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

BalcombeSt4

conorhal wrote: »

Try not to tell 'us' what it is we want, or rather presuming.

Well then I wasn't talking about fascists like you then.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

Quite simply ... the British government [doesn't] bear any responsibility for madmen that want to tear down Western democratic society.

This is either ignorance, lies, or some combination of the two.

Whitehall has a deep, long-standing special relationship with the extremist Saudis: it is arming them, backing them, apologising for them, and supporting their regional policies. At the same time, the Saudis have been helping to create the monster that now threatens the British public. So, too, have the policies of the British government.

markcurtis.info

Beyondgone

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Well then I wasn't talking about fascists like you then.

please helpThank YOU

Sky news and BBC news keep talking about the the IRA Manchester bomb 20 years ago in the same contexts with this Terrorist Attack on Manchester arena suicide bomber .

Widdershins

GritBiscuit wrote: »

And yet with over 1.5 billion adherents to Islam, if religious ideology was the primary root cause of terrorism wouldn't we all be dead by now?

The thing is, it's only "misguided/deluded/psychopathic/brainwashed" to the opposing side. Look at a situation from a slightly different perspective and those who do the terrorising are lauded as freedom fighters or hero's...you aren't going to change the tide of the current crop of terrorist attacks (just 4 Islamic extremist groups were responsible for a whopping 74% of all deaths from terrorism in 2015) by merely writing it off as some kind of bizarre widespread and spreading ever-wider mental health issue.

I think the phrase "terrorists aren't born, they are made" is pertinent and those root causes need to be addressed. What you do with the current generation of radicalised budding terrorists is a separate but obviously not unrelated issue...

I believe religious ideology is the root cause, many Islamic academics and Muslim reformists believe it is the root cause, and the reason we're not all dead, apart from the fact that not all Muslims share the same outlook, is that those who do have the same outlook as the attackers, don't necessarily feel prepared to die for it (at least not yet).

The idea that if Islam is part of the problem that means all Muslims are problematic is a dangerous one. Maybe that's why people are so averse to scrutinising Islam-because they think it means criticisng Muslims themselves, and tarring them with the same brush.

BalcombeSt4

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Even with the inherent instability, irrationality, and risk in that freedom of religion ? Surely, in the manner of drug addicts, while not to be condoned or encouraged, they are to be helped see the error of their ways ? Being in favour of freedom of religion brings with it the problems that religions bring others whether they subscribe to the religion or not. Believing in religious freedom is incompatible with true freedom for all.

Well I would eventually like religion to be done away with altogether, and as a Democratic Socialist I kind of agree with your last line, but this has to be done by persuasion not by force or fascist style laws.

pumpkin4life

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Well then I wasn't talking about fascists like you then.

BalcombeSt4

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

Sky news and BBC news keep talking about the the IRA Manchester bomb 20 years ago in the same contexts with this Terrorist Attack on Manchester arena suicide bomber .

I don't think there is much comparison. Nobody was killed in the 1996 bomb.
Maybe the Birmingham pub bombings are similar or the Dublin & Monaghan bombings.

conorhal

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Well then I wasn't talking about fascists like you then.

:rolleyes:

AllForIt

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

.

I'm an atheist I don't want any religion, but I believe in the principels of the 1916 proclamation & 1919 Declaration of independence, so I believe in freedom of religion.

Yes, but does freedom of religions mean that one is entitled to hold whatever views they care to believe, extreme or otherwise, and it's all okay because one has subscribed to a religion that shares the same views?

There were Muslims carrying banners in Manchester today holding up placards which said "Freedom of Religion" and the rest written in Islamic text. That suggests to me ppl are of the view that as long as their views are enshrined in religion then their views must be respected. Nice little trick but doesn't wash with me.

BalcombeSt4

pumpkin4life wrote: »

yes, I can already see the similar type of language between the Nazis talking about Jews and people on here calling for a Final Solution for Muslims & putting them in concentration camps.

Irish Praetorian

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

yes, I can already see the similar type of language between the Nazis talking about Jews and people on here calling for a Final Solution for Muslims & putting them in concentration camps.

Yes I mean its really not a big distinction at all between changing migration policy and orchestrating a systematic and industrial process of extermination, I get those two confused all the time.

Incidentally the Jewish population of Europe might having something to say about recent developments, er nvm....

Beyondgone

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

yes, I can already see the similar type of language between the Nazis talking about Jews and people on here calling for a Final Solution for Muslims & putting them in concentration camps.

Where was that said? Quote someone please.

BalcombeSt4

AllForIt wrote: »

Yes, but does freedom of religions mean that one is entitled to hold whatever views they care to believe, extreme or otherwise, and it's all okay because one has subscribed to a religion that shares the same views?

There were Muslims carrying banners in Manchester today holding up placards which said "Freedom of Religion" and the rest written in Islamic text. That suggests to me ppl are of the view that as long as their views are enshrined in religion then their views must be respected. Nice little trick but doesn't wash with me.

