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

Atoms for Peace

Interesting video featuring a speech Gaddaffi gave to the Arab league in which he berates Arab leaders for being unwilling to intervene in Palestine and Iraq, the reaction from them including Assad is to smirk and giggle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZZvPlGCt_8

ilkhanid

seamus wrote: »

IRA supporters conveniently ignore IRA atrocities. Unionists conveniently ignore unionist atrocities.

That's not surprising, people pick a side and then defend that side and consider their actions to be a response to some other atrocity from the other side beforehand. Back-and-forth-and-back-and-forth for decades.

Decades? More like centuries! Apparently the kids in the Manchester Arena and the Bataclan were "crusaders" (1098). The Shi'a are "polytheists" (harking back to the days of the Sassanians). And to the Shi'a the murder of Ali, the last Rashidun Caliph in 661 was as if it took place last year. Puts the obsessions of the Shinners and the Orangemen with 1916 and King Billy in the ha'penny place. And people say all the trouble started in 2004!

seamus

ilkhanid wrote: »

Decades? More like centuries! Apparently the kids in the Manchester Arena and the Bataclan were "crusaders" (1098). The Shi'a are "polytheists" (harking back to the days of the Sassanians). And to the Shi'a the murder of Ali, the last Rashidun Caliph in 661 was as if it took place last year. Puts the obsessions of the Shinners and the Orangemen with 1916 and King Billy in the ha'penny place. And people say all the trouble started in 2004!

That's actually kind of my point. Anyone looking to justify what they're doing will go back as far as they need to in order to have it make sense.

IRA apologists* would have you going back to the 1200s to justify their anti-British hatred.

Religions and causes don't pick people and change them. People pick the religion/cause that most reflects what they want to hear and they stick to it.

*I keep picking the IRA because it's about the only relevant example I have even a passing knowledge of and which will be the most familiar to people here

kyogger

Islamic teachings are fundamentally sick- one only needs to look under the bonnet to see for themselves. Spend not even 1 hour reading extracts from their book.

When some idiots say it is a 'religion of peace' etc what they really mean is 'most muslims are good people'- noone is arguing against that. But they are not good because they are Muslims, they are good because you or I are good , i.e. by human nature, same goes for any religious person.

Even if only a tiny minority are caused to act in a manner that brings harm to others, that is enough to outlaw it and its teachings. (For example we outlaw drink driving for all even though only a small minority of drink drivers cause harm to others) And please don't try to split it into two religions i.e a fundamental and a moderatey interpretated religion- there is only one book at the root of the problems here.

The various countries which are tolerant towards it have failed their public by not outlawing the cult that is Islam. If I were to start a cult today that thought that non-adherents should be killed and condoned paedophilia then I would quickly be in court and it would be shut down I imagie. Just because a cult is established for centuries should have no bearing.

Outlaw Pete

Lily Allen has now deleted most of her tweets from yesterday where she defended Islamists saying that she didn't understand what the word actually meant...


https://twitter.com/lilyallen/status/867677567561629696

She's a character.

Danzy

seamus wrote: »

That's actually kind of my point. Anyone looking to justify what they're doing will go back as far as they need to in order to have it make sense.

IRA apologists* would have you going back to the 1200s to justify their anti-British hatred.

Religions and causes don't pick people and change them. People pick the religion/cause that most reflects what they want to hear and they stick to it.

*I keep picking the IRA because it's about the only relevant example I have even a passing knowledge of and which will be the most familiar to people here

Yet now the British army are off the Streets, the RUC disbanded, the Loyalist paramilitaries ordered to not kill other but themselves in their feuds, I have met many people who were in the IRA, I never saw anti British sentiment even from people who had killed or helped kill Soldiers.

That was because it was a political conflict. If that hatred was mandated by God then it would always be there no matter what changes.

The hatred against Jews, women, disbelievers, apostates, gays is not going to go away unless the religion fades away. It is too central a plank, to clear and defined as for all time, to be explained away as of the time.

If the West never gave intervened in the Islamic World it would not prevent attacks, it may reduce some of them, lessen anger but the same escalating path would be there.

seamus

Islamic teachings are fundamentally sick- one only needs to look under the bonnet to see for themselves. Spend not even 1 hour reading extracts from their book.

^^
Add "Christian" or "Jewish" where you've put "Islam/Muslim" into your post and it will still be valid.

All of the Abrahamic religions follow hateful books. The Quran is no more disgusting and medieval than the Bible or the Torah.

And nobody bother quoting passages from the Quran. We can play horrible ping-pong all day from various religious texts. They're all written by farmers on hills centuries ago based on their narrow view of existence. They are useful as historic relics, little more.

Boom_Bap

seamus wrote: »

That's actually kind of my point. Anyone looking to justify what they're doing will go back as far as they need to in order to have it make sense.

IRA apologists* would have you going back to the 1200s to justify their anti-British hatred.

