also 200 years of the Crusades that almost destroyed the Muslims. In the Middle East, all religions lived in relative peace, until the Western policies have turned them against each other. The same has happened in China, Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Bosnia All places where the Western policies have sought to divide and conquer, leaving behind Centuries of animosity amongst populations. In the last 15 years, under various excuses, we have brought war to at least 7 countries that lie in rubble.

It is not the citizen in the West, that has done this - it is our leaders who follow a policy of global population management. As the populations of, Africa, Asia and Russia can suddenly outgrow western influence. But if the West had not caused them a millennia of decimation of their population
Maybe they would look to us kindly.

This is just being portrayed as a religious war, when in reality it is a war against humanity. History will judge us very badly - any way we will write it!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (210 days ago)
Latest comment:

Peaceful ??. The moghul emperors were despotic and extremely cruel , and the British simply pushed them over, often with the help of the people, they were ready to topple..The British introduced a long lasting legacy government and law reform on which the modern state of India is based.

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment
Latest comment:

Peaceful ??. The moghul emperors were despotic and extremely cruel , and the British simply pushed them over, often with the help of the people, they were ready to topple..The British introduced a long lasting legacy government and law reform on which the modern state of India is based.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (211 days ago)

Amen.

ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment

Amen.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Harvey Weinstein body language
Harvey Weinstein body language
Ane Brun - Halo (Beyonce cover)
Ane Brun - Halo (Beyonce cover)
Raccoon's once-in-a-lifetime experience
Raccoon's once-in-a-lifetime experience
I wanted to do something inspirational for my children
I wanted to do something inspirational for my children
Gwyneth Paltrow on Harvey Weinstein (1998)
Gwyneth Paltrow on Harvey Weinstein (1998)