My post at 11:30 AM was made after checking CNN and BBC's reporting on the matter. At the time (again, 11:30AM, some 6 hours ago), the motive was not yet determined, and the quote used by both outlets referenced an "open mind". Time, as it does, passed, and 1 hour ago (meaning 5 hours had come and gone since my post at 11:30 am) the BBC updated the article you linked. What this means is, that at the time I posted, both CNN and BBC had not reported on the official stance of London police regarding motive, and the facts reported had all the earmarks of the recent spate of vehicular attacks that have occurred specifically in that city.

You two don't bother reading actual news at all do you?

Right, because it's improper to surmise a terror link when a car rams into 11 people in a country that has had a rash of vehicular attacks of a particular variety in the last 6 months.

It's definitely unnecessary JLN.

At the time you made your post ABC of all the wounded horse newsrooms already had it from the PD as not being terror. This is where you step back from the keyboard for a bit. Being trounced by me doesn't look good on your resume.

Nope. Presuming that each of these incidents is an act of Islamic terrorism is even more dangerous and it only serves to feed the appetite of right wing nut jobs that get hard ons when such attacks occurs.

There is no upside in presuming that this was an act of terrorism. You're promoting an agenda as opposed to allowing the facts to play out.

You did the same thing with the Charlottesville car incident and you wound up looking equally foolish. You were quick to try and defend the actions of a Nazi extremist and that is dangerous also.

You repeatedly slant events so that they coincide with your own worldview.