Religions and causes don't pick people and change them. People pick the religion/cause that most reflects what they want to hear and they stick to it.

*I keep picking the IRA because it's about the only relevant example I have even a passing knowledge of and which will be the most familiar to people here

Danzy wrote: »

Yet now the British army are off the Streets, the RUC disbanded, the Loyalist paramilitaries ordered to not kill other but themselves in their feuds, I have met many people who were in the IRA, I never saw anti British sentiment even from people who had killed or helped kill Soldiers.

That was because it was a political conflict. If that hatred was mandated by God then it would always be there no matter what changes.

The hatred against Jews, women, disbelievers, apostates, gays is not going to go away unless the religion fades away. It is too central a plank, to clear and defined as for all time, to be explained away as of the time.

If the West never gave intervened in the Islamic World it would not prevent attacks, it may reduce some of them, lessen anger but the same escalating path would be there.

Drop the discussion on the IRA, please read the OP.

Danzy

seamus wrote: »

^^
Add "Christian" or "Jewish" where you've put "Islam/Muslim" into your post and it will still be valid.

All of the Abrahamic religions follow hateful books. The Quran is no more disgusting and medieval than the Bible or the Torah.

And nobody bother quoting passages from the Quran. We can play horrible ping-pong all day from various religious texts. They're all written by farmers on hills centuries ago based on their narrow view of existence. They are useful as historic relics, little more.

They problem is that while Jews and Christians cherry pick and ignore vast segments, Muslims are less likely to do so and it is a riskier thing to do it.

In much of the Islamic World there is a risk that your family would kill you for doing so.

Many people rightly condemned the strictness and poison of the old Christian Churches from years back, yet when the same views and often more extreme ones are spoken now, they turn a blind eye.

Hell, they are more likely to share a platform with them than condemn them.

Several reasons for that, a desire for block votes, they know they won't be let get away with it and their own smug attitude.

When Mohamed created Islam he was very smart in locking in that it was the inviolable word of God and that to challenge it was apostasy and apostates must die.

He made reformation near impossible a 1000 years before it came to Christianity.

kyogger

seamus wrote: »

^^
Add "Christian" or "Jewish" where you've put "Islam/Muslim" into your post and it will still be valid.

All of the Abrahamic religions follow hateful books. The Quran is no more disgusting and medieval than the Bible or the Torah.

And nobody bother quoting passages from the Quran. We can play horrible ping-pong all day from various religious texts. They're all written by farmers on hills centuries ago based on their narrow view of existence. They are useful as historic relics, little more.

Yes fully agree, the christian bible is equally disgusting.

Richard Hillman

Amazing how people are suddenly outraged at the U.S security services for leaking stories to NBC, CNN etc but were happy to lap it up over the last few months with Donald Trump.

Security services leaking information to the media isn't fun and games because you don't like a guy. These people are a threat to global security.

neverever1

ilkhanid wrote: »

Once again:whom did Sweden bomb? What towns did Sweden flatten? They murdered Japanese citizens in Iraq. What towns did Japan flatten? They murdered Swiss tourists in Egypt. What towns did Switzerland flatten? They blew up a UN building in Iraq. Whom did the UN bomb? What towns did the people of Mumbai flatten? What towns did the people of Sierra Leone or Burkino Faso, Uganda and Kenya and the Phillippines flatten? Yet they too have been the objects of Jihadi fury. They kill their own people with as much facility as Europeans but it's only when they kill Europeans do you try to rationalise it.
When innocents are slaughtered by Jihadi madmen from Manchester to East Africa to Asia you'll twist and turn and reach to locate the fault in the country or people who "provoked" the Jihadis wrath. Who did you think is doing the flattening of towns and cities in Syria now?
Assad and Russia. Who do you think flattened Hama back in '81. Assad's dad. 600 towns and villages were flattened or depopulated in Saddam's Anfal campaign back in the eightes, yet the Kurds didn't turn to Jihadism. Jaysus-you'd think that these countries were are happy, untroubled places until the Americans blundered in.



Yes. I did and my point still stands. to paraphrase myself......

"He didn't care about the 13 000 people-some of them children-murdered by Assad's Muqhabarat and allied militias.
He didn't care about the dead children killed by the barrel bombs dropped day and night on Aleppo and other towns.
He didn't care about all the children killed by Russian bombings.
He didn't care about the children and adults murdered by IS.
He didn't care about the children and adults murdered by Jabat Al'Nusra and the other armed groups".
When a hundred people were murdered by a Jihadi targeting a refugee convoy, of all things, back in April, (how many chilren died that day) that didn't perturb his mind, because it didn't fit in with his extremist narrative.

