Breaking: Van runs into crowd outside N. London Mosque

[WEATHER53]

For Moslems, terrorism isn't terrorism unless it's directed at Moslems.

Well the sad part is there are good Muslims who want no part of terrorisim, the problem is the " Radical Muslims" who are dragging the good Muslims right down with them because as soon as ppl hear the world Muslim they are all tied to it.

Kind of like the LGBT wants no part of the perverts because if they accept them into it, then that makes all gays look like they're child molesters.

A good Moslem is one following the teachings of Muhammad and fighting in Allah's Cause. Allah's Cause is the domination of the world of the unbelievers. A bad Moslem is an apostate.

yeah, like how many even know that bitch Clinton was in the Muslim Brotherhood, well sisterhood which is " RADICAL" .... those Gov. fks man those pricks need bitch slapped.

The Islamic doctrine is itself radical. Islam is radical. There is no peaceful or moderate Islam.

Thank you and very true
It's not "radical Islam". This is ordinary, everyday, in black print on white pages, Islam carried to it's most radical extent
All read it but only a very few take it literally
That very few are killing lots of people, does not matter how low the percentage is.
By the way, no one has killed proclaiming "United Methodist Church Forever" .
You dopes who defend are blind as to what is right in front of you.That "just a very few " would very much like to convert you by the means necessary . Don't think the Methodists have that calling card .
Staying alive is an American value

 

[MindWars]

This guy is saying what went on :

Kim Dotcom on Twitter

 

[frigidweirdo]

I know when I heard the Flight 93 story I was sickened to my core. How dare those bastards fight back against the Al Qadea muslim terrorists.

They should have all sung John Lennon's "Imagine" and tried to hug it out of the islamic terrorists.

I have no problem with killing terrorists.

So, if you're okay with killing terrorists, how about the killing of US troops who are invading a country, or occupying a country?

That's war and troops get killed in war.

I don't support wars of choice however.

So it's okay if a govt says "Let's go kill some people" because it's war, but it's not okay to fight back to that war if it's not with government troops?

I mean, from a country where having arms to fight against a tyrannical govt is encouraged, to then turn around and say people taking up arms to fight that very same tyrannical govt and its allied governments, is a little hypocritical, don't you think?

Targeting civilians is never ok in my book.

No, neither is it for me.

But you can see here on this forum that people are massively hypocritical. They hate Muslims for doing this that and the other, but they'll defend their own govt and white people from doing the same thing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I know when I heard the Flight 93 story I was sickened to my core. How dare those bastards fight back against the Al Qadea muslim terrorists.

They should have all sung John Lennon's "Imagine" and tried to hug it out of the islamic terrorists.

I have no problem with killing terrorists.

So, if you're okay with killing terrorists, how about the killing of US troops who are invading a country, or occupying a country?

That's war and troops get killed in war.

I don't support wars of choice however.

So it's okay if a govt says "Let's go kill some people" because it's war, but it's not okay to fight back to that war if it's not with government troops?

I mean, from a country where having arms to fight against a tyrannical govt is encouraged, to then turn around and say people taking up arms to fight that very same tyrannical govt and its allied governments, is a little hypocritical, don't you think?

Targeting civilians is never ok in my book.

But here's the philosophical question.

If people have the vote, and they vote for a government, which then takes them to war, how much of a civilian are they?

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

I have no problem with killing terrorists.

So, if you're okay with killing terrorists, how about the killing of US troops who are invading a country, or occupying a country?

That's war and troops get killed in war.

I don't support wars of choice however.

So it's okay if a govt says "Let's go kill some people" because it's war, but it's not okay to fight back to that war if it's not with government troops?

I mean, from a country where having arms to fight against a tyrannical govt is encouraged, to then turn around and say people taking up arms to fight that very same tyrannical govt and its allied governments, is a little hypocritical, don't you think?

Targeting civilians is never ok in my book.

No, neither is it for me.

But you can see here on this forum that people are massively hypocritical. They hate Muslims for doing this that and the other, but they'll defend their own govt and white people from doing the same thing.

