Car crashes into security barriers outside Parliament: Armed police surround driver

A car has crashed into a security barrier outside the Houses of Parliament, prompting a huge police response.

Armed police were seen surrounding the vehicle, which is believed to have hit several cyclists, at shortly before 8am on Tuesday.

Scotland Yard said a man has been arrested.

Armed officers could be seen surrounding the car before leading a man away in handcuffs.

A series of ambulances arrived at the scene.

One witness at the scene said it appeared that at least one cyclist was in the road being treated by paramedics.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/14/car-crashes-barrier-outside-parliament-armed-police-surround/

Now, the big question :

Was the driver's grudge against the British guvm'nt ?  Or against the 'cyclists..

(Or, something else at play, e.g. a medical incident..).

Didge wrote:A car has crashed into a security barrier outside the Houses of Parliament, prompting a huge police response.

Armed police were seen surrounding the vehicle, which is believed to have hit several cyclists, at shortly before 8am on Tuesday.

Scotland Yard said a man has been arrested.

Armed officers could be seen surrounding the car before leading a man away in handcuffs.

A series of ambulances arrived at the scene.

One witness at the scene said it appeared that at least one cyclist was in the road being treated by paramedics.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/14/car-crashes-barrier-outside-parliament-armed-police-surround/

Another terrorist attack.
Thankfully no one is killed this time, three people injured, one woman seriously hurt rushed to hospital.
The black driver, a man in his late 20's is refusing to co-operate with police, so no further info as yet.

The Westminster terror suspect who ploughed into at least 15 cyclists and pedestrians appears to have travelled to London from his Midlands home in a Ford Fiesta bought just two months ago, MailOnline can reveal today.

The man, who is in his late twenties, is refusing to speak to police who have still identified him and believe he was not known to Scotland Yard or MI5 before the shocking carborne rush hour attack this morning.

But security sources have suggested he may be known to police back home in the Midlands and his car was first registered in Nottingham.

The vehicle police say he 'deliberately' used as a weapon was written off by insurers in the Autumn of last year but put back on the road and sold again eight weeks ago.

Today the terror suspect looked dazed as he was dragged from the smoking silver Ford Fiesta by around a dozen armed officers who had their rifles trained on him.

The horrifying moment the driver sped through crowds at up to 50mph before ploughing into barriers outside the Houses of Parliament was caught on CCTV.

A 'loud bang' followed by screams echoed around Parliament Square at 7.30am this morning and footage uncovered by the BBC shows the car swerve the wrong way down the road and 'intentionally' veer through crowds before smashing into a security barrier.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6058215/Armed-police-race-Houses-Parliament-car-smashes-barriers.html

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:A car has crashed into a security barrier outside the Houses of Parliament, prompting a huge police response.

Armed police were seen surrounding the vehicle, which is believed to have hit several cyclists, at shortly before 8am on Tuesday.

Scotland Yard said a man has been arrested.

Armed officers could be seen surrounding the car before leading a man away in handcuffs.

A series of ambulances arrived at the scene.

One witness at the scene said it appeared that at least one cyclist was in the road being treated by paramedics.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/14/car-crashes-barrier-outside-parliament-armed-police-surround/

Another terrorist attack.
Thankfully no one is killed this time, three people injured, one woman seriously hurt rushed to hospital.
The black driver, a man in his late 20's  is refusing to co-operate with police, so no further info as yet.

I think the term 'terrorist' is being driven into the ground. Of course, every violent criminal invokes terror. Indeed, the US currently has a terrorist president. White nationalists, the KKK and neo-nazis are terrorists. Terrorists are so prevalent that the term has come to be meaningless.

I think the term, today, obfuscates and confuses. I'd like to know a little more about this (or any) criminal's motives. What is the story? Wolf asks a very significant question: is it someone who hates bicyclists, or simply a bank robber trying to get away?

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:A car has crashed into a security barrier outside the Houses of Parliament, prompting a huge police response.

Armed police were seen surrounding the vehicle, which is believed to have hit several cyclists, at shortly before 8am on Tuesday.

Scotland Yard said a man has been arrested.

Armed officers could be seen surrounding the car before leading a man away in handcuffs.

A series of ambulances arrived at the scene.

One witness at the scene said it appeared that at least one cyclist was in the road being treated by paramedics.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/14/car-crashes-barrier-outside-parliament-armed-police-surround/

Another terrorist attack.
Thankfully no one is killed this time, three people injured, one woman seriously hurt rushed to hospital.
The black driver, a man in his late 20's  is refusing to co-operate with police, so no further info as yet.

