2017 Westminster attack

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Westminster_attack
The 2017 Westminster attack was a suspected terror attack that occurred on 22 March 2017 on Westminster Bridge, in Parliament Square and within the grounds of the Palace of Westminster in central London. A four-wheel drive vehicle was driven into a crowd of people near the palace gates, and an attacker stabbed people, at least one of them being a police officer. Two people—one woman and one police officer—are confirmed[citation needed] to be dead.[2][3][4][5][6]
Content from External Source
 

tadaaa

Senior Member
the news reports initially reported on the identity of the attacker that was shot (in the parliament grounds)

only to row back when it was pointed out he was still in prison - so the identity has not been released yet

my wife was in west London today!!

when I am there (I have an office just of Victoria Street) I am always aware of the rogue car attack

sad news and thoughts to everyone injured / killed
 

Henk001

Senior Member.
They're easy enough to find. Just Google 'Westminster Attack False Flag'. Make sure you're holding your nose when you do, though.
Still wondering WHY do all terrorist attacks have to be false flags in a CT-mind? What is it in their world view that makes genuine terrorist attacks impossible? Or: Is it a way of showing that you are more clever than the rest of the world?
Or is it a kind of hobby?
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
Terrorist attacks show that TPTB can't excercise complete control. If TPTB don't have complete control most CTs become impossible to conceal. Ergo, since CTs remain concealed (to CTs beliefs) and terrorist attacks happen, the attacks must be allowed or made to happen to further an agenda.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Still wondering WHY do all terrorist attacks have to be false flags in a CT-mind? What is it in their world view that makes genuine terrorist attacks impossible? Or: Is it a way of showing that you are more clever than the rest of the world?
Or is it a kind of hobby?
This site has covered the reasons people believe/enjoy CTs at length, so I won't re-hash.

I think once one has accepted the dubious theories of evil motives driving supposed "false flag" operations,
it's just kind of auto-pilot from there: It's easier to classify every new event as a false flag,
and doing so has the bonus benefit of "proving" right all your declarations that previous events were fake. :oops:
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
There are a few reasons why people are calling a false flag e.g. to cover up GCHQ bugging Trump by burying it in other news

http://www.theeventchronicle.com/lo...ged-change-british-conversation-gchq-scandal/
Given the hard evidence that now exists that proves that Donald Trump’s Trump Tower headquarters has been “wiretapped” for many years, especially during the entire 2016 presidential election cycle, there is now a Congressional mandate to ferret out the facts. All of that evidence now points directly to the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).
Content from External Source
The main reason many state appears to be fear mongering with TPTB upping the ante. This reason for a false flag never seems to make sense, at least from a British perspective, as the event usually has the opposite effect. This has been seen before during the IRA's campaign on the mainland which just seemed to bring the public together.
 

Curly

New Member
The motivation for the attack is suspected by authorities to be Islamic extremism, Yet there has been no news or confirmation that he was a radicalized islamic terrorism, it seems so far he was just an angry individual..
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
The motivation for the attack is suspected by authorities to be Islamic extremism, Yet there has been no news or confirmation that he was a radicalized islamic terrorism, it seems so far he was just an angry individual..

Well, one could ask if there is a difference between an angry Muslim or a radicalised Muslim? So far there has been little information released about any radicalisation, but it does seem that he led a troubled life and used violence often.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Well, one could ask if there is a difference between an angry Muslim or a radicalised Muslim? So far there has been little information released about any radicalisation, but it does seem that he led a troubled life and used violence often.
I once had a conversation with an RUC officer in a similar vein. I was calling an IRA guy an IRA c@$t and the officer said "No this guy is just a c@$t. He uses the IRA as an excuse to be a c..."
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I have a question that maybe the Brits here can help with, this is listed as a terrorist attack, but is there any evidence that he intended it to be such an attack? If he had not been a Muslim would it still be called a terrorist attack?
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
Good question. The authorities were careful NOT to jump to conclusions at the time and didn't name the killer for a few days. it is listed as a terror attack but not as an ISLAMIST terror attack.
HOWEVER, if he had not been brown and Muslim, then it might well not have been called a terror attack. The 2010 Cumbria shootings by Derrick Bird are listed as a killing spree rather than a terror attack.
Maybe it's because Parliament was involved.
Looking on the BBC website, they definitely called the Cumbria shootings a rampage, but have used the term terror attack for Westminster but not always. Sometimes it's just Westminster attack.

As far as I have read, the killer has been a very polite friendly person who completely loses it from time and has a history of violent crime. at some point he converted to Islam but he doesn't seem to have ever been under any investigation as part of any network like Al Qaeda or ISIS. He certainly appears to have acted alone and the police have no idea why he did this.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
but he doesn't seem to have ever been under any investigation as part of any network
the wiki page says he was a peripheral suspect at one point. although I haven't tried to verify this.
In 2010, Masood was a peripheral figure in an MI5 investigation.[60] This was reportedly due to his links with a group of Islamists who plotted to bomb a Territorial Army base in Luton. Following a risk assessment, MI5 decided he did not pose a threat.[61] The Metropolitan Police said he was not the subject of any current investigations and there was no prior intelligence about his intent to mount a terrorist attack.[62] He had not been convicted of any terrorism offences.[63]
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Westminster_attack
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I have a question that maybe the Brits here can help with, this is listed as a terrorist attack, but is there any evidence that he intended it to be such an attack? If he had not been a Muslim would it still be called a terrorist attack?
The Met Police have been careful in what they say in so far it is a lone wolf terror attack, namely as IS have said he was one of their soldiers. The police usually avoid the term terror attack unless there is a definitive link to a terror group.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
the wiki page says he was a peripheral suspect at one point. although I haven't tried to verify this.
In 2010, Masood was a peripheral figure in an MI5 investigation.[60] This was reportedly due to his links with a group of Islamists who plotted to bomb a Territorial Army base in Luton. Following a risk assessment, MI5 decided he did not pose a threat.[61] The Metropolitan Police said he was not the subject of any current investigations and there was no prior intelligence about his intent to mount a terrorist attack.[62] He had not been convicted of any terrorism offences.[63]
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Westminster_attack
I had heard he was a peripheral figure in one investigation but never found anything further.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Thanks

I can see a lot of way that one could come under some suspicion, like attending the same mosque
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I have a question that maybe the Brits here can help with, this is listed as a terrorist attack, but is there any evidence that he intended it to be such an attack? If he had not been a Muslim would it still be called a terrorist attack?
One such attack happened last night (around midnight) 19th June.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40323769

A van drove into a crowd near a mosque after prayers and the driver was white. From the off the police stated they were treating it as a terrorist incident
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
One such attack happened last night (around midnight) 19th June.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40323769

A van drove into a crowd near a mosque after prayers and the driver was white. From the off the police stated they were treating it as a terrorist incident
although certain scummy rags called him a white van driver and mentioned that Abu Hamsa used to preach outside this mosque. as if that was actually linked in some way.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
although certain scummy rags [...] mentioned that Abu Hamza used to preach outside this mosque. as if that was actually linked in some way.
Is it not? Abu Hamza (and others) made it the most famous and oft-reported mosque in the country. The van driver went about four hours out of his way to get there. It's probably the only mosque most people have heard of.
 
Last edited:

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Is it not? Abu Hamza (and others) made it the most famous and oft-reported mosque in the country. The van driver went about four hours out of his way to get there. It's probably the only mosque most people have heard of.
The original mail headline had the fact Aby Hama had preached there and was of a "it's your own fault tone". But at the end of the day a terror attack is a terror attack and should be reported as such
 
Top