Do you pull for both teams at a sporting event?

 

[Coyote]

I have no problem with killing terrorists.

So, if you're okay with killing terrorists, how about the killing of US troops who are invading a country, or occupying a country?

That's war and troops get killed in war.

I don't support wars of choice however.

So it's okay if a govt says "Let's go kill some people" because it's war, but it's not okay to fight back to that war if it's not with government troops?

I mean, from a country where having arms to fight against a tyrannical govt is encouraged, to then turn around and say people taking up arms to fight that very same tyrannical govt and its allied governments, is a little hypocritical, don't you think?

Targeting civilians is never ok in my book.

But here's the philosophical question.

If people have the vote, and they vote for a government, which then takes them to war, how much of a civilian are they?

They are still civilians - you can't parse it like that imo. People vote in governments on a variety of issues. Civilians are still non-combatents.

 

[depotoo]

carl @TKMarx·50m

I don't know if it matters, but I live near there & that is not outside or near the Mosque. Approximately:


Google Mapsgoogle.com





AssedBaig @AssedBaig

Replying to @TKMarx
yep mcb have just confirmed. They're saying it's near the mosque not outside10:36 PM · Jun 18, 2017

carl @TKMarx·32m

Replying to @AssedBaig
Even 'near' is stretching the truth. Will be in Corbyn's Islington North constituency. Will be interesting to see what he says.

 

[Tilly]

If this is a non Moslem attack against this mosque then this is an indication that people are fed up to the point of violence with MOSLEM terrorism. As long as our leadership refuses to do their job and protect our people then we will see more and more of this.

I think things began to change when the filth targeted children and young girls. Well, for normal people, that was one horrendous step too far.
But not for everyone, as this board illustrated.

 

[blackhawk]

I'm thinking all hell is going to break lose in London soon.

Really?

Were you planning a va-cay to Eurostan before today's incident?

Did anything in my post suggest or imply I was?

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, if you're okay with killing terrorists, how about the killing of US troops who are invading a country, or occupying a country?

That's war and troops get killed in war.

I don't support wars of choice however.

So it's okay if a govt says "Let's go kill some people" because it's war, but it's not okay to fight back to that war if it's not with government troops?

I mean, from a country where having arms to fight against a tyrannical govt is encouraged, to then turn around and say people taking up arms to fight that very same tyrannical govt and its allied governments, is a little hypocritical, don't you think?

Targeting civilians is never ok in my book.

No, neither is it for me.

But you can see here on this forum that people are massively hypocritical. They hate Muslims for doing this that and the other, but they'll defend their own govt and white people from doing the same thing.

Do you pull for both teams at a sporting event?

So, are you telling me this is a fucking team sport? No, I'm not going to take sides on this one. I'm taking the side of what is right, what is correct. I don't believe govts should be going around invading for pleasure.

 

[Coyote]

That's war and troops get killed in war.

I don't support wars of choice however.

So it's okay if a govt says "Let's go kill some people" because it's war, but it's not okay to fight back to that war if it's not with government troops?

I mean, from a country where having arms to fight against a tyrannical govt is encouraged, to then turn around and say people taking up arms to fight that very same tyrannical govt and its allied governments, is a little hypocritical, don't you think?

Targeting civilians is never ok in my book.

No, neither is it for me.

But you can see here on this forum that people are massively hypocritical. They hate Muslims for doing this that and the other, but they'll defend their own govt and white people from doing the same thing.

Do you pull for both teams at a sporting event?

So, are you telling me this is a fucking team sport? No, I'm not going to take sides on this one. I'm taking the side of what is right, what is correct. I don't believe govts should be going around invading for pleasure.

That I agree with.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

That's war and troops get killed in war.

I don't support wars of choice however.

So it's okay if a govt says "Let's go kill some people" because it's war, but it's not okay to fight back to that war if it's not with government troops?

I mean, from a country where having arms to fight against a tyrannical govt is encouraged, to then turn around and say people taking up arms to fight that very same tyrannical govt and its allied governments, is a little hypocritical, don't you think?

