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

neverever1

ilkhanid wrote: »

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 incument 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.



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".



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 or 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.



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.

Sweden are assisting bombing campaigns in the Middle East, that's reason enough to be attacked by these madmen. The suicide bomber in Britain is motivated by the British bombing campaign in the Middle East that's a century old! It's easy for these types to be radicalised because of it.

European attacks by people born in Europe are different because they have no real life experience of life in their home countries really. What they know about it is what's told to them by clerics or their elders. Obviously what they're told isn't the full facts but they are told about Western bombing campaigns in their home countries and against 'their people'. These attacks are true, they did happen and they are a massive recruitment tool.

No one can attack them and destroy their land if their beliefs, their way of life is the dominant way of life on this planet. That is now their aim, that's what I mean by attack is the best form of defence from their viewpoint.

That's what I've been saying, it happened long before 2004. Britain destroyed the place 100 years ago, killing thousands. You are shutting out the inconvenient facts. You want to make the claim that these groups would be killing at the rate they are anyway, that they would exist no matter what, that the huge history of bombing campaigns of Western countries has nothing to do with how they exist in such big numbers and with such a big support. Well you can't. These groups would exist now no matter what in my opinion but they would not be minuscule groupings with little or no impact.

ricero

Will anything be done about this ? Or are we just hopelessly waiting for the next islamic terroist attack in europe ?

neverever1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and the killing of Shiites?

Does this all go back 1400 years?

Everything goes back centuries but it's only kept alive by continuous failures to learn from mistakes. You can't drop bombs and hope the problem goes away!

sjb25

ricero wrote: »

Will anything be done about this ? Or are we just hopelessly waiting for the next islamic terroist attack in europe ?

A few candles will be lit a few books of condolence will be signed we will all say how terrible it is will have the terror threat at a high level for a week or so arrest whoever they can involved then yes we will all just wait for the next one and arrest any that can be afterwords

buck65

Integration is the only answer, long term planning. No short term fixes here.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

There's a mod ban on the issue I believe you're referencing.

Salman Abedi, Anders Breivik, and the others referenced all had one thing in common.

They were living in peaceful societies.
They had freedom to practice their beliefs, and celebrate their own cultures and customs.

None of those people thought that was enough.
Those who did not conform to their beliefs were regarded as targets.

In that sense, you could say they were dictatorial.

There's a lot of food for thought in that - from the (obvious to most people) thought that tolerance must cut both ways if it's to work, to the whole "Can multiculturalism ever work perfectly" question.

Because it seems to me that "equality" can sometimes be unattainable.

eg. The case referenced earlier where an organisation restructured a dept to accommodate two employees, who would not accept a female superior, thus only one of the two sets of "rights" was regarded as being attainable.

The question then, is, if two groups clash over equal rights - how should that issue be resolved?
Legally, or by compromise?

Fratton Fred

neverever1 wrote: »

Everything goes back centuries but it's only kept alive by continuous failures to learn from mistakes. You can't drop bombs and hope the problem goes away!

no, but what it does do is help to protect the people that ISIS and the like and raping and murdering.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/inside-palmyra-ancient-city-a-monument-to-isis-atrocities-1.2600362

neverever1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

no, but what it does do is help to protect the people that ISIS and the like and raping and murdering.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/inside-palmyra-ancient-city-a-monument-to-isis-atrocities-1.2600362

Dropping bombs, killing thousands of innocents and being the biggest recruitment tool for groups like isis is protecting people from isis? It doesn't add up.

Fratton Fred

neverever1 wrote: »

Dropping bombs, killing thousands of innocents and being the biggest recruitment tool for groups like isis is protecting people from isis? It doesn't add up.

Killing thousands of innocents?

Oh please.....

ceadaoin.