He only saw what he wanted to see. He only saw through a mind twisted by Islamist ideology. He filtered out all the deaths and atrocities that were'nt congruent with his world view. When will eejits here stop taking these scumbags at their word? When these loons use words, the words don't mean the same things that they mean to us. How could they? It would be laughable if it was not so irritating to see the bien-pensant here claim to understand the righteous indignation of these Jihadis at the deaths of children..or whoever. What right have these warriors of the Caliphate to claim any indignation over innocent deaths? They don't. To them it's only the deaths of our people that count. Christians don't count, Yazidis don't count, Shias don't count. When they murder children, then the victims are either vermin to be killed or (if they are pious Sunnis) they are going straight to Allah, so no harm done. He-and all the rest of them- claimed to be angry at the death of innocents yet supported an organisation that shot down two hundred old women into a mass grave.

Sorry. Not buying it.
.

I told you, these people don't care who they attack as long as they see them as 'the west' but Sweden has assisted the bombing of Middle Eastern countries. The attacks in Europe committed by mostly Europeans are retaliation attacks for the bombing campaigns in Middle Eastern countries. They are different to some of the other attacks you mention.
For the extremist groups out there, they think attack is the best form of defence. They are hiding behind Islam and other things but the truth is that these groups are born out of years of destruction by Western countries such as Britain and America. This goes back a lot further than Assad's dad. Long, long before.
There's was a continuous growth of these groups, right now we have reached a stage where their numbers are bigger than ever, their threat is bigger than ever. These groups are full of murderous lunatics, what you don't accept is that groups this size don't come from nowhere. They haven't just sprung out of nothing. They haven't just decided one day to attack anyone who disagrees with them including their own people. It's come from a history or rape and destruction from western countries and their numbers have grown from the continued rape and destruction from western countries.

I'm talking about the route of the problem and where it began. You really think everyone will grow up normal and fine after decades of watching their countries and people burn? Some people will go to the extremes and that's what we see, they don't care who dies, who they kill, anyone who is against them is a target. These people are complete nutters, maniacs but they were created! They didn't create themselves.

Hank Scorpio

Sorry couldn't resist.

Danzy

neverever1 wrote: »

I told you, these people don't care who they attack as long as they see them as 'the west' but Sweden has assisted the bombing of Middle Eastern countries. The attacks in Europe committed by mostly Europeans are retaliation attacks for the bombing campaigns in Middle Eastern countries. They are different to some of the other attacks you mention.
For the extremist groups out there, they think attack is the best form of defence. They are hiding behind Islam and other things but the truth is that these groups are born out of years of destruction by Western countries such as Britain and America. This goes back a lot further than Assad's dad. Long, long before.
There's was a continuous growth of these groups, right now we have reached a stage where their numbers are bigger than ever, their threat is bigger than ever. These groups are full of murderous lunatics, what you don't accept is that groups this size don't come from nowhere. They haven't just sprung out of nothing. They haven't just decided one day to attack anyone who disagrees with them including their own people. It's come from a history or rape and destruction from western countries and their numbers have grown from the continued rape and destruction from western countries.

I'm talking about the route of the problem and where it began. You really think everyone will grow up normal and fine after decades of watching their countries and people burn? Some people will go to the extremes and that's what we see, they don't care who dies, who they kill, anyone who is against them is a target. These people are complete nutters, maniacs but they were created! They didn't create themselves.

Circumstances contribute but so does the belief system and a religion where militancy and fighting are central planks for its propagation and its creators life is going to present unique problems.

Many of these people have never even been within a thousand miles of a war zone, most of their parents have never been in a war zone or had ancestral homes where there have been conflict for the last few decades.

neverever1

Danzy wrote: »

Circumstances contribute but so does the belief system and a religion where militancy and fighting are central planks for its propagation and its creators life is going to present unique problems.

Many of these people have never even been within a thousand miles of a war zone, most of their parents have never been in a war zone or had ancestral homes where there have been conflict for the last few decades.

As I said, the killing in Europe by Europeans are different.

They're hiding behind islam and using it to unite their cause, they are doing despicably evil things. I'm just saying where it began and how it grew. It doesn't grow out of thin air.

end of the road

NinjaKirby wrote: »

In the UK they have football banning orders.

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/football-law/football-banning-orders/

You can basically end up banned from public places before and following football matches.

In Scotland, this can include sectarian abuse. So if you are raving about how much you hate Catholics at a football match in Scotland you can find yourself banned from football stadiums and public spaces around football stadiums when a match is scheduled.

You can even be banned from World Cup events etc.

"A control period will start five days before an overseas match or tournament and will last until the event has finished. The police have the power to intercept and prevent an individual (who is not already subject to a banning order) from travelling if they have evidence that that person has previously been involved in violence or disorder and that they have grounds for suspecting that the individual continues to pose a risk. An individual who has been intercepted in this manner must face court proceedings for a banning order within 24 hours of being intercepted."

If they can prove that someone has been radicalized then surely similar banning orders could be put into place?

Obviously I can see the issues here with racial profiling etc and there would need to be A LOT of work going into this kind of thing (I guess it would at least create jobs) but I don't see any reason why it can't be done.

