Terrorist Attack in Manchester (Read MOD WARNING in OP Updated 24/05/2017))

Junkyard Tom

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Probably because there are 22,999 other people just like him according to the security services.

30K others who had the same movements? 30K others who were subject to the same warnings from those who knew him? 30K others buying bomb making ingredients?

Nah.

jackofalltrades

wonderfullife wrote: »

No it's not. There was wall-to-wall coverage on news channels about Manchester.

The Portland Terrorist didn't get even 1% of the same attention and spotlight.

This is just a different version of "a bomb went off in Turkey and no one is changing their Facebook profile picture to the Turkish flag".
Manchester's attack got more coverage for the following reason.

- It's an Islamist attack, there a major concern in both the UK and Europe at the moment.
- It was a suicide bombing
- Children died
- There were serious concerns that there would be a more attacks
- The attack on London was still fresh in peoples mind

The Portland attack hasn't been classified either (as I type this).
All you're doing is continuing trying to smear people and shut down debate by trying to accuse people of hypocrisy.
You've gone into overdrive on the whole Christian/far-right terrorist whataboutery.

Christian terrorism is a problem, but Islamist terrorism is a much much bigger problem.
Why don't you start up a thread about the attack in Portland if it concerns you so much?

Atlantic Dawn

Why have they not showed full CCTV of the utter out and out backward as fook limited intelligence fooking dickwod clown so people could keep an alert for similarly attired gob****es setting off to wipe out and mame people? Whoy hide ****e?

Grayditch

I'd imagine he was probably wearing regular clothes, like.

Atlantic Dawn

Grayditch wrote: »

I'd imagine he was probably wearing regular clothes, like.

He had a type of Karrimor bag on looking at coverage in US media that was not allowed to be seen so to speak, it's pure fookwithery not to show people in UK non "internet aware/backward" public what the utter tool was wearing so future clowns can't be identified to the public.

pilly

Atlantic Dawn wrote:

He had a type of Karrimor bag on looking at coverage in US media that was not allowed to be seen so to speak, it's pure fookwithery not to show people in UK non "internet aware/backward" public what the utter tool was wearing so future clowns can't be identified to the public.

Because they all wear the same clothes and carry the same bags?

Don't be so stupid.

wonderfullife

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

He had a type of Karrimor bag on looking at coverage in US media that was not allowed to be seen so to speak, it's pure fookwithery not to show people in UK non "internet aware/backward" public what the utter tool was wearing so future clowns can't be identified to the public.

You're seriously arguing they show a Muslim wearing Muslim type clothing so people can identify future terrorists?

That'd be like showing a picture of someone wearing a Ben Sherman shirt so people can identify other junkies.

I don't know if you're trolling or not.

Atlantic Dawn

wonderfullife wrote: »

You're seriously arguing they show a Muslim wearing Muslim type clothing so people can identify future terrorists?

That'd be like showing a picture of someone wearing a Ben Sherman shirt so people can identify other junkies.u

I don't know if you're trolling or not.

We have seen the loser, the bag he carried has been 100% censored. I never mentioned muslim anything.

ceadaoin.

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

We have seen the loser, the bag he carried has been 100% censored. I never mentioned muslim anything.

This article talks about the backpack and has a photo of the remnants


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/manchester-bomber-seen-buying-rucksack-city-friday/

Why is it important though? Do all suicide bombers use the same bags or something?

pilly

Atlantic Dawn wrote:

We have seen the loser, the bag he carried has been 100% censored. I never mentioned muslim anything.

This has to be the silliest argument I've seen on this thread.

What the he'll does it matter what kind of backpack he was wearing?

It's not like there's an Islamic fashion.

pjohnson

BoatMad wrote: »

if you'd like to descend to the base motive of " labelling " I can only say that last resort of the ideologically destitute.

I am sickened by what ISIS has done, but I seek to understand the whys and wherefores and the more I look the more I see the wests hand in its creation

( in that Trump was partially right Obama crreated ISIS )



of course and countries like France have sought to tackle it head on. The allowance of religious groups to practice their religion is complex
as an atheist , I am not in favour of the state having anything to do with religion, but I accept its a complex area

This is the moronic reasoning that ensures muslims keep exploding to their hearts content.

Samaris

pjohnson wrote: »

This is the moronic reasoning that ensures muslims keep exploding to their hearts content.