Oh, well I hear North Korea is pretty hard on religion, maybe you'd enjoy it there.

buried

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

Sky news and BBC news keep talking about the the IRA Manchester bomb 20 years ago in the same contexts with this Terrorist Attack on Manchester arena suicide bomber .

Ahh sure what can you expect? Those slimey vile hypocrites are hardly going to talk about the time 6 years ago when those news agencies literally laughed with f**king glee when this Lybian branch of fascist salafist wahhabi gang of MURDERERS, the ones that are behind this attack, dragged Gaddafi onto a truck bonnet and chopped his head off. And make no f**king mistake, that's what those british based media HYPOCRITE networks did when they first got the footage. Well done Kay Burley. Laugh it up now.

The Rape of Lucretia

Beyondgone wrote: »

Where was that said? Quote someone please.

Nobody is talking about that. Nor about restricting religious freedom. Rather, that pussy footing around the issue that religions are superstitious bunkum and the problems they bring spring from the same nonsense, need to be freely acknowledged and discussed. People free of that illusion need to be free to call it out for what it is, without the religious calling blasphemy or offence to try to stop it, and calling for defence - i.e muzzling of those saying things that point out uncomfortable truths - from the laws of whatever land.
Islam is bad news. There is nothing good about it. Talking about 'good Islam' is a contradiction.

BalcombeSt4

Beyondgone wrote: »

Where was that said? Quote someone please.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=103612682#post103612682

Irish Praetorian

buried wrote: »

Ahh sure what can you expect? Those slimey vile hypocrites are hardly going to talk about the time 6 years ago when those news agencies literally laughed with f**king glee when this Lybian branch of fascist salafist wahhabi gang of MURDERERS, the ones that are behind this attack, dragged Gaddafi onto a truck bonnet and chopped his head off. And make no f**king mistake, that's what those british based media HYPOCRITE networks did when they first got the footage. Well done Kay Burley. Laugh it up now.

With respect, it's kinda pushing the envelope a little to suggest that whatever one makes of the Libyan Civil War, that somehow that meant a British Muslim (that's line we keep hearing, born in Britain) would have no choice but to blow up a few dozen of his fellow citizens.

buried

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

With respect, it's kinda pushing the envelope a little to suggest that whatever one makes of the Libyan Civil War, that somehow that meant a British Muslim (that's line we keep hearing, born in Britain) would have no choice but to blow up a few dozen of his fellow citizens.

What do you mean?

Irish Praetorian

buried wrote: »

What do you mean?

There appears to be a commonly held attitude that the attacks seen by Europe in recent years are purely down to 'the evildoing' of Western powers in the Islamic world. I find this to be a nonsensical masochistic cop out.

Beyondgone

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=103612682#post103612682

No.

Go again.

buried

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

There appears to be a commonly held attitude that the attacks seen by Europe in recent years are purely down to 'the evildoing' of Western powers in the Islamic world. I find this to be a nonsensical masochistic cop out.

Yeah it's a total cop out alright, and the cop out is this, the establishment's in the west absolute ALLOWANCE to ALLOW the fascist House of Saud, a racket of gangsters based in Riyadh, to export their fascist branch of wahhabi salafist militant Islam throughout the entire globe, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Lybia, The entire continent of Europe, South eastern Asia, f**k it, the entire globe, because that's what has basically happened, for the last 50 years. The west, the great policeman of global righteousness has allowed these saudi suckholes to do this and now some of you wonder how murderous attacks like this can occur?? Thats your "cop out" right there, your "copping out" of what has happened the last 50-60 years since that gang grabbed power through the sword in the Gulf

AllForIt

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Oh, well I hear North Korea is pretty hard on religion, maybe you'd enjoy it there.

Nice try. Bad religious views are better than bad atheistic views.

No cigar for you.

end of the road

Beyondgone wrote: »

Your post is virtue-signalling cobblers.

it isn't "virtue-signalling rabel rabel" anything. it's an accurate post which you failed to argue against.

Irish Praetorian

buried wrote: »

Yeah it's a total cop out alright, and the cop out is this, the establishment's in the west absolute ALLOWANCE to ALLOW the fascist House of Saud, a racket of gangsters based in Riyadh, to export their fascist branch of wahhabi salafist militant Islam throughout the entire globe, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Lybia, The entire continent of Europe, South eastern Asia, f**k it, the entire globe, because that's what has basically happened, for the last 50 years. The west, the great policeman of global righteousness has allowed these saudi suckholes to do this and now some of you wonder how murderous attacks like this can occur?? Thats your "cop out" right there, your "copping out" of what has happened the last 50-60 years since that gang grabbed power through the sword in the Gulf

I take your broad point but of course the upshot is what exactly are we supposed to do about it? We can't reasonably go regime changing, boycotting the worlds largest oil producer would be pissing in the wind and appealing to moral decency in a country that still executes apostates is....yeah. It's a **** hole, and sadly the best we can do is pretend they are our friend.

