Second sign: In his initial statement about the attack, acting Deputy Commissioner Mark Rowley, who is described as "Scotland Yard's top anti-terror officer," confirmed the number of those who had been killed and injured when the knifer, after killing the defenseless policeman, got in a truck and mowed people down on Westminster Bridge. Soon afterward, Rowley made a point of saying, "We must recognize now that our Muslim communities will feel vulnerable at this time, given the past actions of right-wing extremists."
Excuse me, acting DC Rowley. 40 infidels going about their business on a sunny day in London town have just felt the violent wrath of a chap said to be "inspired" by "Islamists," and Muslims are feeling vulnerable?
Gee, just imagine how the rest of the infidels are feeling.
Third sign: last night on the BBC, the newsreader kept saying that the attacker might have been inspired by the "so-called" Islamic State (the Beeb's regular way of referring to it, apparently).
Meaning what? That ISIS and jihad aren't really Islamic? That heeding the jihad imperative embedded in core Islamic holy texts is--what?--an aberration of an otherwise entirely peaceful religion?
Sounds to me like the Beeb, like the acting DC, is more concerned about protecting the "feelings" of "vulnerable" Muslims (so-called) than it is about telling the truth.
Update: Terror attack could have been prevented if police at Parliament's 'weak spot' had kept gate bolted, MPs said
So you mean to say that not only was there a well-known "weak spot" at Parliament, the police assigned there weren't even armed?
The Brits need to get their act together, and quickly.
Update: Robert Spencer thinks that the Brits harping on "tolerance" post-attack is sheer madness:
Scotland Yard obliquely acknowledged that it was a jihad attack. In a statement, it said: “Officers – including firearms officers – remain on the scene and we are treating this as a terrorist incident until we know otherwise.” A “terrorist” incident means jihad. It wasn’t the IRA. There are no other significant terrorist groups operating today in the UK. This statement from Scotland Yard makes it very likely that this was a jihad attack, and yet another repudiation of the British government’s policy of appeasing and accommodating Islamic supremacists and jihadists while hounding and persecuting foes of jihad terror, and banning foreign ones from the country.
Yet in her own response to the attack, UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd said: “The British people will be united in working together to defeat those who would harm our shared values. Values of democracy, tolerance and the rule of law. Values symbolised by the Houses of Parliament. Values that will never be destroyed.”
To speak about “tolerance” with several people dead at the hands of an Islamic jihadist in London is to signal that it will be business as usual in Theresa May’s Britain: nothing will be done to confront the ideology that incites its adherents to violence and hatred. This is clear because “tolerance” is never asked of Islamic supremacists who take to the streets of London to preach the ultimate victory of Sharia; the only people ever accused of “intolerance” are those who speak honestly about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat.
As Bob Dylan said: “Toleration of the unacceptable leads to the last round-up.” And it’s coming in Britain. The London jihad attack was yet another harbinger of that.