Mod: Don't post in this thread again, the "exploding muslims" shtick got old days ago.

NinjaKirby

wonderfullife wrote: »

The 2 men who stood up for those Muslim girls and were brutally murdered for it are heroes.

One of them was a Republican too. That gives tremendous hope for humanity.

Yet we have silence here when a Christian terrorist murders 2 people in cold-blood (and yes he's a Christian terrorist he has multiple social media posts about fighting for Jesus Christ the Lord).

Absolute crickets from people on this thread about it. Where are the calls for white communities to do more to report far-right/Christian terrorists? Where are the calls for internment of known far-right risks?

All we have is stunning hypocrisy.

In America you're 6 times more likely to be murdered for being a Muslim than you are to be murdered by a Muslim.

Then people wonder why the conditions to breed extremism exist....

How is it hypocrisy?

On one hand we have a guy who went to a pop concert in the UK and blew himself up killing 22 people. I am sure many Irish people travel over to the UK for events all the time. Manchester is only an hour flight away for most of us.

You are expecting people to be equally outraged or concerned with an event in Portland USA where 2 people have been stabbed?

"In America you're 6 times more likely to be murdered for being a Muslim than you are to be murdered by a Muslim."

In America, in America, in America. Why does America have to be at the center of everything? If they have right wing extremists and Christian terrorists running around over there then they should deal with that.

Are American right wing extremists a concern for us over here?

If I was planning to head to London for a concert next month should I be concerned and Christian terrorists might target the venue?

If I'm sending my kids to an event at the 3 Arena should I be worries about American right wing extremists blowing the place up?

Why do we behave like America is the center of the universe and that we should react to what's happening over there as if it's happening over here?

Oh my god the alt right gun nuts are on the rise! Where? In America! So not here or anywhere near here then?

Is it stunning hypocrisy if I don't mention Venezuela or the Democratic Republic of Congo or North Korea on a thread titled "Terrorist Attack in Manchester".

BU-BUT YOU GUYS A RIGHT WING TERRORIST KILLED TWO PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD!

Help!!!!

wonderfullife wrote: »

No it's not. There was wall-to-wall coverage on news channels about Manchester.

The Portland Terrorist didn't get even 1% of the same attention and spotlight.


It doesn't matter if Jesus advocated for murder - there's plenty of passages in the Bible that do exactly that. There's also plenty of passages in the Quran where Muhammad called for 'jihad' and emphasised that the concept of 'jihad' is to better yourself, not to kill others.

You can quote whatever passages you want from either book but the bottom line is these people are committing murder in both religions based on 2000 year old books set in a completely different era in humanity.

They're all fighting warped battles because of their 'faith' in these religions and all these religions are based on books that are fairytales.

It would be false to say Radical Christian Terrorists are as big a problem as Radical Islamic ones but they're both problematic.

Portland = America, Manchester = UK.....One close, one not. Did you check American tv to see if they were reporting the Portland Christian terrorist?

No ones disputing there are Christian nutjobs but you cant compare the two. The atrocities are not the same

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

You forget that large amounts if finance to ISIS was channelled through Turkey with US agreement , because it suited the Turks ( and the US) to deny a Kurdish homeland

You accept , ?? that the destabilisation of Syria , was largely financed by the US , ignorer to remove old soviet client states , believing Russia was too weak to retaliate

You accept ??.that in Fact the US funded and supplied what in fact became IS in the Levant

You accept ??, That Libya and Egypt were equally destabilised by self same US policy to unseat old Soviet supporters


The major supporter of Sunni terror and the financiers behind 9/11 were Saudi Arabia , yet the US never invaded or took any sanctions against that state

Yet it invaded Afghanistan , why ??, yet the Taliban remain in place and infact are regaining prominence in Afghanistan as the only group that isnt overtly a warlord


The US didnt give too fu#ks about Kuwait. It gave a whole lot off fu@ks about Kuwaits oil

Just how many if this stockpiles off WWMDs did we find to justify the invasion of a sovereign country





Yes, getter yanks to stay the fu@k at home for a few decades, the world would be a safer place ( and get them to stop selling arms to nut jobs too )


Churchill had the right comment for the Balkans , look it up.





western intervention has largely been in self interest , largely resulted in destruction and mayhem and any gains have been totally totally outweighed by the resulting choas and mayhem that resulted

We are all fully aware of that!