This site has some quotes from people who have been invited to speak at the bombers mosque

https://aldgatepup.wordpress.com/2017/05/24/manchester-mosque-condemns-terrorist-attack-but-hosts-antisemitic-anti-kuffar-and-homophobic-scholars/

Highlights include advocating stoning for "fornication" and death for apostasy, preaching that women shouldn't leave the house or work and their husbands are entitled to rape them, Jews are responsible for homosexuality and interaction with non Muslims should be avoided.

This place has a lot to answer for

neverever1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Killing thousands of innocents?

Oh please.....

Yes. What are you claiming? That of the hundreds of thousands killed they were all members of Al qaeda or similar groups and no innocents were killed?

ilkhanid

neverever1 wrote: »

Dropping bombs, killing thousands of innocents and being the biggest recruitment tool for groups like isis is protecting people from isis? It doesn't add up.

Sometimes dropping bombs is the only way to protect people. That's not some paradox, it's just the way things are. How many, for instance, French people died during the battle for, say, Cherbourg (and dozens more French cities and towns like St.Lo which was nearly levelled during the fighting)? Yet that battle was to get the Germans out of France and protect the French-among other objectives. Hundreds of Iraqi people are dying every day in the inferno of Mosul because IS won't let them leave the city and are using them as shields. The same will happen when it's the turn of Raqqa. If you have some solution that nobody else has yet thought of, let's hear it.

neverever1 wrote: »

That's what I've been saying, it happened long before 2004. Britain destroyed the place 100 years ago, killing thousands. You are shutting out the inconvenient facts. You want to make the claim that these groups would be killing at the rate they are anyway, that they would exist no matter what, that the huge history of bombing campaigns of Western countries has nothing to do with how they exist in such big numbers and with such a big support. Well you can't. These groups would exist now no matter what in my opinion but they would not be minuscule groupings with little or no impact.

A hundred years? It's far back you're going! You don't think that the brutal ineffectual rule of the Ottomans (and the Young Turks after them) had anything to do with the way things turned out by chance? How many thousands did they kill?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafas_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_genocide
I doubt that you do, somehow. It's the fault of the British..always

Richard Hillman

neverever1 wrote: »

Yes. What are you claiming? That of the hundreds of thousands killed they were all members of Al qaeda or similar groups and no innocents were killed?

The hundreds of thousands killed were killed by ISIS and offshoot groups.

Fratton Fred

neverever1 wrote: »

Yes. What are you claiming? That of the hundreds of thousands killed they were all members of Al qaeda or similar groups and no innocents were killed?

No, the vast majority were killed by the likes of Al Qaeda, ISIS and the Taliban.

This is what you really really don't get, or don't want to get.

neverever1

ilkhanid wrote: »

Sometimes dropping bombs is the only way to protect people. That's not some paradox, it's just the way things are. How many, for instance, French people died during the battle for, say, Cherbourg (and dozens more French cities and towns like St.Lo which was nearly levelled during the fighting)? Yet that battle was to get the Germans out of France and protect the French-among other objectives. Hundreds of Iraqi people are dying every day in the inferno of Mosul because IS won't let them leave the city and are using them as shields. The same will happen when it's the turn of Raqqa. If you have some solution that nobody else has yet thought of, let's hear it.

Well Britain has been dropping bombs on the Middle East for a century, how has that worked out?
It's a complete mess now, I don't see any solution, I don't know where it'll end but I'm not blaming one side alone. America/Britain has caused a lot of this.

neverever1

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The hundreds of thousands killed were killed by ISIS and offshoot groups.

Is this a joke? American and British bombs and attacks somehow never killed any innocents? It was all these other groups?

neverever1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, the vast majority were killed by the likes of Al Qaeda, ISIS and the Taliban.

This is what you really really don't get, or don't want to get.

So wait, what are you claiming? That America/Britain didn't kill thousands of innocents or that it's okay because the other side killed more?

wonderfullife

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, the vast majority were killed by the likes of Al Qaeda, ISIS and the Taliban.

This is what you really really don't get, or don't want to get.

Correct.

What most of the head-stuck-in-the-sand types on this thread don't get and really don't want to get is that Radical Islamic Terrorism has inflicted very little damage on the UK and a scary amount of damage on other Muslims in Syria.

