Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Shots fired outside Houses of Parliament

easy solution. following the stasi example of 1in 6 being an informer , assign the vetted white christian patriots of this noble island a couple of local muslims to snoop on and we will have full coverage. take that IS
 
I have been a bit surprised ed by the political journalists describing the novel nature of the attack on parliament, didn't the IRA fire mortar shells into the garden of No 10 while Major was there?, no one was killed, iirc, but the intent was there, it may be the brutal nature of this attack, but mortars do horrific damage to their victims as well.
Gunpowder_Plot_conspirators.jpg
 
Fuck. I just saw the footage of the woman being catapulted into the Thames after being hit by that pathetic cunt in the car.
 
Yep. However its a reasonable/obvious guess that Parliament was chosen not because of the number of people who might be killed, but as a symbol of western power. Slightly tasteless speculation, but if you wanted to kill large numbers of people with a car, there are other places where you'd have more victims (football crowds leaving a match for example).

What confuses me slightly about the line of events yesterday was why he ploughed into people in the car as a first step. Obviously it caused the mayhem and murder the bloke intended, but simultaneously reduced his chances of getting inside parliament i.e. however fast he got back from the bridge, the cops would have been alerted that something was going on. It seems he then ran at the cop with a knife - not a gun. He would have known there were armed coups nearby, maybe it was intended to be 'martyrdom by cop' thing rather than a realistic attempt to get at the MPs inside.

There was never any realistic prospect of getting into the chamber. And, if he'd really wanted to kill an MP he only needed to hang around outside. Or turned up at any constituency surgery. This was just the place that would get maximum media coverage and political comment. To spread maximum fear.
 
There was never any realistic prospect of getting into the chamber. And, if he'd really wanted to kill an MP he only needed to hang around outside. Or turned up at any constituency surgery. This was just the place that would get maximum media coverage and political comment. To spread maximum fear.
Yep, just horrific that 40 or so people (and yes, including the cop) had to be part of his murderous theatre. And every time the politicians and journos recycle their mother of parliaments shite they collude with him and take the focus away from the actual victims. In terms of some of the exchanges earlier in this thread about the proper tone to take, outraged cynicism is just about the only way to discuss the whole thing. Politicians reap what they sow, murderous shitbag is happy to play the role - and we end up with TV pundits wanking on about the threats to our democracy/
 
That's so sad and unnecessary that it does make me quite angry. That's traumatising for relatives, it seems so cruel to me.
And it's one of the reasons that I find this practise so repugnant

The whole "tragedy as entertainment" thing annoys me as well.

Saw and elderly lady that had collapsed at a bus stop a couple summers ago. Several people stood around taking cell phone pictures and posting it to social media instead tending to her. Luckily, the ambulance crew rolled up at about this point and shooed them all away.
 
The whole "tragedy as entertainment" thing annoys me as well.

Saw and elderly lady that had collapsed at a bus stop a couple summers ago. Several people stood around taking cell phone pictures and posting it to social media instead tending to her. Luckily, the ambulance crew rolled up at about this point and shooed them all away.

This - but given the ideological, political or religious dimension to such acts the very theatricality of any event, the enactment of disturbance, is of crucial importance.
 
..What confuses me slightly about the line of events yesterday was why he ploughed into people in the car as a first step. Obviously it caused the mayhem and murder the bloke intended, but simultaneously reduced his chances of getting inside parliament i.e. however fast he got back from the bridge, the cops would have been alerted that something was going on....

I'd put good money on it not being part of the plan, but a target of opportunity - you'll recall that 3 of the injured on the bridge were police officers walking back from a commendation ceremony: they'd have been in full uniform, medals jangling and very, very obvious. I'd not be remotely surprised if he clocked them and decided to have a pop on the spur of the moment - he may even have thought they were quite senior officers from the way they were dressed and where they were.

The whole thing was a bit 'happy shopper' as terrorism goes. Not that that helps the kids whose mums or dads didn't go home last night...
 
I'd put good money on it not being part of the plan, but a target of opportunity - you'll recall that 3 of the injured on the bridge were police officers walking back from a commendation ceremony: they'd have been in full uniform, medals jangling and very, very obvious. I'd not be remotely surprised if he clocked them and decided to have a pop on the spur of the moment - he may even have thought they were quite senior officers from the way they were dressed and where they were.

The whole thing was a bit 'happy shopper' as terrorism goes. Not that that helps the kids whose mums or dads didn't go home last night...

Ah explains why the Commissioner is a witness.
 
Tend to agree, something along the lines of the Power of Nightmares thesis, the Adam Curtis film from just after 9/11 - don't agree with his whole thesis, fwiw, but he has a point with how events like this are used by the powerful. In staging this attack just outside Parliament it really is as if the terrorists are colluding with those in power to allow them to present themselves as our protector (in practice of course, I haven't gone all conspiraloon). That seemed to happening even last night as the journos and parliamentary correspondents rattled on about this 'symbolic attack' on the mother of parliaments. Partly that was just about who they were, parliamentary correspondents who were likely to rattle on about stuff like that and happened to be in situ when an attack happened. However, I have a feeling its going to be a major theme in the way '22/3' passes into history.
There doesnt need to be collusion because their politics have a lot more in common than either group would like to admit.
 
I'd put good money on it not being part of the plan, but a target of opportunity - you'll recall that 3 of the injured on the bridge were police officers walking back from a commendation ceremony: they'd have been in full uniform, medals jangling and very, very obvious. I'd not be remotely surprised if he clocked them and decided to have a pop on the spur of the moment - he may even have thought they were quite senior officers from the way they were dressed and where they were.

The whole thing was a bit 'happy shopper' as terrorism goes. Not that that helps the kids whose mums or dads didn't go home last night...

undoubtably - but this shows a *can do* attitude- a lone wanker with a credit card to rent a car and a yearning to go down in the record books can achieve what once would have taken a transit van full of Czech Semtex or a hold of rusty gadaffi sourced hardware to accomplish - its now a free market for horrific acts, entrepreneurial carnage.
 
Don't know, that's sort of what I am asking.
Well, IME, of my last two jobs, nobody ever talked about anything on the news ever, just work, but that was in schools, which tend to narrow people's focuses.
Another job I had, we talked about it all the time, but only cos we worked in a place where news had an impact on what we were doing.
 
Back
Top Bottom