As of November 2016 there were 2,085 active banning orders in the UK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2016/11/24/newcastle-united-top-list-football-banning-orders-wolves-plymouth/

this was effectively tried with terror suspects in the form of control orders.

Danzy

neverever1 wrote: »

As I said, the killing in Europe by Europeans are different.

They're hiding behind islam and using it to unite their cause, they are doing despicably evil things. I'm just saying where it began and how it grew. It doesn't grow out of thin air.

No but it was old long before the Ottoman Empire was founded, long before America existed, Britain was a political union, France was a Republic etc etc.

neverever1

Danzy wrote: »

No but it was old long before the Ottoman Empire was founded, long before America existed, Britain was a political union, France was a Republic etc etc.

Yes we can go back centuries but these groups have had massive growth in the last few decades, there's always going to be extremists but they would not be near this scale if not for the bombing campaigns of the more recent past.

Danzy

neverever1 wrote: »

Yes we can go back centuries but these groups have had massive growth in the last few decades, there's always going to be extremists but they would not be near this scale if not for the bombing campaigns of the more recent past.

Historically they were the mainstream, their views are not unusual in the Islamic World, not could they be given they are acting on the faith, a faith at dominates their societies to a degree that has not been seen in Europe for centuries.

ilkhanid

Danzy wrote: »

Many of these people have never even been within a thousand miles of a war zone, most of their parents have never been in a war zone or had ancestral homes where there have been conflict for the last few decades.

And yet they pick a cause to adhere to that involves killing their neighbours because they are the same religion as people killing each other this same thousand miles away. Not family, not friends, not tribe, or nation. I am revolted to see Christians driven from their homes in Iraq and Syria, murdered in Bangladesh, persecuted in the KSA,lynched in Pakistan, subject to Kangaroo courts in Indonesia, yet I don't (nor would I have even when I was 22) take a bus to the Blanchardstown mosque and start shooting the worshippers in retaliation.

neverever1 wrote: »

I told you, these people don't care who they attack as long as they see them as 'the west' but Sweden has assisted the bombing of Middle Eastern countries. The attacks in Europe committed by mostly Europeans are retaliation attacks for the bombing campaigns in Middle Eastern countries. They are different to some of the other attacks you mention.

What atrocities did Sweden commit? What unjustifiable act of war? Sweden are helping to destroy IS and assisting the government of Iraq. How wicked of them. Once again,why should a man born and raised in Manchester feel it incumbent on him to "retaliate" against acts against a group a thousand miles away. He's not Iraqi. He's not Syrian. And he's also, a declared enemy not only of the people of Britain, but of the (Muslim) governments of Syria and Iraq.

How are they different? The same kind of people commit them. Are you saying that murdering innocent people in France or Britain, somehow, can be explained away,but killing people in Bangladesh or Uganda is...different. It's just bad, no excuses. It all comes from the same foul ideology, They all support each other,quote each other, show allegiance to each other.

neverever1 wrote: »

For the extremist groups out there, they think attack is the best form of defence. They are hiding behind Islam and other things but the truth is that these groups are born out of years of destruction by Western countries such as Britain and America. This goes back a lot further than Assad's dad. Long, long before.

Best form of defence? Again. They don't murder Christians in IraQ because they are afraid of them. Christians were always a defenceless minority. They murder them because they are Kafir. They want to cleanse the Dar al-Islam of the alien unbelievers, just like the Serbs wanted to cleanse Bosnia of the Bosnian Muslims. They too claimed that attack was the best form of defence. Do you believe that? IS are the same. These groups existed decades before the "years of destruction by Western countries".

neverever1 wrote: »

There's was a continuous growth of these groups, right now we have reached a stage where their numbers are bigger than ever, their threat is bigger than ever. These groups are full of murderous lunatics, what you don't accept is that groups this size don't come from nowhere. They haven't just sprung out of nothing. They haven't just decided one day to attack anyone who disagrees with them including their own people. It's come from a history or rape and destruction from western countries and their numbers have grown from the continued rape and destruction from western countries.

So they were driven mad by the "West".Yet other nations and cultures were victims of Western interference and have'nt reacted the same way.Even at the height of the Vietnam war, you didn't get Vietnamese killing Westerners. What about the history of rape and destruction wrecked on those countries by their own? You discount that as a factor in our present situation. Just three examples (I could provide many more). Assad the elder destroyed half a city to crush Islamist insurgents at Hama (odd , Islamists so early before the Bush war-how can that be?);Saddam murdered, possibly 200 000 of his own people; the war between Iran and Iraq took the lives of a million. Ah, but you see that rape and destruction doesn't count. That rape and destruction isn't as heinous.That rape and destruction doesn't cause radicalization.

neverever1 wrote: »

I'm talking about the route of the problem and where it began. You really think everyone will grow up normal and fine after decades of watching their countries and people burn? Some people will go to the extremes and that's what we see, they don't care who dies, who they kill, anyone who is against them is a target. These people are complete nutters, maniacs but they were created! They didn't create themselves.