UK has had 2 major terrorist incidents and a handful of minor incidents in 12 years, the major ones resulting in the loss of 74 innocent lives between 7/7 and Manchester.

74 innocent dead at the hands of ISIS is basically a typical weekend in Syria and their victims are Muslims.

Perpetuating a fallacy that they just want to destroy people in the West or Western culture is ridiculous.

These Islamic Extremists don't care who they kill.

Snake Plisken

ricero wrote: »

Will anything be done about this ? Or are we just hopelessly waiting for the next islamic terroist attack in europe ?

I'm afraid not, and this thread will be repeated another couple of times this year with the defenders of Islam posters desperately wringing there hands hoping that it's a gas explosion or a lorry driver accidently loses control and then getting defensive when it turns out it's another attack in the name of Islam the religion that has since September 2001 eroding our western freedoms that we took for granted year on year since then!
Heavily police guarded politicians will tell us to be strong and get on with our lives yet we will be nervous at major public events or when we go on holidays to mainland Europe, that nagging worry will remain with us.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs tbh!

markodaly

neverever1 wrote: »

Well Britain has been dropping bombs on the Middle East for a century, how has that worked out?
It's a complete mess now, I don't see any solution, I don't know where it'll end but I'm not blaming one side alone. America/Britain has caused a lot of this.

Not blaming anyone, but its Americans/Brits to balme.

neverever1

markodaly wrote: »

Not blaming anyone, but its Americans/Brits to balme.

Am, I'm clearly blaming both sides! Obviously the American/British long standing bombing campaign on the Middle East hasn't helped and has in fact increased the numbers joining isis et al in huge numbers but those other groups have committed some disgusting acts also.

I think you'll find it's the pro British/American side who are blaming one side alone.

Fratton Fred

neverever1 wrote: »

Is this a joke? American and British bombs and attacks somehow never killed any innocents? It was all these other groups?

You are a perfect example of a little knowledge being a bad thing.

neverever1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You are a perfect example of a little knowledge being a bad thing.

'On a per-day basis, the highest intensity of civilian killings over a sustained period occurred during the first three "Shock and Awe" weeks of the 2003 invasion, when civilian deaths averaged 317 per day and totalled over 6,640 by April 9th, nearly all attributable to US-led coalition-forces, reaching 7,286 by the time of President GW Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech of 1st May 2003'

So 7,286 innocents in under 2 months. This example alone proves that your denial of thousands of innocents killed by America/Britain is total nonsense.

sjb25

Special delivery

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/raf-say-rsquolove-from-manchesterrsquo-message-on-bomb-destined-for-isis-targets-is-real-791247.html

ilkhanid

neverever1 wrote: »

Sweden are assisting bombing campaigns in the Middle East, that's reason enough to be attacked by these madmen. The suicide bomber in Britain is motivated by the British bombing campaign in the Middle East that's a century old! It's easy for these types to be radicalised because of it.

Are you soft ? I doubt he knows anything about the Middle East or it's history. All he knows is the poison that his IS friends poured into his ears. Britain didn't have a "bombing campaign" against the Middle East a century ago. There were hardly any bombers in existence then. Britain was engaged in a military campaign against the Turks who ruled the region, In fact the Arabs supported the British. Not that he knew that (or you either, for that matter.)

neverever1 wrote: »

European attacks by people born in Europe are different because they have no real life experience of life in their home countries really. What they know about it is what's told to them by clerics or their elders. Obviously what they're told isn't the full facts but they are told about Western bombing campaigns in their home countries and against 'their people'. These attacks are true, they did happen and they are a massive recruitment tool.