Yep another terrorist attack

What is interesting is also this

We have highlighted the silver van that was tailing the Westminster incident driver. Someone was definitely following the car that crashed. Who?

UPDATE: Close up of the unmarked van immediately after the incident:



https://order-order.com/2018/08/14/mystery-following-van/

n other Muslim with mental problems ?

The silver van was definitely deep state.  MI-5, blew an assignment to keep watch on the guy, and immediately abandoned their vehicle lest they be caught and identified.  

I think dd gave you a red, nicko.  So, I've given you a make-up green.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Another terrorist attack.
Thankfully no one is killed this time, three people injured, one woman seriously hurt rushed to hospital.
The black driver, a man in his late 20's  is refusing to co-operate with police, so no further info as yet.

I think the term 'terrorist' is being driven into the ground.  Of course, every violent criminal invokes terror.  Indeed, the US currently has a terrorist president.  White nationalists, the KKK and neo-nazis are terrorists.  Terrorists are so prevalent that the term has come to be meaningless.

I think the term, today, obfuscates and confuses.  I'd like to know a little more about this (or any) criminal's motives.  What is the story?  Wolf asks a very significant question: is it someone who hates bicyclists, or simply a bank robber trying to get away?

This constitutes Ben's new rule on spamming

This event has nothing to do with The US President, White nationalists, the KKK and Neo-Nazi terrorists

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Another terrorist attack.
Thankfully no one is killed this time, three people injured, one woman seriously hurt rushed to hospital.
The black driver, a man in his late 20's  is refusing to co-operate with police, so no further info as yet.

I think the term 'terrorist' is being driven into the ground.  Of course, every violent criminal invokes terror.  Indeed, the US currently has a terrorist president.  White nationalists, the KKK and neo-nazis are terrorists.  Terrorists are so prevalent that the term has come to be meaningless.

I think the term, today, obfuscates and confuses.  I'd like to know a little more about this (or any) criminal's motives.  What is the story?  Wolf asks a very significant question: is it someone who hates bicyclists, or simply a bank robber trying to get away?

yes that seems to be the narrative by the illiberal left these days, any incident is never terrorism unless it is by a white man.
Having watched the video of the incident it does not appear to be accidental, so we can take a stab in the dark ( see what I did there, london innit) that it may be terror related.
No doubt over the next few days we will hear all the usual buzzword, mental illness, lone wolf, Muslims are the real victims. But sometime a terror attack is just that. If this turns out to be a terror attack then it is just good luck that the man doing it was absolutely useless.

Original Quill wrote:The silver van was definitely deep state.  MI-5, blew an assignment to keep watch on the guy, and immediately abandoned their vehicle lest they be caught and identified.  

I think dd gave you a red, nicko.  So, I've given you a make-up green.  

was the van abandoned?

There often seems to be a white van around.

Deano wrote:But sometime a terror attack is just that.

I agree.  And in that case, you call it that. But you've gotta make sure of your facts.

Deano wrote:...we can take a stab in the dark...

That's where I disagree with you.  Hell, we can run off on any theory...flying saucers, the liberal media, the deep state...anything.

Just be patient.  The facts usually come out shortly.

Original Quill wrote:

Deano wrote:But sometime a terror attack is just that.

I agree.  And in that case, you call it that.  But you've gotta make sure of your facts.

Deano wrote:...we can take a stab in the dark...

That's where I disagree with you.  Hell, we can run off on any theory...flying saucers, the liberal media, the deep state...anything.

Just be patient.  The facts usually come out shortly.

I think you may have missed the reference there.

It turns out the man is a sudanese immigrant known to the police, aren't they all, He is refusing to answer questions, which is his right, but courts are allowed to draw their own conclusions on that at the trial.
He was given british citizenship and if convicted he should be stripped of that and deported at the end of his sentence.

Original Quill wrote:

Deano wrote:But sometime a terror attack is just that.

I agree.  And in that case, you call it that.  But you've gotta make sure of your facts.

Deano wrote:...we can take a stab in the dark...

That's where I disagree with you.  Hell, we can run off on any theory...flying saucers, the liberal media, the deep state...anything.

Just be patient.  The facts usually come out shortly.

most times if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck.

eddie wrote:There often seems to be a white van around.

there is a reason why a section of voters is known as white van man. they are a pretty common sight in most cities around the country.