If you're looking to see where it began, I can tell you that it didn't begin just in 2004. It began a long time before that, but you're shutting out the inconvenient facts. I have said again and again "Who is doing the burning" and the answer is :multiple parties. But you, like that Jihadi idiot, see only one guilty party. "anyone against them" How are Assyrian Christians against them? Or the Japanese? I have pointed out to several times that these people were murdering innocents long before the first US ranger jumped off the first chopper into Iraq, or the first American bomb hit Helmand province. By the time the Americans got to some of those places all they could was re-arrange the rubble. But you choose to ignore those facts.

roddy15

roddy15 wrote: »

To be honest, people wearing simple headscarves is hardly the main issue. I'd be more concerned about people wearing clothing that basically covers everything except their eyes which I've seen in Ireland now and again.

I actually don't care what they wear - provided it is by their own choice they wear it - but I have noticed that those who wear the full outfit also tend to walk two steps behind the menfolk - which drives me nuts!

ScumLord wrote: »

There are no laws about covering your face. What about when it gets cold and you want to cover your face? What if you're a biker and just want to do something off your bike for a minute? You'd erode all our freedoms just to punish Muslims.

I don't think anyone wants to punish "Muslims".
I think people are looking at security threats, and in fairness, any outfit that only reveals your eyes is both a good disguise, and an excellent method of concealing anything you may want to carry....

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.

Not necessarily. A person who commits a terrorist attack can persuade themselves they have a whole range of motivations.

At the end of the day, though, no matter what grounds people may have for being angry about foreign policy, religious discrimination, or whatever else may motivate them - it takes a special kind of totally evil B*st*rd to plan and carry out the coldblooded murder of innocent people, but especially children.

ilkhanid wrote: »

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'.



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.



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.

Look, at the end of the day, ISIS is recruiting young people who are unhappy for one reason or another.

How many of us are entirely happy with History, or even with current foreign or domestic policy?

If we stop to think, we can all find an injustice that makes us angry.

The crucial difference is that we don't use that anger to go and slaughter random innocent people.

So, yes, for some Jihadists, Western policy is used as a trigger for radicalisation, for others it's promiscuity, or some passage from the Koran.

The point is, these Jihadists are just the idiot cannon fodder. That doesn't make them any less responsible, or evil - but it does mean that arguing about whether "The West" or "Islam" is the root cause is pointless - because the root cause is whatever a recruiter can find that resonates with a potential Jihadist.

blanch152 wrote: »

Other than those who carry out the acts are misguided, deluded, brainwashed, psychopaths and/or are guided by those who are that, then no.

The reasons aren't rational and aren't sufficient to explain the murder of innocent civilians.

Edit: To put it another way, any effort to understand should concentrate on the "how" rather than the "why". The "why" defies understanding, certainly to a normal person.

Yes, and no.

The reasons individual Jihadists have are probably many and varied.

The reasons for the leaders of these groups? Not so much!

It's always about power - and usually money, as well.

blanch152 wrote: »

Why? Let us follow your logic:

The policy in Ireland not to breathalyse everybody leaving a pub means that some people drink and drive, therefore the State is causing every incident of drink-driving.

Go further, by licensing people to drive, rather than banning it all together, the State is causing all road accidents involving drivers.

Where does it end?

Simply put, an act of terrorism against a democratic State, in and of itself, is so vile in nature, that the individual responsibility of the person who commits it, those who assisted in its commital and those who support or defend it, override any policy of the State.

Why are people so quick to move away from personal responsibility to "Oh it must have been some policy of the terrible British imperial State that caused him to do it"?

Because suicide bombing is so far removed from the way most people think, that they struggle to understand?

Because the motivation for murdering innocent kids is unfathomable to most of us, yet, we need to feel we have some vestige of control of the situation, by understanding the "cause", and thus, (presumably) a possible solution?

Exeggcute wrote: »

The father was a member of a former Al-Qaeda backed group in Libya.

A Libyan security official that personally knows the father said he was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group in the 1990's

He said the father belongs to the Salafi Jihafi movement, the most extreme sect of Salafism and from which Al Qaeda and ISIS hail.


My my my...no wonder he thinks his son is innocent. How this ****er was ever allowed into the UK is beyond me.

It's an interesting thought.

Because historical victims are no longer the victims when there is regime change, which begs a few questions.....

_oveless_ wrote: »

My heart goes out to Muslims everywhere who will be treated with suspicion and scrutiny after this unfortunate incident, Islam & Muslims in general are the biggest victim in all of this. The responsibility for this attack has more to do with brexit and trump than it does to Islam. Europe needs to learn to live with these unfortunate events, we just need to not dwell on them and move on as quickly as possible.

The biggest victims in all this are unquestionably those who died, or were injured, and those who are left to mourn them, or care for them.

To say anything else is absolutely untrue.

