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

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again, what I said was, it is sad that amid all the sensationalism and hypocrisy that the British people will not have the chance to quietly inspect their state's role (role - not 100% blame) in why this is happening.

Perhaps if you toned down the fervent, disparaging defence you might see what is actually being written.

.

That is a disgusting attempt to rationalise and defend the murder of innocent civilians by terrorists.

The personal responsibility for the bombing lies with the bomber, he had a choice at the last minute, press the button and commit an evil act or not press the button. He chose to press the button.

That personal responsibility lies with every similar terrorist act from ETA to IRA to ISIS. No excuse that Britain this or Britain that or USA this or USA that. Each and every terrorist made a personal choice to commit an evil act. For that, they (and those who support and excuse them) are to blame.

Evil deeds happen because people commit them.

Exeggcute

Danzy wrote: »

There is no valid reason and States that have been more appeasing towards radical Islam, even its worst manifestations, who have directly opposed British and American excursions in the past have been hit hard.

We are a named target, there is no shortage of ways that they could hit the world from here, Google, Facebook etc all have globally significant HQ's here.

Gay Pride marches, the odd Jewish School etc.

We will have an incident in time but it may be a very long time.

The U.S. using Shannon alone is enough reason for these nutjobs.

Yet people think we are not a target despite being actually named as a target in ISIS propaganda videos.

Fools, utter fools.

jobbridge4life

blanch152 wrote: »

That is a disgusting attempt to rationalise and defend the murder of innocent civilians by terrorists.

The personal responsibility for the bombing lies with the bomber, he had a choice at the last minute, press the button and commit an evil act or not press the button. He chose to press the button.

That personal responsibility lies with every similar terrorist act from ETA to IRA to ISIS. No excuse that Britain this or Britain that or USA this or USA that. Each and every terrorist made a personal choice to commit an evil act. For that, they (and those who support and excuse them) are to blame.

Evil deeds happen because people commit them.

Right yeah but you don't think it is a worthwhile question to ask why people commit evil deeds?

Exeggcute

blanch152 wrote: »

That is a disgusting attempt to rationalise and defend the murder of innocent civilians by terrorists.

The personal responsibility for the bombing lies with the bomber, he had a choice at the last minute, press the button and commit an evil act or not press the button. He chose to press the button.

That personal responsibility lies with every similar terrorist act from ETA to IRA to ISIS. No excuse that Britain this or Britain that or USA this or USA that. Each and every terrorist made a personal choice to commit an evil act. For that, they (and those who support and excuse them) are to blame.

Evil deeds happen because people commit them.

You seem to be confusing responsibility with motivation.

Danzy

Exeggcute wrote: »

The U.S. using Shannon alone is enough reason for these nutjobs.

Yet people think we are not a target despite being actually named as a target in ISIS propaganda videos.

Fools, utter fools.

They have repeatedly stated that there are bigger reasons to attack States than things like the war in Iraq or Syria.

They are down their list.

Exeggcute

Danzy wrote: »

They have repeatedly stated that there are bigger reasons to attack States than things like the war in Iraq or Syria.

They are down their list.

Yeah. And your point is what exactly? Nobody is saying we are a top priority target, just that we ARE a target and to think otherwise is utterly deluded.

blanch152

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Right yeah but you don't think it is a worthwhile question to ask why people commit evil deeds?

From my perspective, there is no reason that can justify or explain what that man did. Sure, there will be excuses from the usual suspects but I don't accept that they are sufficient.

To put it another way, anyone who commits a terrorist atrocity is at the very least misguided or brainwashed, at the very worst a psychopath (with various other mental states inbetween). That means the professed reasons and explanations put forward by the defenders of terrorism (and we have a few on here) are immaterial.

Exeggcute

blanch152 wrote: »

From my perspective, there is no reason that can justify or explain what that man did. Sure, there will be excuses from the usual suspects but I don't accept that they are sufficient.

To put it another way, anyone who commits a terrorist atrocity is at the very least misguided or brainwashed, at the very worst a psychopath (with various other mental states inbetween). That means the professed reasons and explanations put forward by the defenders of terrorism (and we have a few on here) are immaterial.

Ah the old mental health deflection.

Danzy

blanch152 wrote: »

That is a disgusting attempt to rationalise and defend the murder of innocent civilians by terrorists.

The personal responsibility for the bombing lies with the bomber, he had a choice at the last minute, press the button and commit an evil act or not press the button. He chose to press the button.