GritBiscuit

Widdershins wrote: »

I believe religious ideology is the root cause, many Islamic academics and Muslim reformists believe it is the root cause, and the reason we're not all dead, apart from the fact that not all Muslims share the same outlook, is that those who do have the same outlook as the attackers, don't necessarily feel prepared to die for it (at least not yet).

The idea that if Islam is part of the problem that means all Muslims are problematic is a dangerous one. Maybe that's why people are so averse to scrutinising Islam-because they think it means criticisng Muslims themselves, and tarring them with the same brush.

It may be "a" cause, I'm not convinced it's "the" cause - radicalisation is a complex issue and finger-pointing at a specific religious ideology that has been around since the 7th century goes no further towards explaining the current and fairly recent, increase in Islamic extremism than pointing to ancient biblical verse explains away the Anti-balaka.

It's less about being adverse to scrutinising Islam and more about clearly seeing Muslim and Christian countries can be great neighbours or generational enemies at war, two countries that share a religion exactly the same; which would indicate that respective religious differences isn't inherently an issue. While getting rid of all religions would be great and one less thing for extremists to pin their special brand of crazy to, it would be naive to think that alone would eradicate terrorism. As eradicating Islam isn't actually a rational option anyway unless you are proposing kicking off a new episode of the Crusades - maybe exploring other root causes would be more useful in finding a workable solution? If such a thing even exists...

buried

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I take your broad point but of course the upshot is what exactly are we supposed to do about it? We can't reasonably go regime changing, boycotting the worlds largest oil producer would be pissing in the wind and appealing to moral decency in a country that still executes apostates is....yeah. It's a **** hole, and sadly the best we can do is pretend they are our friend.

We can't do anything about it man. The damage has been done, it's been done 50-
60 years ago and more to the point, the damage was allowed, and no F**ker in the BBC or Sky news or any other establishment called it out then or even now, so f**k them, and F**k what they say now. That's my main point about those media suckholes

Junkyard Tom

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

There appears to be a commonly held attitude that the attacks seen by Europe in recent years are purely down to 'the evildoing' of Western powers in the Islamic world.

Purely is the wrong word but it's all too often that people like you and Blanch152 are in complete denial that causes have effects, are in denial of reality, and have a naive understanding of human nature.

"It should by now be self-evident that by attacking Muslims overseas, you will occasionally spawn twisted and, as we saw yesterday, even murderous hatred at home. We need to recognise that, given the continued role our government has chosen to play in the US imperial project in the Middle East, we are lucky that these attacks are so few and far between."

Joe Glenton [Former British Soldier. 2013]

Irish Praetorian

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Purely is the wrong word but it's all too often that people like you and Blanch152 are in complete denial that causes have effects - denial of reality and an naive understanding of human nature.

"It should by now be self-evident that by attacking Muslims overseas, you will occasionally spawn twisted and, as we saw yesterday, even murderous hatred at home. We need to recognise that, given the continued role our government has chosen to play in the US imperial project in the Middle East, we are lucky that these attacks are so few and far between."

Joe Glenton [Former British Soldier]

As you can tell from my terminology I don't consider it a question of exclusively one or the other. However I would submit in popular discourse it's more important to debunk the widely held platitude of 'its all our fault' than the less well known position that it might be something to do with religious zealotry amongst other things.

Widdershins

GritBiscuit wrote: »

It may be "a" cause, I'm not convinced it's "the" cause - radicalisation is a complex issue and finger-pointing at a specific religious ideology that has been around since the 7th century goes no further towards explaining the current and fairly recent, increase in Islamic extremism than pointing to ancient biblical verse explains away the Anti-balaka.

It's less about being adverse to scrutinising Islam and more about clearly seeing Muslim and Christian countries can be great neighbours or generational enemies at war, two countries that share a religion exactly the same; which would indicate that respective religious differences isn't inherently an issue. While getting rid of all religions would be great and one less thing for extremists to pin their special brand of crazy to, it would be naive to think that alone would eradicate terrorism. As eradicating Islam isn't actually a rational option anyway unless you are proposing kicking off a new episode of the Crusades - maybe exploring other root causes would be more useful in finding a workable solution? If such a thing even exists...

I don't think Islam and other religions are making good bedfellows abroad. The best way for countries of different religious majorities to coexist is for each to be secular.

Taking a positive view of how those countries coexist abroad has nothing to do with and doesn't explain away the accusations of Islamophobia and outright denial of any connection between terrorism and religion. It's an aversion to scrutiny and it's down to hypersensitivity for some reason. I don't think ''finger pointing'' is a reasonable description.

Getting rid of religions isn't an option, addressing the source of the radicalisation should be. We know it's stemming from the Saudi-funded mosques, and we know some Imams and other Muslims have spoken up about this.