Targeting civilians is never ok in my book.

No, neither is it for me.

But you can see here on this forum that people are massively hypocritical. They hate Muslims for doing this that and the other, but they'll defend their own govt and white people from doing the same thing.

Do you pull for both teams at a sporting event?

So, are you telling me this is a fucking team sport? No, I'm not going to take sides on this one. I'm taking the side of what is right, what is correct. I don't believe govts should be going around invading for pleasure.

Understood. I was trying to address why people may not be very objective and fair in such matters.

Examples of when govts went around invading for pleasure?

 

[leftwinger]

Police say "this is a major event" uh..........no. Manchester/Paris/Nice were major events.

This is a pin prick. A 0.01%er........no more.

 

[Snouter]

So unbelievable the amount of Darkies in London. Scary. The invasion will hit a few ripples here and there.

 

[frigidweirdo]

carl @TKMarx·50m

I don't know if it matters, but I live near there & that is not outside or near the Mosque. Approximately:


Google Mapsgoogle.com





AssedBaig @AssedBaig

Replying to @TKMarx
yep mcb have just confirmed. They're saying it's near the mosque not outside10:36 PM · Jun 18, 2017

carl @TKMarx·32m

Replying to @AssedBaig
Even 'near' is stretching the truth. Will be in Corbyn's Islington North constituency. Will be interesting to see what he says.

Well, it appears they targeted people leaving a mosque.

 

[leftwinger]

Examples of when govts went around invading for pleasure?

It is obvious the loon is hung up on Iraq. Iraq invaded Kuwait. 7 months of UN negotiations failed so 25 countries forced Saddam Insane out.

In 2001..2002....2003 Hussein refused to comply with UN sanctions. 6 months warnings........he got hit again by many UN approved countries. Crazy man wants to think it was an attack for pleasure. FALSE as usual.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So it's okay if a govt says "Let's go kill some people" because it's war, but it's not okay to fight back to that war if it's not with government troops?

I mean, from a country where having arms to fight against a tyrannical govt is encouraged, to then turn around and say people taking up arms to fight that very same tyrannical govt and its allied governments, is a little hypocritical, don't you think?

Targeting civilians is never ok in my book.

No, neither is it for me.

But you can see here on this forum that people are massively hypocritical. They hate Muslims for doing this that and the other, but they'll defend their own govt and white people from doing the same thing.

Do you pull for both teams at a sporting event?

So, are you telling me this is a fucking team sport? No, I'm not going to take sides on this one. I'm taking the side of what is right, what is correct. I don't believe govts should be going around invading for pleasure.

Understood. I was trying to address why people may not be very objective and fair in such matters.

Examples of when govts went around invading for pleasure?

Iraq. I wasn't meaning literally invading for pleasure, I was meaning when govts invade for no reason other than because they feel like it, like Iraq 2003.

 

[Tilly]

carl @TKMarx·50m

I don't know if it matters, but I live near there & that is not outside or near the Mosque. Approximately:


Google Mapsgoogle.com





AssedBaig @AssedBaig

Replying to @TKMarx
yep mcb have just confirmed. They're saying it's near the mosque not outside10:36 PM · Jun 18, 2017

carl @TKMarx·32m

Replying to @AssedBaig
Even 'near' is stretching the truth. Will be in Corbyn's Islington North constituency. Will be interesting to see what he says.

Yes it didn't happen at the Finsbury Park mosque.

• The white van hit people outside the Muslim Welfare House on Seven Sisters Road. Two witnesses reported seeing three people leave the van.

 

[pismoe]

What the fuck is a mosque doing in England? Or anywhere in the Western World.

It's that whole freedom of religion thing that fascists like you don't understand.

--------------------------------------------------- shouldn't be in the Western world . What is the GAIN for Westerners from a savage religion Bro ??

 

[Tilly]

Twitter
Here is a good video of the attacker

Doesn't look very 'white' to me. Maybe another 'hispanic'