Help!!!! wrote: »

Yeah watch when a ex SAS has his say on what should be done

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ1Kz6DFU-E

The man has a point!

wonderfullife wrote: »

2 of the top 4 worst terrorist attacks in this decade in Europe have been committed by white men. That's just a fact.

Anders Breivik meticulously planned and massacred 77 people, targeting children at a youth camp and gave Neo-Nazi salutes at his trial. Andreas Lubitz meticulously planned and killed 149 people by flying the plane into a mountain. Reasons apparently unknown.

Lubitz act of terrorism was the single worst in Europe in the decade.

The excuses made for these 2 men reflect the fact that people only see "terrorism" when it's done by brown people who speak another language or follow another culture.

If it's just a regular old European white person, then they were "troubled", "disaffected", "sick".

In the aftermath of the Germanwings crash, almost all media attention was focused on Lubitz state of mind. Not one publication is pondering whether Salman Abedi was suffering from depression or mental illness. Why? Why should it matter what Lubitz state of mind was and not what Abedi's was?

If the roles were reversed we'd be seeing Abedi immediately declared a terrorist and not one iota of thought given to whether he suffered from a mental illness or not before crashing the plane. We'd be seeing the same focus on Lubitz state of mind when seeking to explain why he killed kids at a concert.

People want to bash Islam because it's a soft target. It's much more difficult to address why white people shoot up schools, crash planes, plant bombs and massacre people. We don't have a neat and tidy thing to blame.

The bottom line is whether someone uses a religious excuse or no excuse at all, there will always and HAS ALWAYS been lunatics willing to die and massacre other humans in the process.

Deporting Muslims, locking them up, persecuting them, internment ....none of that will prevent future terrorist mass-murder by people whether they are white or brown.

It really isn't.

Anyone who goes out and murders innocent people is downright evil.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

My Muslim friend was 26 losing her virginity. I'm no fan of the religion but let's call a spade a spade, western kids are sexualised a good bit before muslim children are. I'm not saying that to blame anyone but you can't blame religion for that, look at our own kids.

Are you perhaps forgetting that in some Muslim Countries, many girls are forced into marriage at the age of 11 or 12?

You can't compare all Muslims to your friend, anymore than you can compare all Muslims to suicide bombers.

They're all individuals.

Snake Plisken wrote: »

The family knew what was going to happen and fled the !
As for the Mosque it should be bulldozed to the ground and anyone who entered there should be put on a watch list!

Erm, what about the members of that Mosque who reported him?

You can't just bulldoze their place of worship!
If it's found that any radicalization was going on there ,then those responsible need to be jailed, no question about it.

But you can't just bulldoze a place because some people who went there were evil so-and-so"s.
You have to take the evil ones out, and leave the innocent alone. Which is probably easier said than done, but it's the only way!

Fratton Fred

neverever1 wrote: »

As I said, the killing in Europe by Europeans are different.

They're hiding behind islam and using it to unite their cause, they are doing despicably evil things. I'm just saying where it began and how it grew. It doesn't grow out of thin air.

and the killing of Shiites?

Does this all go back 1400 years?

Irish Praetorian

wakka12 wrote: »

Removed

You might wanna drop the topic, big mod warning about it, I think there's a spinoff thread though.

wakka12

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

You might wanna drop the topic, big mod warning about it, I think there's a spinoff thread though.

Thanks didnt see that, deleted.

Irish Praetorian

wonderfullife wrote: »

Salman Abedi was a stoner, loved drinking, partying and getting up to no good. In short a regular enough fella.

You and others keep propagating this narrative that it's the religion of Islam to blame here. That, in your words, "By virtue of his religion he turned on his society".

Here's the reality:

He wasn't a religious person. He was a pot-head who loved getting high and going on the lash.

This trend has been repeated across Europe - young fellas going nowhere in life, not the faintest interest in religion whatsoever, and they suddenly decide to embrace it at the end.

I'm a Catholic in the strictest sense of the word, I was baptised and had my communion and confirmation.

The only time I'm in church is for a funeral. I don't pray.

I'm Catholic in name only.

If I suddenly have enough of being a loser in life and decide to go out tomorrow and kill a load of people based on a passage in Deuteronomy in the Christian Bible, is it Christianty and Catholicism to blame? Is it the fault of the bible for having those passages in them about killing others? I didn't live or practice the faith but hey I used it as an excuse so it must be Christianity's fault right?

It's too simplistic for the rabble to say "ISLAM! Ban it! Throw them in jail! Awful religion!".

The truth is we're seeing Islam being used as a prop by young men who have had enough of this world, enough of being anonymous in this world, enough of failure in getting a job, enough of failure in finding a girlfriend, enough of their sad existence.

Salman Abedi was no more a Muslim than I'm a Catholic.

He was no more a Muslim than Christopher Hitchens would be defined as a Christian for saying a prayer on his death-bed.

