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

The Fake Sheikh

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

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

Well, that certainly goes a long way towards explaining why so many of these Jihadis were recent converts!

It seems to be the old cult recruitment methods. Find someone disaffected with society, or vulnerable because of recent bereavement (I'm not describing Jihadis as vulnerable - I'm discussing how cults recruit members, before someone gets offended!) do some of what the Americans describe as "love-bombing", convert subject, adding whatever variation of the teaching suits the groups purpose, and they appear to be willing to do whatever the Cult/Group want

GT_TDI_150

wonderfullife wrote: »

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".

People are pinning the cause and solution for this hatred on the bombing raids and military involvement of the west in the ME ...

I'm merely saying that we need to realize that for a lot of the extremist, this isn't their torch/cause ... they hate you and me for not being muslim, for not recognizing their god, not because an F16 went on a bombing raid on some villages in the afghan mountains and killed civilians along with its intended target.

people are looking for a solution in policies in relation the the ME, when the reason (for some at least) seems to be the fact you dont like their imagionary friend and the values they have attached to him

ScumLord

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.

Your husband was probably going to university with the children of rich Muslims who could be quite westernised. The fact they're in Europe for university highlights they're not your average Muslim, because they probably had to pay a fortune to send their kids here.

As with everywhere else in the world people that rich live in their own bubble, they don't suffer the same as the poor people in their country and probably don't really share a lot of their values.

mariaalice

Osama bin laden came from a very wealthy family and some of whom were westernised. Wealth does stop someone becoming a terrorist.

pilly

ScumLord wrote: »

Your husband was probably going to university with the children of rich Muslims who could be quite westernised. The fact they're in Europe for university highlights they're not your average Muslim, because they probably had to pay a fortune to send their kids here.

As with everywhere else in the world people that rich live in their own bubble, they don't suffer the same as the poor people in their country and probably don't really share a lot of their values.

The point mariaalice was making I think was that it seems to be a new generation that are becoming radicalised and that is puzzling.

Whilst muslims in their 40's and 50's are happily integrated into communities the younger generation don't seem to be as much. It is worrying.

Beasty

pilly wrote: »

The point mariaalice was making I think was that it seems to be a new generation that are becoming radicalised and that is puzzling.

Whilst muslims in their 40's and 50's are happily integrated into communities the younger generation don't seem to be as much. It is worrying.

Younger people are typically more vulnerable to what is effectively brainwashing. I am sure those who show more vulnerability are more susceptible to be targeted.

It's the same the world over with those who are moving into adulthood more likely to rebel against the norms established by earlier generations, with people generally settling down more as they mature

We are still though talking a very small minority who are targeted and indeed enticed

NinjaKirby

wonderfullife wrote: »

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.

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.

To be honest it seemed like you only care about terrorism in the USA so that you can say "see Christians are doing it too".

Manchester is very close to home but it's not just that. The likelihood that I would travel to the UK for a concert or sporting event is high, 2 or 3 times a year. The likelihood that I would take a city break somewhere is Europe is equally high.

Furthermore, a lot of friends and family members are going to concerts and football matches and rugby matches in the UK and Europe on a regular basis.

So, when a story hits the news that a suicide bomber killed 22 people at Manchester Arena it resonates.

Knowing that public gatherings and concerts and sporting events may be specifically targeted also resonates.

If your point is "the majority of terrorists are Christian extremists" then that's fine. I'm sure that's a fact. It doesn't really change anything though does it?

America has a problem with Christian extremists and Europe has a problem with Islamic extremists. OK. I live in Europe.

The_Kew_Tour

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

You're right they are probably doing it here too

Certain minorities definiatly do

wonderfullife

pilly wrote: »

The point mariaalice was making I think was that it seems to be a new generation that are becoming radicalised and that is puzzling.

Whilst muslims in their 40's and 50's are happily integrated into communities the younger generation don't seem to be as much. It is worrying.

People have their head in the sands if they believe incidents like Bloody Sunday up north didn't pour fuel on the fire and radicalize a new generation.

Same when there's atrocities being committed in Syria, Palestine and elsewhere, it's just creating a new generation of terrorism.

Give a cause (any cause) martyrs and they'll provide you another generation of fighters/terrorists.

wonderfullife

NinjaKirby wrote: »

To be honest it seemed like you only care about terrorism in the USA so that you can say "see Christians are doing it too".

Manchester is very close to home but it's not just that. The likelihood that I would travel to the UK for a concert or sporting event is high, 2 or 3 times a year. The likelihood that I would take a city break somewhere is Europe is equally high.