Actually, from what I recall of the early morning coverage on both BBC and Sky, the word "terrorism" was first used by the Met Police, possibly by a Met Press officer as initially journalists and film crews were being kept well back from the crash scene for obvious reasons and were desperate to get information out for immediate broadcast.

It's standard procedure in these circumstances for the police to be as co-operative as they can with the news media and to give them regular updates, including the increasing use of tweets, as the last thing they want is wild speculation in the form of usually unattributable quotes from bystanders getting wide TV and radio overage and either causing panic or in some way impeding the progress of official inquiries.

If words such as "terrorist" or "terrorist-related" are used by an official on-the-scene police source, you can be pretty certain that it is deliberate.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Now, the big question :

Was the driver's grudge against the British guvm'nt ?  Or against the 'cyclists..

(Or, something else at play, e.g. a medical incident..).

Of course it may have been a militant Seventh Day Adventist,  Jehova's Witness, Taoist or even one of those rebellious Wesleyans...

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Now, the big question :

Was the driver's grudge against the British guvm'nt ?  Or against the 'cyclists..

(Or, something else at play, e.g. a medical incident..).

Of course it may have been a militant Seventh Day Adventist,  Jehova's Witness, Taoist or even one of those rebellious Wesleyans...

but it wasn't, it was a sudanese Muslim immigrant

Deano wrote:the man is a sudanese immigrant known to the police, aren't they all

If all Sudanese are terrorists, then the UK should break off diplomatic relationships with them, and close the borders.  

End of...

Original Quill wrote:

Deano wrote:the man is a sudanese immigrant known to the police, aren't they all

If all Sudanese are terrorists, then the UK should break off diplomatic relationships with them, and close the borders.  

End of...

I don't think that anyone seriously believes that "all Sudanese are terrorists" any more than that "all Pakistanis" or "all Moroccans" are terrorists.

But there does appear to me to be a belief among the liberal Left that the ethnicity of criminals should be suppressed at all costs when it was patently that sort of official policy adopted by the local council and the police  that led to the cover up of long term serial and organised abuse of young girls,  predominently by men of Pakistani extraction. in Rotherham.

Something similar has been going on in another Yorkshire town - Huddersfield - where police released the names of a large group of men suspected of what is apparently the systematic and organised rape of women and frequently under age girls.

The list is notable for the obvious absence of names like of Smith, Jones, McGillicuddie, Evans and Cholmondley-FitzHerbert.

https://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/24-huddersfield-men-2-women-12787499

Ps. I've only just noticed that this is something of an old story, but for some unexplained reason it came up on my BBC news feed of provincial press coverage today.

It doesn't alter in the slightest what I believe to be a very serious and deeply worrying trend, however.

Hopefully they will be able to extract vital information from this terrorist, whom they managed to capture alive. 

It's obvious that these purveyors of hate regard their own lives as cheap. What a pity they regard the lives of others (innocent people, pedestrians, cyclists etc) as cheap too?

Terrorists are miserable, misguided scumbags, they will NEVER win!

Fred M. wrote:But there does appear to me to be a belief among the liberal Left that the ethnicity of criminals should be suppressed at all costs when it was patently that sort of official policy adopted by the local council and the police  that led to the cover up of long term serial and organised abuse of young girls,  predominently by men of Pakistani extraction. in Rotherham.

I think you are overstating it, Fred.  Both left and right tend to overreach in their descriptions of each other.

The danger from the right is that folks will believe the overreach and take restrictive action.  Next thing you know, there will be soldiers on every street corner, people will have to have papers, and curfew hours will be established.  The only demonstrations we will have will look like Charlottesville.

RE this "terrorist"attack, is it not possible that the man made an mistake and drove down the wrong road, hit a bunch of Cyclist and in a panic drove down the wrong road? There was nothing found on him,, or in his car, that could be used in an terrorist attack. It was noticed that he drove around the Parliament buildings several times, had he lost his way and was trying to find it ? His friends say he went to London to sort out his Visa as he was going back to the Sudan for a visit to his relatives. Are we "barking up the wrong tree" ? I make no excuses for Terrorists, but no weapons no guns no explosives, what do people think he was going to do, break a few windows ?

Original Quill wrote:

Fred M. wrote:But there does appear to me to be a belief among the liberal Left that the ethnicity of criminals should be suppressed at all costs when it was patently that sort of official policy adopted by the local council and the police  that led to the cover up of long term serial and organised abuse of young girls,  predominently by men of Pakistani extraction. in Rotherham.

