If you haven't heard or read about the attack because, well, you have a life and things to do, this summary from the U.K.'s Evening Standard seems to be as succinct description as any:
Seven people have been killed and 21 others critically wounded in the terrorist attack at London Bridge and Borough Market.
Three suspects were also shot dead in the horrific attack just after 10pm on Saturday, while two police officers are among the injured.
Assistant Met Police Commissioner Mark Rowley revealed the death toll just after 4am on Sunday, as details of the attack began to emerge.
Mr Rowley said police were alerted that a vehicle had run down several pedestrians on London bridge at 10.08pm, before it then drove on to Borough Market.
At least three attackers then got out and began to stab people, including the on-duty British Transport Police officer who was responding to the initial incident on the bridge.
Armed police then confronted and shot the three killers in Borough Market at 10.16pm.
The eight armed officers fired an "unprecedented number of shots" with 50 rounds fired.
A member of the public was injured in the gunfire but their condition is not thought to be critical.
Mr Rowley said on Saturday: "At this stage, we believe that six people have died in addition to the three attackers shot dead by police and at least 20 casualties have been taken to six hospitals across London.
"[The BTP officer] received serious but not life-threatening injuries. His family has been informed.
“I'd like to repeat our request for the public to avoid the following areas: London Bridge and Borough Market. This is to allow emergency services to deal with this incident."
The death toll was later raised to seven. An update from police revealed a total of 36 people were in hospital with 21 of those in a critical condition.
The terrorists were wearing what looked like explosive vests but these turned out to be fake, Mr Rowley added.There were reports of some people attempting to fight back against the terrorists, but, it being the People's Republic of England, where law-abiding people aren't allowed to even carry knives, let alone firearms, they were limited to throwing bottles and chairs. I'm sure Parliament will get right on it and outlaw throwing bottles and chairs at jihadists lest it offend someone.
Of course, one of the terrorists, at least, was known to authorities: in fact, he was shown unfurling an ISIS flag on a Channel 4 documentary just last year. And experts admit that it is almost impossible to stop these attacks:
"Renting a simple van and getting a few of your like-minded friends to commit this kind of attack is essentially impossible to stop," said Shiraz Maher, a senior research fellow at the International Center for the Study of Radicalization at Kings College.What is amazing to me, however, is the mind-numbing stupidity of the responses to the attack. The Independent is probably as good an example as always. After making a good point that limiting free speech or censoring Internet would be inappropriate, it goes on to make the same asinine comments as others about having to get used to terrorist attacks, and violence isn't the answer. For example:
The right reaction then is to recognise that Britain, and especially its large cities and public events, will have to learn to live with a level of terror threat that is perhaps unprecedented – because terror is an intractable challenge that has never been ended by reprisals or dramatic gestures.It lists examples of other cities and nations that have engaged in reprisals, but have, nevertheless, been victims of terror attacks. There are a couple responses to this argument, both based on real life examples.
First, as others have noted, these attacks aren't "part and parcel" of life in big cities: they are unknown in Tokyo, Mexico City, Hong Kong, and other nations and cities that have not attracted or allowed mass immigration by Muslims. Terminating the flow of Muslims into Europe, and ejecting those that are there, would certainly limit the ability of Muslim terrorists to operate in Europe.
Second, reprisals can work if they are the proper type of reprisal. In the 1980s, after terrorists struck at Soviet officials in Lebanon, the Soviets responded by killing not only the terrorists, but the terrorists' families. They were not bothered again for a long while. I'm not advocating that we kill the relatives of terrorists (at least in the West), it certainly would be worthwhile to expel their relatives, even if the relatives claim to be innocent. I remember when I was living in Japan, there had been a significant problem with people committing suicide by jumping in front of a Bullet Train (Japan has one of the highest suicide rates on the world). This was remedied by passing a law requiring the families to pay for damages and losses, such as cleaning up, loss of revenue, etc.
However, the ultimate reprisal, and the one that would follow the general rule of warfare--that the purpose of war is to destroy the will of the enemy to fight--would be to destroy the Kaaba. The bigger the explosion, the better.
In any event, the answer is not carrying on as normal because it is impossible. Rather, the new normal will be panic and fear. An example of this is the report that 1,500 were injured in Turin, Italy, after panicking when a load noise was interpreted as a explosion from a terrorist attack.
The reality is that the governments of the West have fallen down on their duty to their citizens to protect them from invasion and attacks, and the attack in London, and the reaction of the crowd in Turin, are perfect examples of this failure. Domestic and foreign policy dictated by virtue signaling is doomed to failure.