Furthermore, a lot of friends and family members are going to concerts and football matches and rugby matches in the UK and Europe on a regular basis.

So, when a story hits the news that a suicide bomber killed 22 people at Manchester Arena it resonates.

Knowing that public gatherings and concerts and sporting events may be specifically targeted also resonates.

If your point is "the majority of terrorists are Christian extremists" then that's fine. I'm sure that's a fact. It doesn't really change anything though does it?

America has a problem with Christian extremists and Europe has a problem with Islamic extremists. OK. I live in Europe.

I'll accept you mainly care about UK/Irish issues.

There's been one major terrorist attack in the UK in 12 years. Zero in Ireland.

Put the problem into some sort of perspective.

It shouldn't put you off going to a United or Arsenal match or a Guns n Roses gig in Slane or whatever. If it does, then you're being irrational.

Trump_Wall

wonderfullife wrote: »

Same when there's atrocities being committed in Syria, Palestine and elsewhere, it's just creating a new generation of terrorism.

If a United Ireland were achieved, the IRA would have ceased active military activity.

If the Israeli-Palestinian question, the Syrian Civil War etc. were resolved, political Islam would continue to exist. It would merely re-frame its movement.

That's the difference.

Appeasement to political Islam is akin to appeasing Nazism in the 1930s. Once you give an inch, they take ten miles.

wonderfullife

wonderfullife wrote: »

People have their head in the sands if they believe incidents like Bloody Sunday up north didn't pour fuel on the fire and radicalize a new generation.

Same when there's atrocities being committed in Syria, Palestine and elsewhere, it's just creating a new generation of terrorism.

Give a cause (any cause) martyrs and they'll provide you another generation of fighters/terrorists.

I can't argue with that, but the fact is also that ISIS themselves have said that they hate us, and that the crises in the M.E is only a secondary reason for that hate.

In other words, the M.E is probably good propaganda for recruitment, but it is not ISIS' raison d'etre.

They hate us because we reject "The prophet"!
(see post 3238), credit to The Fake Sheikh, link to source here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ts-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.

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.

So, the Stated aim is total domination by Islam, and a worldwide Caliphate.

There's no way to deal with that, except by total extermination.
The flip side of that of course, is that it's unwise to create political martyrs - so how on earth are we going to round them up, and find good secure jail cells for the rest of their miserable lives?

wonderfullife

Trump_Wall wrote: »

If a United Ireland were achieved, the IRA would have ceased active military activity.

If the Israeli-Palestinian question, the Syrian Civil War etc. were resolved, political Islam would continue to exist. It would merely re-frame its movement.

That's the difference.

Appeasement to political Islam is akin to appeasing Nazism in the 1930s. Once you give an inch, they take ten miles.

If a United Ireland was achieved, you'd have Unionist terrorists bombing left, right and centre and the IRA counter-bombing them.

What do people want done? You can bomb and kill as many terrorists as you like but unless you defeat the ideas behind their extremism, it doesn't do much. It's like mowing the grass - the grass will grow back. The only possible solution is to pave over the ideas behind extremism - and that's impossible to achieve.

Look, at the end of the day all the UK, US, France, Germany can do is to continue to bomb ISIS, improve vetting of refugees and try encourage increased integration between Muslim communities and the rest.

There's certainly lots they can do better but the idea they'll ever stop extremism is pie-in-the-sky. It'll always exist. This century it seems to be Islamic Extremism. For many of the other centuries it was Christian.

You can't ban religions, there'll always be extremists in all religions because the fairytale books they read all have messed-up ideas in them.

ilkhanid

BoatMad wrote: »

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

I hold no brief for the Kuwaiti monarchy, no better or worse than other Gulf monarchies and I am aware that few if any participants in the campaign the country were acting out of altruism, but nevertheless the ordinary people of Kuwait shouldn't have been left to Saddam's tender mercies. A country is entitled to it's territorial integrity and it's national independence whatever the colour of the regime.

BoatMad wrote: »

the key to " defeating " terrorism is to attempt to fix the underlying sources of that conflict ( stop bombing innocents by the west in the ME , would be a start )

Do you imagine that there is a single combatant in the Syraqui conflict that hasn't been responsible for the deaths of innocents? Those deaths are also on the Iraqi forces fighting in Mosul, on the Shia militias, on the Iranian militias assisting the Iraqi army and on the Kurds fighting alongside the Americans in Syria and Iraq.