I think you are overstating it, Fred.  Both left and right tend to overreach in their descriptions of each other.

The danger from the right is that folks will believe the overreach and take restrictive action.  Next thing you know, there will be soldiers on every street corner, people will have to have papers, and curfew hours will be established.  The only demonstrations we will have will look like Charlottesville.

I don't think so, Quill. We're not talking about demonstrations, martial law and blokes in slouch hats and black raincoats randomly demanding to see ID papers; it's about highly organised and determined criminal gangs that tend to be of certain ethnicities targeting some of the weakest and most vulnerable - including children -in our society for their own perverted sexual gratification while local government officials and senior police officers deliberately suppress the facts for fear of being referred to as racist.

Overstating? Overreaching? This has already happened, and continues to happen, in various parts on this country and the common denominator is blindingly obvious, as is the common denominator in the vast majority of acts of terrorism.

Oh, and so far as repressive governance is concerned, there have always been just as many extremist, sadistic and murderous dictatorships on the Left as on the Right.

nicko wrote:RE this "terrorist"attack,   is it not possible that the man made an mistake and drove down the wrong road,  hit a bunch of Cyclist and in a panic drove down the wrong road? There was nothing found on him,, or in his car, that could be used in an terrorist attack. It was noticed that he drove around the Parliament buildings several times, had he lost his way and was trying to find it ? His friends say he went to London to sort out his Visa as he was going back to the Sudan for a visit to his relatives.  Are we "barking up the wrong tree" ? I make no excuses for Terrorists, but no weapons no guns no explosives, what do people think he was going to do, break a few windows ?

Ah, so it might well have been rage against the Visa office? We need to interview them to see what difficulties arose that might have agitated him. Sounds like a typical government SNAFU, and ensuing rage.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think you are overstating it, Fred.  Both left and right tend to overreach in their descriptions of each other.

The danger from the right is that folks will believe the overreach and take restrictive action.  Next thing you know, there will be soldiers on every street corner, people will have to have papers, and curfew hours will be established.  The only demonstrations we will have will look like Charlottesville.

I don't think so, Quill. We're not talking about demonstrations, martial law and blokes in slouch hats and black raincoats randomly demanding to see ID papers; it's about highly organised and determined criminal gangs that tend to be of certain ethnicities targeting some of the weakest and most vulnerable - including children -in our society for their own perverted sexual gratification while local government officials and senior police officers deliberately suppress the facts for fear of being referred to as racist.

Overreaching? This has already happened, and continues to happen, in various parts on this country and the common denominator is blindingly obvious.

Both sides have bad opinions of the other.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I don't think so, Quill. We're not talking about demonstrations, martial law and blokes in slouch hats and black raincoats randomly demanding to see ID papers; it's about highly organised and determined criminal gangs that tend to be of certain ethnicities targeting some of the weakest and most vulnerable - including children -in our society for their own perverted sexual gratification while local government officials and senior police officers deliberately suppress the facts for fear of being referred to as racist.

Overreaching? This has already happened, and continues to happen, in various parts on this country and the common denominator is blindingly obvious.

Both sides have bad opinions of the other.

With that I heartily agree. And I can tell you from my personal acquaintance with a number of Muslims, I would say that the vast majority of them bear the same hatred towards serial rapists and terrorists as we do...perhaps even more so as their families are the ones that attract opprobrium through a warped assumption of guilt by association.

That's why you will never hear me talk of "Muslim terrorists"...I prefer to use the words "radical Islamists."

Anyway, I'm off to the pub for a well-earned pint. A pleasure to cross foils with you as always.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Both sides have bad opinions of the other.

With that I heartily agree. And I can tell you from my personal acquaintance with a number of Muslims, I would say that the vast majority of them bear the same hatred towards serial rapists and terrorists as we do...perhaps even more so as their families are the ones that attract opprobrium through a warped  assumption of guilt by association.

That's why you will never hear me talk of "Muslim terrorists"...I prefer to use the words "radical Islamists."

Anyway, I'm off to the pub for a well-earned pint. A pleasure to cross foils with you as always.

We live in an adversarial system. Two or more parties. Two sides to litigation. Nationalist vs. immigrant. Conservative vs. liberal.

Right now, for better or for worse, the pendulum has gone to extreme adversarialism. Neither side wants to bend. It's not a bad thing. I don't see much progress in consensus building, anyway.