That personal responsibility lies with every similar terrorist act from ETA to IRA to ISIS. No excuse that Britain this or Britain that or USA this or USA that. Each and every terrorist made a personal choice to commit an evil act. For that, they (and those who support and excuse them) are to blame.

Evil deeds happen because people commit them.

In your own country you have reason to fight against soldiers who have come there, indeed, an obligation. Terrorists from abroad can come in convoys and with uniforms as we have seen here over the decades, the same resolute challenge to them should be applied to Jihadis.

Yet this man could care less about foreign policy, that they did not conform to Sharia was all the justification that he needed and that his faith provided.

The State, history, context are concerns we are projecting on to him and those like them, they have no such considerations.

Danzy

Exeggcute wrote: »

Yeah. And your point is what exactly? Nobody is saying we are a top priority target, just that we ARE a target and to think otherwise is utterly deluded.

It would be amiss to not act accordingly, increase surveillance, crash barriers at events, especially Gay Pride etc.

Armed patrols to protect gay bars, Jewish Schools and other high profile targets.

A crack down on the radical preachers that have been tolerated here before.

We are where other countries were 15 years ago.

FourFourRED

Follow Follow Follow!

Hopefully United can win in Stockholm tonight for the 22!

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That is a disgusting attempt to rationalise and defend the murder of innocent civilians by terrorists.

The personal responsibility for the bombing lies with the bomber, he had a choice at the last minute, press the button and commit an evil act or not press the button. He chose to press the button.

That personal responsibility lies with every similar terrorist act from ETA to IRA to ISIS. No excuse that Britain this or Britain that or USA this or USA that. Each and every terrorist made a personal choice to commit an evil act. For that, they (and those who support and excuse them) are to blame.

Evil deeds happen because people commit them.

Which would be a worthwhile point if I was in fact making an excuse for or rationalising the act.

People, from states to individuals, have used violence since creation. There are some irrational acts of violence but most have a reason or a cause.

In understanding acts of violence and in coming up with a way of stopping them recurring, reasonable people have to ask questions about 'why' it is happening and is there any way to stop them.

To me, it would be 'disgusting' not to question and inspect.

wonderfullife

blanch152 wrote: »

That means the professed reasons and explanations put forward by the defenders of terrorism (and we have a few on here) are immaterial.

Quote me one post in the entire thread where any person defended someone murdering 22 women and children.

Spanish Eyes

What do the terrorists hope/want to achieve?

They will not bring down the likes of UK or any European country nor US any time soon.

But they will get people frightened to go to mass gatherings,hopefully only temporarily though, and who knows, personal freedoms may be further eroded, stop and search, internment (bad idea...) and so on.

It is just such a waste of lives and quality of life for everyone. Maybe that's their aim in the short term anyway.

Danzy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which would be a worthwhile point if I was in fact making an excuse for or rationalising the act.

People, from states to individuals have used violence since creation. There are some irrational acts of violence but most have a reason or a cause.

In understanding acts of violence and in coming up with a way of stopping them recurring, reasonable people have to ask questions about 'why' it is happening and is there any way to stop them.

To me, it would be 'disgusting' not to question and inspect.

A reasoned point but you should also consider that, given their repeated Statements, over decades, that there are bigger motivations and drivers of Jihad than criminal foreign intervention that we have seen.

Concerns that make sense from our political, moral and social outlook are completely alien to them, rejected by them.

Those who oppose Western Intervention are as valid a target as those who aided it.

Danzy

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

What do the terrorists hope/want to achieve?

They will not bring down the likes of UK or any European country nor US any time soon.

But they will get people frightened to go to mass gatherings,hopefully only temporarily though, and who knows, personal freedoms may be further eroded, stop and search, internment (bad idea...) and so on.

It is just such a waste of lives and quality of life for everyone. Maybe that's their aim in the short term anyway.

They view it as a mission as long as eternity, also to fight and lose or die is still a victory for them, as even attempting to fight guarantees salvation in their faith.

In a way it is fascinating because they are driven by the obligation to advance the Islamic World, end disbelief but also by a purely individual motivation, their place in the afterlife.

Trying to understand this from a Modern European perspective is to negate 1400 years of cultural, social and religious conditioning that drives this.

Victory or defeat are immaterial, ultimate victory is assured by God, all they can do is try to achieve it and if it is not to be in their time then as God wills.

ilkhanid

Danzy wrote: »

Things like Gay Marriage, our party craic socializing with lots of beer, independent women, growing atheism, etc are all going to be more pressing reasons for attacks that what goes on in Shannon.