BoatMad wrote: »

or has the conflict in NI not taught you anything

If I recall, most of the innocents in the NI conflict were murdered by the paramilitaries.

BoatMad wrote: »

Given the vast majority of actions by the US in Iraq was against the Sunni peoples , I think you have the wrong end of the stick.

That's an exaggeration. The US had little interest in the Shia/Sunni divide (Bush famously didn't know about it) and the Shia were involved in a fierce insurgency against the US/UK coalition forces. Of course the invasion and occupation was bound to be disadvantageous to the Sunnis, given that they comprised the ruling elite of the country, but this was inevitable and not down to some American animus against the Sunnis.

BoatMad wrote: »

The Iranians may defeat ISIS , but the Sunnis remains the upwards of half the population in Iraq. Elsewhere its largely Sunnis , ( shias in syria account for about 15% of the pop)

You mean Shia, I presume? 64.9% of Iraq's population are Shias.

BoatMad wrote: »

The US are the Nazis , thats the problem and we sided with them , ISIS might be regarded as the Resistance fighters ( I can only maintain the parallel to a point )

OK. The US are Nazis, yet ten+years on, they are fighting with the armies of the country they invaded, indespensable allies (allies with gritted teeth, I don't doubt for some, yet nevertheless....)
IS are the Resistance? A resistance of genocidal, religious fanatics that wants to expel, enslave or drive into annihilation every other person in the country outside of their own small group. A resistance of Sunni Suprematists that is earning the hatred of even the people who originally tolerated them out of desperation. Right, so.

BoatMad wrote: »

have you read any ME history , the origins of ISIS , the source of the choas in Iraq , the issue with The SUnnis there etc etc etc

He may well have done, several of us have;but we still don't jump to insane conclusons like the ones posted above.

BoatMad wrote: »

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

I don't think it's that complex at all. Your right to religous tolerance ends where you impinge on both the individual rights of both adherents to your faith and others.

Deleted User wrote: »

Hell, I've read posts on this forum condemning Catholics for the crusades, and the posts weren't written by Muslims, or Arabs - and modern Catholics are certainly not responsible for the Crusades !

Crusades! Are they soft in the head? Why should any European have to apologise for the Crusades any more than a Spaniard should have to apologise for the Armada or an inhabitant of Caen should have to apologise for the Norman conquest?

ilkhanid

BoatMad wrote: »

its not like they are Latvians bombing the UK, They are people with strong cultural links to the ME

rather like an PIRA from Kerry bombing Londin etc. Its the radicalisation thats the issue , not where he or she was born

How often does this point have to be repeated? Yes, it is an issue. "Cultural links"?
Abedi claimed to be radicalised by Syria, but he's a Libyan.
Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale were British of Nigerian descent and were converts to Islam.
Then there was Dhiren Bharot,an Indian convert to Islam who was sentenced to life in prison in 2006 for plotting to fill limousines with explosives and park them in garages beneath hotels and office complexes.
I could find other examples where the terrorists had nothing in common with the peoples on whose behalf they claim to be acting. Nothing..except that they're Muslims.

wonderfullife wrote: »

People have their head in the sands if they believe incidents like Bloody Sunday up north didn't pour fuel on the fire and radicalize a new generation.
Same when there's atrocities being committed in Syria, Palestine and elsewhere, it's just creating a new generation of terrorism.
Give a cause (any cause) martyrs and they'll provide you another generation of fighters/terrorists.

See my point above. There's nothing in common between people who join an insurgency-rightly or wrongly-because of injustices they see perpetrated on their own community, in some cases with personal experience of those injustices on the one hand ;and people who associate themselves with some foreign struggle (often a complex, many-sided struggle that they totally misunderstand) on behalf of people, often of a different ethnicity, or who speak a different language, and who might reject their partisan view anyway.

Varik

NinjaKirby wrote: »

If your point is "the majority of terrorists are Christian extremists" then that's fine. I'm sure that's a fact. It doesn't really change anything though does it?

Is that sarcasm or do you actually think that?

BoatMad

ilkhanid wrote: »

I hold no brief for the Kuwaiti monarchy, no better or worse than other Gulf monarchies and I am aware that few if any participants in the campaign the country were actig out of altruism, but nevertheless the ordinary people of Kuwaut shouldn't have been left to Saddam's tender mercies. A country is entitled to it's territorial integrity and it's national independence whatever the colour of the regime.