No life experience? All they have to do is read a newspaper. Anyway, I have no confidence in their supposed ignorance or innocence. Some of them were actually in Syria, or Iraq or other Jihadi-controlled areas. I have no doubt that there they learned to kill, they saw women being abused, people being beheaded. So, forget the sob story. They learned to be stone-cold killers. I'm as impressed by this "our people" narrative as I would be by a Nazi whinging about Hamburg or Dresden, Those attacks were true too, but the Nazis were...no, the word hypocrites doesn't even begin to plumb the depths of their insincerity. These vermin are no different.

neverever1 wrote: »

No one can attack them and destroy their land if their beliefs, their way of life is the dominant way of life on this planet. That is now their aim, that's what I mean by attack is the best form of defence from their viewpoint.

They don't just want to be dominant. They want to destroy or enslave everybody else. The only thing differentiating them from the Nazis is that they don't have the military machine.

Danzy

ceadaoin. wrote: »

This site has some quotes from people who have been invited to speak at the bombers mosque

https://aldgatepup.wordpress.com/2017/05/24/manchester-mosque-condemns-terrorist-attack-but-hosts-antisemitic-anti-kuffar-and-homophobic-scholars/

Highlights include advocating stoning for "fornication" and death for apostasy, preaching that women shouldn't leave the house or work and their husbands are entitled to rape them, Jews are responsible for homosexuality and interaction with non Muslims should be avoided.

This place has a lot to answer for

The Americans made them invite them, the Jews and the Brits were involved as well.

(Sorry I'm trying to get the modern left analysis of this whole thing correct. I'm an old school type)

Mountainsandh

Danzy wrote: »

The Americans made them invite them, the Jews and the Brits were involved as well.

(Sorry I'm trying to get the modern left analysis of this whole thing correct. I'm an old school type)

And the homosexuals, they just flaunt too much, it's all just flaunting flaunting flaunting and prancing about McDonald's, poking young men on Facebook, and generally corrupting vulnerable young Muslims.
And don't get me started on the career women and Cosmopolitan magazines and such tripe, poisoning previously perfectly submissive Muslim women.

Thanks for that Danzy, I needed a bit of sarcastic release after reading the thread.

neverever1

ilkhanid wrote: »

Are you soft ? I doubt he knows anything about the Middle East or it's history. All he knows is the poison that his IS friends poured into his ears. Britain didn't have a "bombing campaign" against the Middle East a century ago. There were hardly any bombers in existence then. Britain was engaged in a military campaign against the Turks who ruled the region, In fact the Arabs supported the British. Not that he knew that (or you either, for that matter.)





They don't just want to be dominant. They want to destroy or enslave everybody else. The only thing differentiating them from the Nazis is that they don't have the military machine.

Britain did have a bombing campaign in Iraq a century ago and amazingly Sunni and Shia groups combined together to fight against them! Basically the complete opposite of what you said is actually true.

They now want to take over the world and convert everyone to their way of life, I don't know why you make the nazi comparison when that describes the British empire to a tee!

ilkhanid

neverever1 wrote: »

Britain did have a bombing campaign in Iraq a century ago and amazingly Sunni and Shia groups combined together to fight against them! Basically the complete opposite of what you said is actually true.

Which part of this is false. Go on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt

neverever1 wrote: »

'On a per-day basis, the highest intensity of civilian killings over a sustained period occurred during the first three "Shock and Awe" weeks of the 2003 invasion, when civilian deaths averaged 317 per day and totalled over 6,640 by April 9th, nearly all attributable to US-led coalition-forces, reaching 7,286 by the time of President GW Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech of 1st May 2003'
So 7,286 innocents in under 2 months. This example alone proves that your denial of thousands of innocents killed by America/Britain is total nonsense.

Very possibly true. But the fact that stands out is that over ten years later, the government of Iraq is working together with the successors to the Bush administration, fighting IS together with those same US armed forces. Probably not loving it, but since they're not religious fanatics driven by ideology above all else, they know that they have to. Probably many of the same Iraqi military cowered under US bombs back in 2004, but they know that, in this part of the world, complaining about what was done to one ten years ago, or a hundred years ago doesn't help.

neverever1

ilkhanid wrote: »

Which part of this is false. Go on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_revolt_against_the_British