Breaking: Vehicle Plows into Pedestrians in London

 

The first report from the BBC:

A vehicle has struck pedestrians “leaving a number of casualties” in north London, police said. One person has been arrested following the incident on Seven Sisters Road in Finsbury Park.

Officers were called at 12.20 BST and are at the scene with other emergency services, the Metropolitan Police said. A London Ambulance Service spokesman said: “We have sent a number of resources to an incident in Seven Sisters Road.”

Early reports indicate that the vehicle struck people leaving the Finsbury Park mosque, which has been implicated in several terror incidents. It remains to be seen if this an attack of retribution.

Update from the BBC (6:50 pm ET):

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said a van “intentionally” ran over worshippers. Many of the victims are believed to have just left evening prayers after breaking the Ramadan fast.

One eyewitness who lives in a flat on Seven Sisters Road told the BBC she saw people “shouting and screaming”.

“Everyone was shouting ‘a van’s hit people’.

“There was this white van stopped outside Finsbury Park Mosque that seems to have hit people who were coming out of the mosque after prayers finished.”

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 131 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Matt White (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Matt White (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    ‘Every time there’s a terrorist attack in the West we should bomb a city in the Muslim world. That’d put a stop to them.’ ‘That doesn’t seem to have worked in the past,…

    This implies that it’s been tried. It really hasn’t.

    Iraq and Afghanistan were something else?

    Yes. W’s idea was to rebuild dangerous nations into free western-style republics. The suggestions you referenced are about destroying cities to provide a disincentive against terrorism. They didn’t have rebuilding in mind. Just drop some bombs and hope the message gets through.

    Oh I get it – brutal, but it absolutely works if you know who is responsible for attacking you and where their community is located.

    Israel has done this with Hezbollah by destroying Lebanon a few times – it’s kept the border relatively quiet.  But that was possible because the link between Hezbollah and Lebanon is so clear and real.  If Israel had bombed a random Muslim city – say Cairo or Amman or Riyadh – it would be unlikely to have affected Hezbollah’s actions.  The connection would be lacking.

    • #121
  2. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Matt White (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Matt White (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    ‘Every time there’s a terrorist attack in the West we should bomb a city in the Muslim world. That’d put a stop to them.’ ‘That doesn’t seem to have worked in the past,…

    This implies that it’s been tried. It really hasn’t.

    Iraq and Afghanistan were something else?

    Yes. W’s idea was to rebuild dangerous nations into free western-style republics. The suggestions you referenced are about destroying cities to provide a disincentive against terrorism. They didn’t have rebuilding in mind. Just drop some bombs and hope the message gets through.

    Because terrorists never come from war torn areas with a grudge against America.

    • #122
  3. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Well it certainly assumes no resolution of issues but rather focuses on managing an on-going conflict.

    • #123
  4. Matt White Member
    Matt White
    @

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Oh I get it – brutal, but it absolutely works if you know who is responsible for attacking you and where their community is located.

    That’s a point in favor of W’s strategy.

    Afghanistan had the connections, but not the big targets.

    • #124
  5. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Matt White (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Oh I get it – brutal, but it absolutely works if you know who is responsible for attacking you and where their community is located.

    That’s a point in favor of W’s strategy.

    Afghanistan had the connections, but not the big targets.

    That assumed that the Taliban Government was willing and able to control Alqaida. They may have been willing (?) but I don’t think they were able – and Alqaida was quite okay with sacrificing Afghanistan (and Pakistan).

    It’s like asking Iraqis to depose Saddam and avoid the country being destroyed by war.  Many of them were doubtless willing, but they were utterly incapable.

    These aren’t reasonable things to ask and expect because they’re based on unrealistic assumptions.

    • #125
  6. Matt White Member
    Matt White
    @

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Matt White (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Oh I get it – brutal, but it absolutely works if you know who is responsible for attacking you and where their community is located.

    That’s a point in favor of W’s strategy.

    Afghanistan had the connections, but not the big targets.

    That assumed that the Taliban Government was willing and able to control Alqaida. They may have been willing (?) but I don’t think they were able – and Alqaida was quite okay with sacrificing Afghanistan (and Pakistan).

    It’s like asking Iraqis to depose Saddam and avoid the country being destroyed by war. Many of them were doubtless willing, but they were utterly incapable.

    These aren’t reasonable things to ask and expect because they’re based on unrealistic assumptions.

    That’s a factor in Afghanistan not having the targets. It’s not a new strategy, it’s just difficult to apply to our current enemies.

    The later bombing runs on Japan, nukes and the conventional bombing of Tokyo worked on the same idea. Hit them hard so they give up. In that case we went in for occupation and rebuilding, but that was after an unconditional surrender.

    The end of the civil war had some similarities. They didn’t have the remote bombing capabilities, but the union army destroyed a lot of infrastructure in the lead up to surrender.

    Reagan’s attack on Libya was exactly this strategy.

    • #126
  7. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Because terrorists never come from war torn areas with a grudge against America.

    That’s why borders and immigration control.

    • #127
  8. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Matt White (View Comment):

    That’s a factor in Afghanistan not having the targets. It’s not a new strategy, it’s just difficult to apply to our current enemies.

    Quite.

    The later bombing runs on Japan, nukes and the conventional bombing of Tokyo worked on the same idea. Hit them hard so they give up.

    In all the examples you gave there was  a coherent ‘them’, who control a ‘homeland’ that can be threatened to make them do what you want.

    That’s not the case with Alqaida.

    Take 9/11 – most of the people flying the planes were from Saudi.  Would bombing Saudi have dissuaded them? No – they bombed Saudi some themselves.  Would bombing Afghanistan do the job? No, they didn’t care about Afghanistan.

    I do follow the logic, I just think there’s a gap in the reasoning – people assume a coherent monolith when there isn’t one.

    • #128
  9. Matt White Member
    Matt White
    @

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Matt White (View Comment):

    That’s a factor in Afghanistan not having the targets. It’s not a new strategy, it’s just difficult to apply to our current enemies.

    Quite.

    The later bombing runs on Japan, nukes and the conventional bombing of Tokyo worked on the same idea. Hit them hard so they give up.

    In all the examples you gave there was a coherent ‘them’, who control a ‘homeland’ that can be threatened to make them do what you want.

    That’s not the case with Alqaida.

    Right, it’s more complicated without a State as an enemy.  ISIS may qualify eventually.

    Take 9/11 – most of the people flying the planes were from Saudi. Would bombing Saudi have dissuaded them? No – they bombed Saudi some themselves. Would bombing Afghanistan do the job? No, they didn’t care about Afghanistan.

    This isn’t really in dispute.

    I do follow the logic, I just think there’s a gap in the reasoning – people assume a coherent monolith when there isn’t one.

    Not really. People know we aren’t going to get all the terrorists in one targeted strike. The strategy doesn’t really need a monolith, and I don’t think people were claiming it would end all terrorism. It doesn’t require a nation to actually support the terrorists. If they allow people in their territory to attack foreign nations, then they are culpable. Afghanistan clearly qualified. Pakistan probably did to some degree also. My impression is that the cooperated on some leve, but held back.

    Applying this idea to Afghanistan would have meant not bothering trying to pick Afghanis to ally with, rather just bomb anything associated with the taliban or Al-qaeda and don’t bother trying to rebuild or set up a new government.

     

    • #129
  10. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    I don’t think the Afghan or Pakistani Governments are capable of stopping anything.

    • #130
  11. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Take 9/11 – most of the people flying the planes were from Saudi. Would bombing Saudi have dissuaded them?

    It would have persuaded the Saudi’s not to fund them or give them covert support anymore.

    • #131
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.