Now that your rant is over, feel free to tell Donald Trump about how you feel.

Meanwhile, I'm interested in suggestions on how we could possibly limit the damage - not rants about a history that we cannot change!

BoatMad wrote: »

yes but a start is to start undoing damage , rather then in Syria , compounding that damage, every day, or leaving Libya lawless

How?

BoatMad wrote: »

None is denying that innocents are getting killed on all sides, That the tragedy of war. ( and we are participants in a war )
and yes I am upset, so upset that I want a solution

and I have been suggesting a solution , one based on trying to understand through education , just what happened and what are the issues

as opposed to " send in the marines"

and Im not solely blaming the West , There are other actors , particularly Iran and Saudi Arabia as this is also a proxy war , but the major protagonist is the US and its foreign policy

Understanding the facts about how various Governments decisions helped create a complete mess in the M.E. - particularly without acknowledging that the M.E had a few problems of its own to begin with is not "trying to find a solution", I'm afraid.

It's laying blame on one side (rightly), while utterly refusing to acknowledge the part that the other side/s played.

Ignoring the difficulty of how best to protect as many innocent people as possible, without giving ISIS more propaganda material, trying to find a way to address security concerns, discussing ways policy could allow people worldwide to live as they choose, without being a threat to anyone else - All these issues would be trying to find a solution.

You're not doing that.

BoatMad wrote: »

Get away with what

"invading a country that didnt want you "

we might look closer to home !!!.

and if you think the invasion of Kuwait was rebuffed to save the nice cuddly Kuwaitis , seriously !!!!

Oh, for God's sake. Everyone knows the "defense" of Kuwait was about oil.

That doesn't mean that the Kuwaiti people should have been left to Saddams tender mercies, either!

At this point, we're all aware that you are angry at American policy, among others.
Unless you have a time machine, and the ability to influence past decision makers as well, your anger is pointless. Justified - but pointless!

What do you not understand about that fact?

How about we stop discussing history, and get around to discussing the present, and the future, what we can learn, and how to save as many lives as possible?

Surely it might be a more useful exercise?

BoatMad wrote: »

if you'd like to descend to the base motive of " labelling " I can only say that last resort of the ideologically destitute.

I am sickened by what ISIS has done, but I seek to understand the whys and wherefores and the more I look the more I see the wests hand in its creation

( in that Trump was partially right Obama crreated ISIS )



of course and countries like France have sought to tackle it head on. The allowance of religious groups to practice their religion is complex
as an atheist , I am not in favour of the state having anything to do with religion, but I accept its a complex area

You miss the point, entirely.

Your post history on this matter has comprised almost entirely of rants about America, and "The West".

Meaning you're the one pushing an ideology.

My interest is in discussing Manchester, in how it happened, and how we might possibly try to prevent further attacks.

History has a part to play in that, certainly, but surely it would be more productive to discuss how to save innocent lives now.

By all means, if we can find a way to influence policy makers decisions to save lives in Europe as well as the Middle East, - I'm more than happy to discuss it, although I don't believe either politicians, Army Generals, or Warlords, are going to pay a blind bit of attention, tbh.

wonderfullife wrote: »

What side is that?



No it's not. There was wall-to-wall coverage on news channels about Manchester.

The Portland Terrorist didn't get even 1% of the same attention and spotlight.



It had as little to do with Jesus as any Islamic terrorist has to do with Muhammad. They both think they are doing things in the name of their religion yet neither are.

And he's a Christian terrorist not just a murderer.

It doesn't matter if Jesus advocated for murder - there's plenty of passages in the Bible that do exactly that. There's also plenty of passages in the Quran where Muhammad called for 'jihad' and emphasised that the concept of 'jihad' is to better yourself, not to kill others.

You can quote whatever passages you want from either book but the bottom line is these people are committing murder in both religions based on 2000 year old books set in a completely different era in humanity.

They're all fighting warped battles because of their 'faith' in these religions and all these religions are based on books that are fairytales.

It would be false to say Radical Christian Terrorists are as big a problem as Radical Islamic ones but they're both problematic.

Is he? Seems to me he's a discriminatory bigot, who reacts violently when challenged.