Nicko...


1. Are we really to believe that after driving safely all the way from the midlands to London... that he just made a mistake here...?

2. Reports of what his so called 'friends' may be claiming, are hardly credible, are they...!?

3. Most likely he turned up in our country as an illegal immigrant claiming asylum, claiming that he had fled from imminent danger of death and could not possibly return to home country etc bullshit waffle... so why would he be trying to get a visa for a trip back to his home country of imminent danger of death for him...!?

"Most likely he..."? You are pretty much writing your own script. Don't you want to wait and find out the truth?

So, what was he trying to do? No guns, no bombs not even a water pistol. I f he wanted to run down Cyclists he could have done that outside his own house. I ask again, what do you think he was going to do ?

nicko wrote:RE this "terrorist"attack,   is it not possible that the man made an mistake and drove down the wrong road,  hit a bunch of Cyclist and in a panic drove down the wrong road? There was nothing found on him,, or in his car, that could be used in an terrorist attack. It was noticed that he drove around the Parliament buildings several times, had he lost his way and was trying to find it ? His friends say he went to London to sort out his Visa as he was going back to the Sudan for a visit to his relatives.  Are we "barking up the wrong tree" ? I make no excuses for Terrorists, but no weapons no guns no explosives, what do people think he was going to do, break a few windows ?

if you read it in the papers you could think that, if you saw the video you wouldn't

Original Nazi wrote:

Deano wrote:the man is a sudanese immigrant known to the police, aren't they all

If all Sudanese are terrorists, then the UK should break off diplomatic relationships with them, and close the borders.  

End of...

why do you think all sudanese immigrants are terrorists.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Nazi wrote:

If all Sudanese are terrorists, then the UK should break off diplomatic relationships with them, and close the borders.  

End of...

why do you think all sudanese immigrants are terrorists.

Why would Quill think that all Sudanese immigrants into Britain are terrorists  ???

Because you said so,  Deano..

Would you lie  ?          

I think he said IF Wolfie !

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
why do you think all sudanese immigrants are terrorists.

Why would Quill think that all Sudanese immigrants into Britain are terrorists  ???

Because you said so,  Deano..

Would you lie  ?          

he asked the question. Ask mummy to read stuff for you first andwew.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Nazi wrote:

If all Sudanese are terrorists, then the UK should break off diplomatic relationships with them, and close the borders.  

End of...

why do you think all sudanese immigrants are terrorists.

It was a conditional question, intended to challenge the premise.  The field being raised was tommy's assertion that all Sudanese are terrorists.

A conditional question usually challenges, and thus opposes the premise.  It asks, in a rhetorical manner, how the premise can be correct(?).  Therefore, my position is that all Sudanese are not terrorists.

And you know this, too, Dean.  This is an honest debating site, not a hang-out for smashed assholes.  The underlying issue is that we cannot generalize from specifics.  Too many general assumptions are made about people of color, when there is no evidence.

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
why do you think all sudanese immigrants are terrorists.

It was a conditional question, intended to challenge the premise.  The field being raised was tommy's assertion that all Sudanese are terrorists.

A conditional question usually challenges, and thus opposes the premise.  It asks, in a rhetorical manner, how the premise can be correct(?).  Therefore, my position is that all Sudanese are not terrorists.

And you know this, too, Dean.  This is an honest debating site, not a hang-out for smashed assholes.  The underlying issue is that we cannot generalize from specifics.  Too many general assumptions are made about people of color, when there is no evidence.

but assumptions about white people are fine I suppose.
People of colour is the most patronising term ever by the way. It's a term used by people who are terrified to say black, brown etc. Every single person in teh world fits the definition of people of colour. I have a colour, you have a colour and winston from jamaica has a colour.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It was a conditional question, intended to challenge the premise.  The field being raised was tommy's assertion that all Sudanese are terrorists.

A conditional question usually challenges, and thus opposes the premise.  It asks, in a rhetorical manner, how the premise can be correct(?).  Therefore, my position is that all Sudanese are not terrorists.

And you know this, too, Dean.  This is an honest debating site, not a hang-out for smashed assholes.  The underlying issue is that we cannot generalize from specifics.  Too many general assumptions are made about people of color, when there is no evidence.

but assumptions about white people are fine I suppose.

Assumptions are, at best, hypotheses. Like any hypothesis, they need to be operationalized and proven.