Have you read some of the jihadi justifications for the attack on the Bataclan quoted in the IT today? Nothing about arms sales or French foreign policy or it's history of colonialism in North Africa, none of the rationalizations constantly brought up here; just nonsense about 'Crusaders' and 'fornicators' and 'debauchery'.

neverever1 wrote: »

People don't attack for that. They are add ons. The route cause is the mass bombing of the Middle East for decades in my opinion.

Yet, riddle me this. Most of the population of Iraq are Shi'a Muslims. Many of the population of Syria are Shi'as or Ismaelis. Same goes for Afghanistan and other ME states. Surely these people also suffered a great deal as a result of various US and British (and other country's) interventions. Yet ,these attacks in the West are almost exclusively carried out by Sunni Muslims. If ones considers that "Western" interventions are a root cause....then why not?
And lastly, for the umpteenth time, France did not participate in the Iraq war, even opposed it, yet it is the main target of Jihadis.

ScumLord wrote: »

The vast majority of those Muslims are here following the American dream. A secularist society where they can earn a fair wage and practice their religion freely. Religion has little to do with someone moving to the west, if it was they'd stay at home or move to another Muslim country. They come here for the lifestyle.

Actually, I agree with much of that. But the problem is.... they gave birth to children who took the benefits of the West for granted and began to flirt with piety...and then end up in radicalism.

kopite386

In terms of the off duty police officer who died as a result of the blast, her husband is critically injured and her children are also in hospital injured.

8 year old Saffie Roussos' mother is still in a coma in hospital heartbreakingly she doesn't know that her daughter is dead

thomasj

http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/24/ex-ukip-mep-calls-for-death-penalty-for-suicide-bombers-6658334/

as tragic and depressing as the last few days have been , i had to have a chuckle at this!

Spanish Eyes

Sadly this kind of thing is not going away. It is like Hydra's head, as soon as you stop one (or they kill themselves), there are many others looking for glory to take their place.

Very unnerving TBH. They are everywhere.

Security services have probably stopped many potential acts of terrorism that we know nothing about, but when they cannot stop something like Manchester, Westminster, 7/7, Nice, Bataclan and so many others, it would appear we are fighting a losing battle.

I am not being negative, just realistic, and it scares the bejaysus out of me.

mikeybrennan

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

What do the terrorists hope/want to achieve?

They will not bring down the likes of UK or any European country nor US any time soon.

But they will get people frightened to go to mass gatherings,hopefully only temporarily though, and who knows, personal freedoms may be further eroded, stop and search, internment (bad idea...) and so on.

It is just such a waste of lives and quality of life for everyone. Maybe that's their aim in the short term anyway.

You could throw the exact same question at the coalition about their actions in the mid-east

Danzy

mikeybrennan wrote: »

You could throw the exact same question at the coalition about their actions in the mid-east

I wonder if the Jihadis were largely White would you then accept their reasoning?

In their mind and by their parameters what they do is logical and correct, you have to take their "Why" on board as well, they maybe different to you culturally and pigmentation wise but that does not mean that what you project on them is correct or the main motivation at least.

Danzy

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Sadly this kind of thing is not going away. It is like Hydra's head, as soon as you stop one (or they kill themselves), there are many others looking for glory to take their place.

Very unnerving TBH. They are everywhere.

Security services have probably stopped many potential acts of terrorism that we know nothing about, but when they cannot stop something like Manchester, Westminster, 7/7, Nice, Bataclan and so many others, it would appear we are fighting a losing battle.

I am not being negative, just realistic, and it scares the bejaysus out of me.

This is the new normal, actually I think it will be looked back as the quite days.

The ones that we know of being broken up are running at an arrest a day in many places.

infogiver

thomasj wrote: »

http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/24/ex-ukip-mep-calls-for-death-penalty-for-suicide-bombers-6658334/

as tragic and depressing as the last few days have been , i had to have a chuckle at this!

I'd imagine that he possibly meant someone found guilty of planning a suicide bombing

kopite386

Jane Tweedle, from Blackpool is another victim named - she had gone with her friend to pick up her friends daughter from the concert

Also Nell Jones, 14 years old, one of the missing girls has been confirmed dead

DrumSteve

thomasj wrote: »

http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/24/ex-ukip-mep-calls-for-death-penalty-for-suicide-bombers-6658334/

as tragic and depressing as the last few days have been , i had to have a chuckle at this!