Did you miss the part where he killed the people who defended those ladies? Not the Muslim woman?

Anyway, this thread is about Manchester - not America, and whatever unrelated nutjobs are running around there.

It was a horrendous act. To my knowledge, it has not yet been classified as a terrorist attack - and it's seriously off-topic.

R.I.P to those who died. Sincere sympathy to their families and friends.

The_Kew_Tour

Another issue thats only coming to light is the Child grooming not just in Rotherham but also across UK.

Sunderland had high profile case just recently too.

When people talk about small amounts of people they kill they miss a far bigger picture

Between marrying underage, hate of gays, grooming young girls and not to mention the demands they put on Social Welfare its no wonder people have questions.

Yeah_Right

BoatMad wrote: »

ask yourself when Jihadi style attacks came to public prominence in the West. I dont seem to remember them bombing Europe in the 80s

I'm sorry but I don't think memory is very good then. There were numerous attacks in Austria, Germany, Greece, France, Spain and the U.K. involving Hezbollah, Abu Nidal, the PLO and other groups or individuals from Iran, Jordan, Libya and Armenia throughout the 80s. I'm sure it was similar in the 70s.

pilly

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Another issue thats only coming to light is the Child grooming not just in Rotherham but also across UK.

Sunderland had high profile case just recently too.

When people talk about small amounts of people they kill they miss a far bigger picture

Between marrying underage, hate of gays, grooming young girls and not to mention the demands they put on Social Welfare its no wonder people have questions.

What on earth has any of the above got to do with Manchester?

Hector Savage

pilly wrote: »

What on earth has any of the above got to do with Manchester?

I guess the same fear that stopped people from reporting this guy as they thought it would make them "racist" - its the same identity politics bullsh1t that stopped them doing anything regarding those groomers.

The_Kew_Tour

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Between marrying underage, hate of gays, grooming young girls and not to mention the demands they put on Social Welfare its no wonder people have questions.

yep, because none of that happens in ireland

DEFTLEFTHAND

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I'm sorry but I don't think memory is very good then. There were numerous attacks in Austria, Germany, Greece, France, Spain and the U.K. involving Hezbollah, Abu Nidal, the PLO and other groups or individuals from Iran, Jordan, Libya and Armenia throughout the 80s. I'm sure it was similar in the 70s.

1400 years of it.

pilly

Hector Savage wrote: »

I guess the same fear that stopped people from reporting this guy as they thought it would make them "racist" - its the same identity politics bullsh1t that stopped them doing anything regarding those groomers.

By all accounts this guy was reported by his own imam, and yet still wasn't stopped before he carried out the attack so yeah, maybe you're right in that the police have a fear of arresting someone too quickly. Shame they didn't in this case.

The_Kew_Tour

bubblypop wrote: »

yep, because none of that happens in ireland

You're right they are probably doing it here too

bilston

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I'm sorry but I don't think memory is very good then. There were numerous attacks in Austria, Germany, Greece, France, Spain and the U.K. involving Hezbollah, Abu Nidal, the PLO and other groups or individuals from Iran, Jordan, Libya and Armenia throughout the 80s. I'm sure it was similar in the 70s.

There were certainly high profile terrorist attacks in the 70s and 80s. Lockerbie stands out to me.

That said I think the number of attacks has increased significantly in Europe even in the last 18-24 months.

Just off the top of my head...

2015
Charlie Hebdo attack
Tunisia attack on British tourists (yes it was in Africa but there were 30 British killed and an Irish couple as well IIRC)
Paris (inc. Batalcan) attacks

2016
Brussels Airport attack
Nice truck attack
Berlin Christmas market vehicle attack

2017
Westminster attack
St Petersburg Subway attack
Vehicle attack in Stockholm
Manchester bombing

There have been a number of other smaller scale attacks in France in particular such as a Priest having his throat cut, a policeman being murdered, and a senior police official and his wife being murdered as well and I haven't included the numerous attacks in Turkey, some by Kurdish groups as well it has to be said.

The other staggering, and quite frankly frightening, stat I heard on the BBC the other night was that since 2013 18 terrorist plots have been stopped in the UK...the scary part being that 5 of those had been stopped since the Westminster attack in March...

So yes you're right there were attacks in the 70s/80s and 90s but the number of attacks are definitely on the increase.