For centuries the Christian Bible was used as a prop for people to commit mass-murder. Now it's the turn of the Koran. In the future it'll be some other book.

The more people propagate the idea that Islam is an evil religion full of evil people, the more we will see a rise in far-right terrorism who will see themselves at war with them.

People are always going to be evil, regardless of faith.

Not all the faithful are evil.

Sorry it took me a while to get back to you, I actually enjoyed this post quite a bit and thought it made some good points.

Now I do take your point about these attacks being frequently carried out by young men with little religious education and instead quite frequently a history of petty crime as well as religious laxity. Drug use is also another factor, one I think Peter Hitchens had made a quite interesting case about but I'll leave that aside for now.

However fundamentally it remains the case that the determining factor behind his radicalization was the religious faith he professed, and whilst we might make the argument that he wasn't a 'proper' Muslim, the fact remains that it is not plausible in our society for us to say who is and isn't a true believer, that ultimately comes down to the individual. Haras Rafiq made an interesting point yesterday that Andy Burnham (newly elected mayor of Manchester) almost appeared to be handing down a fatwa when we claimed the bomber was not a real Muslim. But once again I would restate, it is the religion in question (and particularly the body of radicalization behind it) which is the determining factor - if simply being a lowlife drug user was enough to turn people into a religious terrorist our country would not see peace. But that is not the case, right now it only seems to be those 'lowlife drug users' who profess the Islamic faith.

Now this being as it may, I think the point that a lot of people are missing and are in-fact are misinterpreting as the rhetoric of 'blame all muslims', is the societal issues which underline the violent fundamentalism. Consistently over the past decade we have seen repeated evidence and demonstration of very serious problems within the Islamic community of Britain, ranging from polling showing some very problematic attitudes being commonly held, issues of schooling being penetrated by individuals and groups propagating rather extreme beliefs, some rather well known cases of mass sexual grooming proceeding under the radar of the local authorities, as well as an apparent practice of closing ranks and attempting to deflect from these issues on the part of that same community.

These represent the swirling pool in which men such as the Manchester bomber emerge, not from a vacuum of ideas and beliefs before being unwillingly duped or coaxed into a radicalised version of Islam, but rather already holding many of the same views of the fundamentalists, just a step away from acting out those views with violence. One of the big tropes you see in these on-line debates is this idea that a moderate Muslim is just someone who wants a radical Muslim to kill you; I'm sad to say there does appear to be a kernel of truth in that and we ignore it at our peril. Terrorism will continue so long as Islamist fundamentalism is able to draw upon a reservoir of very 'conservative' beliefs within the Muslim community of Britain. And we might not like those views, we might even purport to call them unIslamic, but it strikes me that attempting to define another peoples religion for them is a fools errand.

That being the case, we do have to look at events where they stand, we do have to accept that within the British Muslim community there is a sizeable (perhaps dominant) segment whose interpretation of Islam involves the very worst attitudes towards groups like gays and apostates. For civil society that it something that we need to challenge, in the same way as we would David Quinn. Traditionally this would be done by the political left, but their squeamishness on the issue is causing real problems. Supplementing that, we also need to look at the groups and individuals who propagate those ideas both in their violent and non violent forms; one has to admit the distinction between say a Catholic who adopts a fundamentalist outlook and a Muslim who does the same - one of these men would find a vibrant community of like minded individuals thinking the same way with the knowledge and expertise of how to use violence in pursuit of that aim. [If any smart buck wants to make a facile IRA point I'm going to drop a reminder here about the Mod ban on the issue.]

Tangential to this last point is the issue of what might be broadly termed 'Western Intervention' - frankly I don't buy the point that it is simply a case of Western actions in the Middle East producing bombings back here, but I do think it provides material and opportunities for the radicals I've mentioned above to operate and attract new recruits. A smarter policy in this regard would be very helpful but I must emphasize once again, these are merely tools which it takes radical groups to exploit. If anyone thinks that we can simply 'nice' our way out of the problem I would suggest they look to Salman Rushdie.

wonderfullife

conorhal wrote: »

In that regard his actions are entirely consistent with the teachings of Islam.

There's a difference worth noting between "the teachings" of a religion and "how it is being taught" (in schools/churches).

The Bible has dozens of passages advocating murder. I've no doubt the Quran has dozens too.

It's facetious to say if a Christian man stones a blasphemous wife to death that it's consistent with the "teachings" of Christianity.

It's merely consistent with the text of the document.

If Catholic priests were preaching every weekend that we should stone wives who commit adultery, then yes we'd have a serious problem with the way the religion is being taught.

Islam, in the overwhelming majority of mosques worldwide, is being taught in a peaceful way. The mosques that have Radical Preachers calling for death to the west are few and far between in Europe.

conorhal wrote: »

They slink off when the facts don't suit the 'mentally ill lone-wolf' narrative that they automatically spin every time this occurs as a form of damage control.