Most of the ME was dreamed up post WW1 by the British French and Russians, territorial integrity is a very loose term in relation to that

The repelling of the Iraqi invasion of kuwait was about oil , end of story

Do you imagine that there is a single combatant in the Syraqui conflict that hasn't been responsible for the deaths of innocents? Those deaths are on the Iraqi forces fighting in Mosul, on the Shia militias, on the Iranian militias assisting the Iraqi army and on the Kurds fighting alongside the Americans in Syria and Iraq.

of course, all sides have the blood of innocents on their hands, but the ones with the biggest bombs and miliarty machines , need to consider stopping first

If I recall, most of the innocents in the NI conflict were murdered by the paramilitaries.

Thats a perspective not shared by many republicans

That's an exaggeration. The US had little interest in the Shia/Sunni divde (Bush famously didn't know about it) and the Shia were involved in a fierce insurgency against the US/UK coalition forces. Of course the invasion and occupation was bound to be disadvantageous to the Sunnis, given that they comprised the ruling elite of the country, but this was inevitable and not down to some American animus against the Sunnis.

The effect of the US invasion was to leave the Sunni population exposed to intimidation and retaliation , which the US did nothing to counter =, The result was ISIS

You mean Shia, I presume? 64.9% of Iraq's population are Shias.

The number is debatable at present with all the movement of people, but Sunni i Iraq are a very large minority

OK. The US are Nazis, yet ten+years on, they are fighting with the armies of the country they inavaded, indespensable allies (allies with gritted teeth, I don't doubt for some, yet nevertheless....)

The point is the US is the aggressor in the ME

IS are the Resistance? A resistance of genocidal, religious fanatics that want's to expel, enslave or drive into annihilation every other person in the country outside of their own small group. A resistance of Sunni Suprematists that is earning the hatred of even the people who originally tolerated them out of desperation. Right, so.

The establishment of a " greater Syria " has been the dream of many million Sunni Arabs, since Colonel Lawrence sold them that pup. Its not surprising IS promoted it. The fact is that ISIS had and has significant support , other wise it couldnt function

( not to mentioned being initially funded with the acquiesce of the US, through illegal oil sales via Turkey )

He may well have done, several of us have;but we still don't jump to insane conclusons like the ones posted above.

there are conclusions that present a view you don't like, that doesn't make them insane

weldoninhio

wonderfullife wrote: »

Guilty until proven innocent.

Only applied to Muslims.

Yeah, this approach would surely work and not make things worse.......

Sigh.

Look, I know there's a lot of fair minded people on this thread who believe we need to try something extreme in order to solve this problem.

To them I'd say 3 things:

1. Problem is unsolvable.
2. Problem is not as bad as you think it is anyway.
3. Extreme solutions breed extreme problems.

They locked up 775 people without trial in Guantanamo Bay and that was one of the major reasons for the growth of ISIS.

Extreme solutions always fail largely because they just create (or worsen) other problems. Prohibition of alcohol in the US in the 1920's was aimed at (obviously) stopping people drinking, not only did it fail but one of the immediate by-products was that organised crime absolutely flourished. Murders nationwide increased by 60%.

TL;DR - If they did try an extreme solution in the UK that targeted the Muslim population in a way they don't target the rest, it'd make things far worse and fast.

I don't remember reading about many Japanese suicide bombers in the US in the 40s and 50s. Stop making excuses. Something has to be done.

weldoninhio

wonderfullife wrote: »

But the ones that were actually thinking about committing an attack will now know the police are on to them and take even extra care about who they talk to, where they go, how they plan it etc.

The ones that weren't thinking about ever doing an attack will now think they've been persecuted due to their religion.

If you want my 2 cents on extreme solutions that might help that they need to do more of...

If I was the UK government I would recruit the very best hackers in the country and constantly disrupt, bring down, disable, crash every known server/website that spreads ISIS propaganda. Put more money into doing that.

I'd try 'flip' some extreme preachers with devoted followings into softening their message into one of peace or plant some long-term spies with the intention of them becoming preachers, who can then try disseminate that message.

Most of all, and I know for a fact this isn't done enough, I would counter-program ISIS propaganda. For every ISIS video or tweet sent out, there should be a dozen anti-ISIS videos and tweets swamping out their message.

For every video of an ISIS fighter with hot girls on his arm and looking powerful, I'd counter-program it a video of a before/after picture of an ISIS fighter alive, then dead.

21st century warfare isn't gonna be about nation states and storming the trenches. It's going to be an information war as much as a ground war.

Defeat ISIS online. Constantly drown out, subvert and diminish their capabilities of spreading hate.