Of course we shouldn't overly panic, historically Europe is pretty much as peaceful now as it has ever been!!!

Yeah_Right

bilston wrote: »

There were certainly high profile terrorist attacks in the 70s and 80s. Lockerbie stands out to me.

That said I think the number of attacks has increased significantly in Europe even in the last 18-24 months.

....

So yes you're right there were attacks in the 70s/80s and 90s but the number of attacks are definitely on the increase.

Of course we shouldn't overly panic, historically Europe is pretty much as peaceful now as it has ever been!!!

You're right. I was just pointing it out to the poster who couldn't remember any attacks in the 80s. The ones that immediately sprang to mind were Lockerbie, the night club bombing in Germany, the Iranian embassy siege and a couple of other airplane hijackings.

Definitely seem to be on the increase and obviously the 24 hour news coverage and the Internet raises the profile of each incident.

Will I Am Not

BoatMad wrote: »

ask yourself when Jihadi style attacks came to public prominence in the West. I dont seem to remember them bombing Europe in the 80s

It's a lot easier to be radicalised in the "West" in an age where virtually everyone has all the information and misinformation they could possibly find at their fingertips.

You seem to be putting it all down to Western countries bombing the Middle East.

I just came across this today. It's apparently from an ISIS propaganda magazine.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/438661/believe-what-isis-says-about-its-motivations

We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you. “There has already been for you an excellent example in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, ‘Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever you worship other than Allah. We have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone’” (Al-Mumtahanah 4).

And:

What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list. The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you. No doubt, we would stop fighting you then as we would stop fighting any disbelievers who enter into a covenant with us, but we would not stop hating you.

wonderfullife

NinjaKirby wrote: »

Are American right wing extremists a concern for us over here?

If I'm sending my kids to an event at the 3 Arena should I be worries about American right wing extremists blowing the place up?

Oh ok, so you only care about terrorism if it's in the UK or France or somewhere within a 2 hour flight of us?

That's fine and I tend to agree it's only natural to worry about stuff that affects us here.

In Ireland, a far bigger problem is drug gangs. Islamic Terrorists have done sweet F all to us.

Help!!!! wrote: »

Portland = America, Manchester = UK.....One close, one not. Did you check American tv to see if they were reporting the Portland Christian terrorist?

That was my point.

CNN, Fox, NBC ran 24-7 rolling coverage of Manchester and very little coverage of Portland.

The idea that "it's in America so who cares" is silly. American intervention and attitudes towards Islam and the Middle East plays a huge role in what threats we will face in Europe.

GT_TDI_150

it seems so many are unwilling to believe that some can hate for the sake of hate or hate because you dont share their beliefs...

Once we all comprehend this, it might be easier to agree on a way to deal with extremism

mariaalice

My husband who went to university with a lot of middle eastern students in Manchester in the 1970th he always comments that he never in a million years imagined them or their children becoming terrorists. Maybe it is the lack of integration in the society they live in but nobody seem to know the answer.

Make you wonder in 30 or 40 years will some other culture be producing the terrorists.

wonderfullife

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

it seems so many are unwilling to believe that some can hate for the sake of hate or hate because you dont share their beliefs...

Once we all comprehend this, it might be easier to agree on a way to deal with extremism

Lots of people hate for the sake of hate.

What's the point? Millions of people in the world are overtly racist against black people. Comprehending this doesn't make it easier to "agree on a way to deal with it".

mariaalice wrote: »

My husband who went to university with a lot of middle eastern students in Manchester in the 1970th he always comments that he never in a million years imagined them or their children becoming terrorists. Maybe it is the lace of integration in the society they live in but nobody seem to know the answer.

Make you wonder in 30 or 40 years will some other culture be producing the terrorists.

Exactly.

I'm sure if you went to school or university in Belfast or San Sebastian in the 1950's you could never have imagined those people's children getting involved in murderous terrorism but people are easily sucked in by what they believe to be a righteous cause.

Nearly all terrorism of every kind has its roots in land-ownership-disputes.

In Ireland it was the belief this island is our island and doesn't belong to the Brits.

In Spain, it was the belief that the Basque Country doesn't belong to Spain.

You can carry on nation by nation, Hezbollah, the PLO, wherever whatever it's all over the idea that someone else is on "their lands".

That's not an easy problem to solve.