The "mentally ill" part of the lone-wolf defence was used just fine for Breivik, Lubitz, Robert Dear etc.

"The psychiatric disorders that might have driven Breivik to kill" is an actual headline from the Indo:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/the-psychiatric-disorders-that-might-have-made-anders-breivik-into-a-mass-murderer-a7402126.html

"Mental illness made Germanwings co-pilot a victim along with his passengers" another pearler of a headline from the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sapolsky-lubitz-germanwings-depression-20150402-story.html

"Killer Derrick Bird was bitter, resentful and depressed, psychologist tells Inquest"

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/killer-derrick-bird-was-bitter-resentful-117897

Not everyone who mass-murders is mentally ill but the media only gives a crap about someones mental health if they are a white mass-murderer.

Contrast that to the Nice Truck Terrorist, Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel. You won't find a single Op-Ed in any western media publication discussing his mental health. You won't find a single mainstream article publicly trying to diminish his acts by his mental health.

Whether you want to admit it or not, people only give a monkeys about someones mental-illness if they are a white dude who goes on a rampage killing dozens.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

... "evaluations that determined Dear to be delusional, the judge in the case ruled in May 2016 that Dear was incompetent to stand trial and ordered him indefinitely confined to a Colorado state mental hospital."

Just sayin...

Case in point ^.

White and Christian - mental hospital

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/robert-dear-colorado-planned-parenthood-shooter-deemed-mentally-incompetent-n572431

Brown and Muslim - death penalty.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/boston-bombing-trial/date-set-tsarnaevs-official-death-sentence-boston-bombing-n366016

All of this feeds into the terrorists hands. The more the West treats Muslims differently to non-Muslims, the more it propagates the idea that it's a war between civilizations, that they are "beneath us".

silverharp

wonderfullife wrote: »

There's a difference worth noting between "the teachings" of a religion and "how it is being taught" (in schools/churches).

The Bible has dozens of passages advocating murder. I've no doubt the Quran has dozens too.

It's facetious to say if a Christian man stones a blasphemous wife to death that it's consistent with the "teachings" of Christianity.

It's merely consistent with the text of the document.

If Catholic priests were preaching every weekend that we should stone wives who commit adultery, then yes we'd have a serious problem with the way the religion is being taught.

Islam, in the overwhelming majority of mosques worldwide, is being taught in a peaceful way. The mosques that have Radical Preachers calling for death to the west are few and far between in Europe.

You cant say Islam is equivalent to Christianity. Hippy Jesus kinda parks all the gore of the OT. Mo on the other hand was a violent warlord and they havnt had a new prophet to park all the crazy sh1t in the Quran.

Mountainsandh

wonderfullife wrote: »

The "mentally ill" part of the lone-wolf defence was used just fine for Breivik, Lubitz, Robert Dear etc.

"The psychiatric disorders that might have driven Breivik to kill" is an actual headline from the Indo:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/the-psychiatric-disorders-that-might-have-made-anders-breivik-into-a-mass-murderer-a7402126.html

"Mental illness made Germanwings co-pilot a victim along with his passengers" another pearler of a headline from the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sapolsky-lubitz-germanwings-depression-20150402-story.html

"Killer Derrick Bird was bitter, resentful and depressed, psychologist tells Inquest"

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/killer-derrick-bird-was-bitter-resentful-117897

Not everyone who mass-murders is mentally ill but the media only gives a crap about someones mental health if they are a white mass-murderer.

Contrast that to the Nice Truck Terrorist, Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel. You won't find a single Op-Ed in any western media publication discussing his mental health. You won't find a single mainstream article publicly trying to diminish his acts by his mental health.

Whether you want to admit it or not, people only give a monkeys about someones mental-illness if they are a white dude who goes on a rampage killing dozens.



Case in point ^.

White and Christian - mental hospital

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/robert-dear-colorado-planned-parenthood-shooter-deemed-mentally-incompetent-n572431

Brown and Muslim - death penalty.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/boston-bombing-trial/date-set-tsarnaevs-official-death-sentence-boston-bombing-n366016

All of this feeds into the terrorists hands. The more the West treats Muslims differently to non-Muslims, the more it propagates the idea that it's a war between civilizations, that they are "beneath us".

Not true. Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel's mental health was considered and mentioned by sereval media sources when his relatives brought attention to it. Other than promiscuity he wasn't showing obvious signs of mental problems in his life in France. https://www.rt.com/news/351637-nice-attacker-family-psychiatric/

Many people have been outraged at the articles you link above about white male criminals' mental health, and I think there is a healthy debate out in the open as to how far we are ready to allow a diagnosis of mental illness to impact on sentences. For all colours.

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone who goes out and murders innocent people is downright evil.

You would think it is as simple as that, and to you and me, it probably is.

For others, especially in this country, it isn't.

DrWu

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

[If any smart buck wants to make a facile IRA point I'm going to drop a reminder here about the Mod ban on the issue.]

= facile IRA point.