It's no good just dropping MOAB's on these people, you have to defeat the message and appeal of extremism.

My God!!! You want to troll ISIS into defeat?!? There have been a lot of stupid, reckless, ridiculous and nonsensical ideas put forward. But that's a shark jumping a shark!!!

Could we not just give them all hugs and hope that they don't detonate coz they feel the love??

weldoninhio

notjustsweet wrote: »

The presumption of innocence is a UN human right.

Tell that to anyone who's been denied bail before trial.

wonderfullife

weldoninhio wrote: »

My God!!! You want to troll ISIS into defeat?!? There have been a lot of stupid, reckless, ridiculous and nonsensical ideas put forward. But that's a shark jumping a shark!!!

Could we not just give them all hugs and hope that they don't detonate coz they feel the love??

Troll?

It's a well-used tactic by the CIA, MI6 and others to counter-program the message.

Sure the CIA spent $450 million on those Fake Terrorist videos!

The way to contain ISIS is to bomb them into submission. That only works for containment because it creates martyrs who then inspire a whole new wave of terrorists.

The way to try defeat them (TRY!) is to defeat the message of extremism. There's many ways that can be attempted and one of them is to target the dissemination of the extremist message.

In plain English, If i've got 100 followers on social media and put out a destructive/harmful message about something with a hashtag of #war then one way to minimise the impact is to flood the hashtag #war with constructive messages so mine just gets lost in a sea of information.

I don't know how you can interpret that as 'trolling' and the "shark" comment is nonsense given the CIA are already actively involved in doing this.

I'm just calling for more of it.

Persephone kindness

Originally Posted by notjustsweet
The presumption of innocence is a UN human right.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Tell that to anyone who's been denied bail before trial.

You misunderstand.
ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies.

In real terms it's logically impossible to prove a negative. I cannot prove I was not at the place of the murder at the time of the murder. I can only prove where I might have been at that time.

It's difficult to logically work with proving negative arguements. I know you will find this hard to believe ..but in some cases there are in fact statutory reversals of onus of proof in some legal cases. This is Despite the UN declaration of rights.

Reversal of the legal burden happens in Austraila UK..lots of places.

there are in fact twodifferent types of burdens recognized by the law. These burdens are commonly known as legal burden and evidential burden.

The rule is reversed in the case of a plea of insanity in so far as the onus is on the accused to prove insanity. If it is raised as a live issue in defense the burden of proof is upon the accused. It's not considered inconsistent with the UN declaration as it doesn't require the accused to assume the risk of conviction.

For example in French customs law has strong presumption that possession of drugs in some circumstances is to be considered smuggling. And those found in possession and found guilty of possession while the onus of proof being on the prosecution will be presumed guilty of smuggling. Which carries a much longer sentence.

It's actually a good point to make ..not many people understand this.

It's happened before an accused took it to the EU court of human rights and they found French courts had considered all the evidence before resorting to the presumptions. The ECtHR also went on to say that the Conventiondoes not prohibit the use of such presumptions of fact or law as they exist and operatein every legal system. This acknowledges that courts realize and operate under the fact that the presumption of innocence is not an absolute rule. But the European court of human rights rules that such presumptions much be confined within reasonable rule.

So basically under french customs law ...if you are found guilty of possession. Under certain circumstances you will be presumed guilty of smuggling too .

Richard Hillman

Just the 2 foiled terror attacks today


https://twitter.com/XHNews/status/869615780656287744


https://twitter.com/XHNews/status/869540738106892288

Persephone kindness

It's best to think of the good in the world sometimes.

DrWu

Oh for Gods sake. I'm planning my summer hols in Greenland.

ilkhanid

BoatMad wrote: »

Most of the ME was dreamed up post WW1 by the British French and Russians, territorial integrity is a very loose term in relation to that
The repelling of the Iraqi invasion of kuwait was about oil , end of story

It doesn't matter a whit what your opinion of Kuwait or anywhere, is. If a country is a recognised state under International law, with a seat at the UN, it is legitimately entitled to it's existence. Half of the countries in Africa were dreamed up post World War 1. Would you deny them the right to exist if some big shark decided to gobble them up...or does your disdain only extend to countries rescued by the USA?

BoatMad wrote: »

of course, all sides have the blood of innocents on their hands, but the ones with the biggest bombs and miliarty machines , need to consider stopping first

No, the ones wrecking the most havoc need to stop first and that would be Assad, Russia and IS. In any case, do you think that the Iraqi government and the Kurds shouldn't have a say? They want American help and your opinions are, thankfully, of little interest in Baghdad or Erbil.