She called for it for terrorist actions. Metro being a bit facetious there I think.

bodhrandude

It looks like The Sun newspaper has lost a second English city readership, with Manchester effectively banning the newspaper for their headline post terrorist incident.

'On the night of 22 May, an audience made up mostly of teenage girls was attacked with a bomb as they left an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester?s MEN Arena. The youngest victim to have been identified so far is 8-year-old Saffie Rose Roussos.

This was what The Sun chose to put on its front page in the aftermath.':



https://www.thecanary.co/2017/05/24/manchester-set-become-second-city-ban-sun-appalling-response-concert-bombing-tweets/

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which would be a worthwhile point if I was in fact making an excuse for or rationalising the act.

People, from states to individuals, have used violence since creation. There are some irrational acts of violence but most have a reason or a cause.

In understanding acts of violence and in coming up with a way of stopping them recurring, reasonable people have to ask questions about 'why' it is happening and is there any way to stop them.

To me, it would be 'disgusting' not to question and inspect.

I disagree. I would argue that most people of violence use a reason or a cause as an excuse.

There are also contradictions in the point you are arguing. You say you are not "rationalising the act", yet you say "reasonable people have to ask questions about 'why' it is happening".

If the act isn't rational, and you seem to agree that it isn't, then there isn't a reason or a rationale, just an excuse that the coward who carried out this act is hiding behind.

DrumSteve

bodhrandude wrote: »

It looks like The Sun newspaper has lost a second English city readership, with Manchester effectively banning the newspaper for their headline post terrorist incident.

'On the night of 22 May, an audience made up mostly of teenage girls was attacked with a bomb as they left an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester?s MEN Arena. The youngest victim to have been identified so far is 8-year-old Saffie Rose Roussos.

This was what The Sun chose to put on its front page in the aftermath.':



https://www.thecanary.co/2017/05/24/manchester-set-become-second-city-ban-sun-appalling-response-concert-bombing-tweets/

They are scum.

Son Of A Vidic

Deleted User wrote: »

No. It was an attack on the city of Manchester. A vibrant thriving city that has been my home for three years. It was an attack that meant to divide us. That will not happen. If you had been in Albert Square this evening, you would know we are a city united. The scum who committed this attack will not win.

I work with many muslims in the hospital. Last night, we were a team. Ethnicity, colour, religion did not matter. The only concern was our patients. We tried our best to save them and for those we could not save, we tried to keep their suffering as dignified as possible.

I couldn't give a **** about the US arms deal with Saudi Arabia. All I cared about was the 22 dead and the 120 injured. I am sick and tired of these peoples death and injuries been used to further ones agenda.

Always remember, never forget, forever Manchester!

You completely missed the point of my post and as a medical professional myself who trained in London in the Ninties and worked there into the Noughties, I was caught up in the horror of 7/7. I'll never forget the smell and the body parts in Russell Square. So I really don't need you lecturing me about about the dignity of patients and their care and what has you working with Muslim colleagues, got to do with what I said in my post? I lived and worked in the most multicultural city in the world, not that this has any relevance to my original point.

Indeed, as a fellow medical person, you should have clearly seen the medical analogy in the content of my post. I was talking about treating the underlying cause of such brutality and not just the symptoms(Manchester, Paris,ect). Monday night's terrorist attack and the warped motivation is a manifest symptom of a disease and the disease is Wahhabism, espoused, supported and funded by The House Of Saud and it all being conveniently ignored by successive American administrations for oil and trillion dollar investments.

My reference to the massive arms deal was to highlight this disgusting hypocrisy shown by America. And as long as The House of Suad exports terror, and western nations speak out of both sides of their mouths, then there will be more Manchester style attacks and more 7/7's. That is the reality and if I do have an agenda, then that agenda would be the preservation of life and trying to expose the root cause of such terror. To help highlight that Wahhabism has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with hate & death.

The metastatic spread of Daesh to stop, but first the hypocrisy has to stop. So you might well have no interest in a billion dollar arms deals, but I bloody do and I'm pretty disturbed by it. Why is a blind eye being turned to a country that has exported extreme Wahhabi terror across the Middle East, with its latest destination being the streets of Manchester? Well we know why, oil and multi-billion dollar Saudi investments, means money will always take precedent over life and if it didn't? Then The House of Saud would have been reigned in and made accountable long, long ago.