Deano wrote:People of colour is the most patronising term ever by the way. It's a term used by people who are terrified to say black, brown etc. Every single person in teh world fits the definition of people of colour. I have a colour, you have a colour and winston from jamaica has a colour.

You're making a semantic argument. 'People of color' is a handy term, no more. The law of semantics is: We can use any term we wish, as long as we both know what is meant. That's the idea of communication.

The reason why 'people of color' is used is because racism inevitably derives from the attitudes of the dominant and privileged white race, and it is the white's concept that in fact is the subject of the matter.

No one is trying to justify the term, it's the concept (if not the term) of choice for biased white people. Didge has often made the important point that race is not a real phenomenon, but a concept invented in some perceivers mind. Thus, we are talking about what goes on in the heads of white people, when we use such terms. Whites resist the term because it hits the mark.

Rarely does prejudice arise against African Americans, but that the same person doesn't have the same feelings against Hispanics, Muslims and...well, all people of color. So, it has become a handy term to describe what is going on in their minds. Keep in mind, language is just a tool.

Hahahaha what a load of old waffle.

“People of colour”
“African Americans”

You know that black people hate those terms, right?

Do you actually know any true black people, Quill?

eddie wrote:Hahahaha what a load of old waffle.

“People of colour”
“African Americans”

You know that black people hate those terms, right?

It doesn't matter. Blacks don't own the terms.

The words describe what's in white minds. White hatred goes to anyone not of a Nordic white color.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Hahahaha what a load of old waffle.

“People of colour”
“African Americans”

You know that black people hate those terms, right?

It doesn't matter.  Blacks don't own the terms.

The words describe what's in white minds.  White hatred goes to anyone not of a Nordic white color.

And there you go

Where we should be looking to have people identify as a nation, no matter their skin colour. We have people like you wish to segregate people, as the KKK do, by skin colour

When are you going to learn to try and help people unite as one together?

Not based on something superficial as skin colour?

As we are all humans, and the problems are on beliefs people hold

Instead of continually supercharging hate between them, as you do

Its what the white supremacists do and you are doing the same.

Can you not see that?

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Hahahaha what a load of old waffle.

“People of colour”
“African Americans”

You know that black people hate those terms, right?

It doesn't matter.  Blacks don't own the terms.

The words describe what's in white minds.  White hatred goes to anyone not of a Nordic white color.

That doesn’t need even make sense! What are you even prattling on about?

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It doesn't matter.  Blacks don't own the terms.

The words describe what's in white minds.  White hatred goes to anyone not of a Nordic white color.

That doesn’t need even make sense! What are you even prattling on about?

Go back and read. The topic isn't black people. The topic is white people's ideas about black people. Other than as targets, blacks are largely out of the picture.

Salih Khater, 29, rammed into pedestrians and cyclists outside Parliament
Detectives can't find any evidence he was motivated by politics or religion
No links to terrorists or extremist ideology have been found in investigations
He could still be charged with attempted murder or other serious crimes


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6072241/Westminster-crash-not-act-terror-theres-no-evidence-radicalised.html

I said that earlier !

Was an asylum seeker... and is being treated as terrorism...

eddie wrote:Hahahaha what a load of old waffle.

“People of colour”
“African Americans”

You know that black people hate those terms, right?

Do you actually know any true black people, Quill?

Black people in London "hate" the term "African American"  ???

Why  ?     How does it affect them, that they should hate it ?

When they don't seem that worried about it in the USA..

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It was a conditional question, intended to challenge the premise.  The field being raised was tommy's assertion that all Sudanese are terrorists.

A conditional question usually challenges, and thus opposes the premise.  It asks, in a rhetorical manner, how the premise can be correct(?).  Therefore, my position is that all Sudanese are not terrorists.

And you know this, too, Dean.  This is an honest debating site, not a hang-out for smashed assholes.  The underlying issue is that we cannot generalize from specifics.  Too many general assumptions are made about people of color, when there is no evidence.

but assumptions about white people are fine I suppose.
People of colour is the most patronising term ever by the way. It's a term used by people who are terrified to say black, brown etc. Every single person in teh world fits the definition of people of colour. I have a colour, you have a colour and winston from jamaica has a colour.

Dean, fook, never knew you to be a coward about your own words.  Admit it was your idea.  You said this:

Deano wrote:the man is a sudanese immigrant known to the police, aren't they all

It's a direct statement, by you, that provoked this discussion.  Clear evidence!  Now, you have your answer.  Carry on...what is your excuse?  How do you account for yourself?