Aangirfan:
On 29 November 2019,
City of London Police were called to an incident at
Fishmongers' Hall, at the northern end of
London Bridge in Central London, where a criminal justice conference was taking place.
[1]
"A man attending the event, Usman Khan, wearing a fake suicide vest, threatened to blow up the hall.
[2]
"He began stabbing people inside the building.
"He subsequently began stabbing pedestrians at the north side of the bridge.
"Several people fought back, including one who grabbed a
narwhal tusk from the wall inside Fishmongers' Hall to use against him as a weapon.
[3]
"Several people were injured before members of the public restrained the attacker on the bridge.
[4][5][6]
"The police arrived shortly thereafter and surrounded the attacker, firing multiple shots.
[5] The attacker was shot by police and died at the scene."
[7][8]
The attack occurred at the same location as
another attack in June 2017.
[4]
Usman Khan:
Khan was part of a group from Stoke-on-Trent, Cardiff and London who were jailed in 2012.
"Khan had planned to establish a 'terrorist military training facility' on land owned by his family in Kashmir, according to
sentencing remarks.
"Khan, at 19, was the youngest of the group.
"Khan was originally classed as never to be released from jail unless deemed no longer a threat but this condition was later lifted."
Kommentare:
Brabantian 30 November 2019 at 00:47
Notable how the intel-agency-tied Wikipedia ignores the contradiction in their own narrative as above.
The attacker is 'restrained', tackled and on the ground, very close to being unable to move ... so how does shooting him become 'necessary'?
Yet a group of London police, collectively decide to un-hand and release the man who is tackled, giving him some free moments to set off his 'bombs', and maybe kill the police as well as himself
Then after the pause they allowed, it becomes 'necessary' for police to shoot the man ... whom they just released from their grip a moment earlier
Even most police are not so anxious to shoot & kill, as shootings make 'problems' for them ... Having a violent man already tackled on the ground, police instinct is to hold him more firmly, not to release him so he can pull a trigger
Dead men tell no tales.
From today's 'London Bridge terrorist attack', there is chilling video of UK police shooting a man on the ground ... there is a fight, people piled on including a perhaps civilian, then people are pulled away / jump away, and the man on the ground is shot, execution-style, gunshots clearly heard in some of the twitter video
The 'justification' would be that the man on the ground, originally wielding a knife, also had a suicide explosive vest
One 4chan commenter suggests that the 'civilians' who 'attacked the attacker' may well be MI5 etc agents, given the fear of typical Britons of doing such things
http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/234671142
FISHMONGERS' HALL FALSE FLAG
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/12005...06689.html
http://archive.is/dSGRm
https://web.archive.org/web/201911300035...06689.html
Brabantian
Videos of the London Bridge police shooting of the 'terrorist', raise questions
The videos fit the assassination of a groomed manipulee, guided in the terrorist role ... with the possibility that the police killing this man, knew the 'explosive suicide vest' was fake
For these kinds of incidents - a group of police with a man they can grab, who may have hidden weapons or explosives - there is a clear procedure -
The officer nearest each of the man's hands, will grab and immobilise that hand and its fingers, whilst other colleagues grab legs and feet, bring handcuffs etc
Nearly everyone has an instinct about this ... with a child throwing a tantrum and about to do something dangerous, you grab the child's arms ... sexual attackers grab a woman's wrists ... etc
With a 'Muslim terrorist' thought to have suicide explosives, there is realistically no time for police to jump away to safety if they are already next to him, it is safer and wiser for them to grab his wrists
Viewing the videos of the killing, you see a long enough pause between the men pulling away and then killing their target, that the Muslim could have blown up all of them with the right explosives
Pulling away from him, would be a decision of police assassins who knew the 'suicide bomb gear' was not real ... as well as of police who were 'afraid' & acted unwisely
One man, whom police struggled to pull away from the bearded Muslim, had the normal instinct, his priority was holding the Muslim down, but police wrestled with him, giving the 'terrorist' more opportunity ... that was strange
It seems that the killing was real. A detail from one video from the other end of London bridge, a detail not often seen in Hollywood etc., is that after the man was shot, vapour rose from the man's body, reflecting the heat of a high-speed bullet entry into a warm human body suddenly having holes
A mind-control goal in the wide sharing of news videos and photos of 'police shooting dead a terrorist'?
This photo is notable, some time after the killing, a distant view of the corpse now lying straight on the sidewalk, man's Muslim-style beard visible prominently
http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1575056759755.jpg
As usual
« The attacker was known to the police ... »
and also « had links to Islamist terror groups ... It is not known whether this could be Islamic State or al Qaeda. » - Sky News
Journalists and plain-clothes police 'coincidentally' nearby
Owen Jones of the Guardian was nearby ... he had written of being downtown during the 2017 attacks too
3 June 2017 London Bridge terrorist attack took place 5 days before the 8 June 2017 UK general election
29 November 2019 London Bridge terrorist attack 13 days before the 12 December 2019 UK general election
Terrorists follow the polling calendar? Eager to help highlight a 'law & order' theme as Britons go to vote?
Is it time again for that Sadiq Khan photo meme, with Khan's famous statement that 'Terror attacks are just part and parcel of living in a big city'?
https://www.yandex.com/images/search?tex...big%20city
Der Londoner Bürgermeister hat gemeint, dass man in einer
Millionenstadt ständig mit derartigen Anschlägen rechnen muß!
Weitgereist dürfte er nicht sein, ansonsten wüßte er, dass
Tokio mindestens gleich groß (wenn nicht größer) als London ist. Die Anzahl derartiger Anschläge aber
bei 0 in Worten NULL liegt!