BoatMad wrote: »

Thats a perspective not shared by many republicans

Who gives a curse what "Republicans" think, it's the truth. Look up "Lost Lives" by david McKittrick if you doubt it.

BoatMad wrote: »

The effect of the US invasion was to leave the Sunni population exposed to intimidation and retaliation , which the US did nothing to counter =, The result was ISIS

The effect of the invasion was to give effective control of the country to the Shias. Since the Shia constitute the majority of the population of Iraq that was inevitable..or would you prefer that a way was found to deprive the Shias of that long awaited reward? If the Sunni had governed wisely and not discriminated against and persecuted the Shias (and the Kurds) they wouldn't have had reason to fear Shia retribution, so, to a degree, my sympathy for their predicament is limited. It could be said that they brought it upon ther own heads. Engaging the Shias in a savage insurgency that involved massacring Shias inside their sacred shrines was guaranteed to stir up Shia militancy and increase their thirst for revenge, but Jihadi militants like Abu Al-Zarqawi didn't give a damn, He wanted Shia-Sunni civil war whatever the price. Now Shia revenge, however understandable, did not help to make Iraq a cohesive state, and of course it played a role in the rise of IS so it should be condemned. But to put all the blame on the USA and to ignore the actions by Saddam that laid the ground for later problems or of the Sunni Jihadis that turned the insurgency into a Shia/Sunni conflict is blinkered. Not all roads lead back to the USA and the UK.

BoatMad wrote: »

The number is debatable at present with all the movement of people, but Sunni i Iraq are a very large minority

True, but they are still far outnumbered by the Shia by any calculation. In no way, were they ever entitled to rule the country.

BoatMad wrote: »

The point is the US is the aggressor in the ME

So you say. But the point I am making is that if it was simple as that, if they were aggressors and nothing else then why are so many parties working with them? The USA has allies, it is part of the imbroglio now. Ranting about the evil Aggressors, doesn't help the Iraqis, doesn't help the people of Mosul or Raqqa, doesn't help the Kurds. They have more pressing goals and enemies they need to defeat, If the USA brings resources that they need to the table, they'd be fools not to take them. They'd regard this kind of invective as a luxury they can't afford

BoatMad wrote: »

The establishment of a " greater Syria " has been the dream of many million Sunni Arabs, since Colonel Lawrence sold them that pup. Its not surprising IS promoted it. The fact is that ISIS had and has significant support , other wise it couldnt function

It's support is draining away. When Sunnis actually experienced IS rule, they realised the depth of their mistake. Why do you think IS is having to terrorise people to stop them leaving Mosul? The very fact that they have to rule by terror, demonstrates that they are feared rather than loved...for the vast majority. At worst, Sunnis are despairing, caught between IS and the Shias, like Ukrainians between Hitler and Stalin.

BoatMad wrote: »

not to mentioned being initially funded with the acquiescence of the US, through illegal oil sales via Turkey )

Provide proof of that. IS provided oil to many buyers , including the Syrian Government.

end of the road

weldoninhio wrote: »

I don't remember reading about many Japanese suicide bombers in the US in the 40s and 50s. Stop making excuses. Something has to be done.

no excuses are being made, facts are been given and legitimate reasons spelled out. something has to be done makes a nice quick snappy little political sound bite but the reality is a lot is being done all ready and only so much can be done. some things can be done better but the current systems and laws are the best availible to effectively deal with the issues.

weldoninhio wrote: »

My God!!! You want to troll ISIS into defeat?!? There have been a lot of stupid, reckless, ridiculous and nonsensical ideas put forward. But that's a shark jumping a shark!!!

Could we not just give them all hugs and hope that they don't detonate coz they feel the love??

it's not a stupid idea at all. it's a fantastic idea. the reality is isis's spreading of hate online needs to be counteracted via an opposite propaganda war.

muppetshow

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 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.

Probably more a civil war,like in former Yugoslavia.

Cantona's Collars

A man confronts to fellas taking stuff from the memorial in Manchester.They claimed they didn't know what it was.Video in the article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4558110/Angry-father-confronts-men-claims-took-flowers.html

AudreyHepburn

zerks wrote: »

A man confronts to fellas taking stuff from the memorial in Manchester.They claimed they didn't know what it was.Video in the article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4558110/Angry-father-confronts-men-claims-took-flowers.html

I find it hard to believe they didn't know what the memorial was for but even if it's true why in the world would you remove anything or any memorial?!

I just don't understand that mindset.