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

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

Well at least Morrisey is giving a genuine reaction rather than the dull meaningless platitudes issued by politicians and celebrities.

Morrisey is a non-entity and he should do a bit of research before taking advantage of such a tragedy to further his own agenda. British politicians and the Royal Family have been in the firing line for years - has the fool never heard of Airey Neave being murdered by the INLA at the Houses of Parliament or the Brighton bombing that almost did for Maggie Thatcher and her cabinet; or the murder of the Queen's cousin, Lord Mountbatten, at Mullaghmore, the attempted kidnapping of Princess Anne by a gunman in London etc. etc. An empty vessel makes the most noise. :mad:

bubblypop wrote: »

You do know the Bible calls on people to murder non believers also?

Most don't take it literally. Some do.
Some Muslim's take it literally, most do not

Do you know Christians are supposedly followers of Christ? (Hint, it's in the description). Christ does not advocate such things.
The parable of the good Samaritan's intent is to show that, while many a holy and worthy man walked by, it took a lowly unbeliever to stop and help his fellow man lying injured by the side of the road, and that made him more worthy of God's grace then a thousand pious individuals with a blind eye. In other words, judge the pious and the unbelieving by their actions and not their words when it comes to evaluating their character. In islam, even being the nicest unbeliever in the world still marks you down for death.

Christian martyrs died for their faith at the hand of others (in the bible Christ himself healed the soldier wounded by Peter when he they came to arrest him) their demonstration of faith was to be personal and unbending, Muslim martyrs tend to take a lot of people with them
The Quran tells you that you are compelled to jihad, but it is not a compunction, it is enough to have jihad in your heart at all times.

blanch152 wrote: »

The root cause of the problem (like nearly all terrorist problems) is misguided/deluded/psychopathic/brainwashed people (delete as appropriate for this particular character) who follow a nonsensical religious or nationalist ideology.

On the one hand you say you are speculating what the problem might be, on the other you insinuate that somehow the British people brought this on themselves.

Quite simply, neither the British people nor the British government bear any responsibility for madmen that want to tear down Western democratic society.

The root cause of the problem is the US & other western nations have been suporting these misguided/deluded/psychopathic/brainwashed people since atleast the 1980's with alot of weapons and money. And then bomb people in another country killing lots of innocent people and helps to bring more misguided/deluded/psychopathic/brainwashed people over to the cause of the original misguided/deluded/psychopathic/brainwashed people.

So the solution stop giving money & weapons to radical Islamists groups & regimes like Saudi Arabia & the so-called Syrian "rebels" (terrorists).
And stop the US military sticking its nose in where it does not belong.

blanch152 wrote: »

The root cause of the problem (like nearly all terrorist problems) is misguided/deluded/psychopathic/brainwashed people (delete as appropriate for this particular character) who follow a nonsensical religious or nationalist ideology.

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...

wonderfullife wrote: »

Ok so you're sticking to your original statement that Andreas Lubitz simply committed suicide and hiding behind a dictionary definition?

For the record, we don't know why he did it.

He's a mass-murderer and saying he merely committed "an act of suicide" is a disgrace.

It was no more suicide than Abedi was. Both stone cold mass-murderers.

Terrorism - If we do it to them its counter-terror, if they do it to us its terrorism.

bodhrandude wrote: »

You left out the bit about the witch hunts between 1450 and 1750, where the Christians massacred women they believed to be witches and possessed by the devil. Sorry for going off topic there but it had to be said.

If you're reaching back to the 14th century for a bit of whataboutery your argument is in trouble. Besides, fuk the Puritans, they were the Islamists of their day, book burning, heritic burning, image and statue destroying miserable, ascetic aholes (remind you of anybody?) that were all told to fuk off to America after even Henry got tired of them. Even then only a handful of people were ever burned for witchcraft.
They were fans of a literal interpretation of the bible and quickly fell out of favour, the Quran however is the literal and immutable word of god as transcribed (as tradition tells) by the Profit who could neither read nor write (so it had to be God's hand guiding him). Thus the Quran is not much open to interpretation, and thus Islam is unlikely to change or reform much. All of it's splits are about who has authority rather then who interprets the truth.

bodhrandude wrote: »

You left out the bit about the witch hunts between 1450 and 1750, where the Christians massacred women they believed to be witches and possessed by the devil. Sorry for going off topic there but it had to be said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt

That was wrong, in modern views transported back to then it would be downplayed with references to look at what the Vikings did.

sjb25 wrote: »

You know what really grinds my gears watching Sky news and the police and security service can no almost everything about this chap all his family and his little network of nut jobs more or less a day to late basically like WTF they obviously had intelligence on all these before it happened

They did not have intelligence which would lead them to believe he was in the process of preparing to commit a crime. All they knew is that he had extremist type views which in itself is not a crime.

The police do not have free rein to go about spying on people because they suspect their is a possibility one might commit a crime. It is only when they have committed a crime can they step in or if they can prove a crime is being planned.

That is why I advocated in an earlier post that accessing extremist Islamic material online should be outlawed punishable with a prison sentence.

That exact policy I advocate is already used in the issue of child protection already so I can't for the life of me understand why it is not used in issues related to extremist views and terrorism.

It's a very thorny issue because internet surveillance effects all of us but new laws as outlined would send out a message to potential terrorists that they can be identified before they commit a crime.

Beyondgone wrote: »

Islam.

Islam:
No TV. I like TV, do you?
No Music. I like music, do you?
No dancing. I like dancing, do you?
No other Religion. I'm not religious, are you?
Women must cover head to toe. Because why?
No alcohol. I like beer. Do you?
No sex outside marriage. I like sex. Marriage is ok. But sex is better. You?
Kill Non believers. I'm one..kill me? Why? I'm ok with non believers.


The apologists, the enablers and the excusers need to look at what they want. If they want Islam, then they want the above to be history. If they want their own lives, on their own terms, they need to make a decision. Either condemn or join. I'm not joining. I don't share the views.

What we want is no little girls to be killed. The difference between us & you is we don't want children in Manchester or Paris to be killed at the hands of ISIS, but we also don't want little children killed at the hands of Israeli drones in Gaza or US Cruise missiles in Iraq, Lybia or Syria.

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.

pumpkin4life wrote: »

So to expand on this.

Why are we importing a violent, barbaric group of people into our country that hate us and hate our way of life? Why is it clowns like The Irish Times and the universities and the politicians are promoting this crap, despite the fact that its like the prisoners dilemma, its going to end in chaos for everyone.

This is something we have to confront. Have my own ideas of all of this, but there's more to this.

You talking about the DUP? Paisley said the Dublin government brought on the Dublin & Monaghan bombings, the worst terrorist attack in the states history (& the worst in Britain or Ireland during the 20th century) on itself.

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

What we want is no little girls to be killed. The difference between us & you is we don't want children in Manchester or Paris to be killed at the hands of ISIS, but we also don't want little children killed at the hands of Israeli drones in Gaza or US Cruise missiles in Iraq, Lybia or Syria.

How wonderfully charming, in the interim this pie in the sky notion of wanting everything to be perfect is getting us nothing and nowhere.

If it's going to be the case that someone born, educated and living in the West is going to turn on their own society simply by virtue of their religion and a sense of shared community with people elsewhere in the world that they perceive as victims - well then there is a damn fine case to be made that such a religion has no place in a civilized society.

I state this because while people have been rushing to offering explanations like Iraq or Afghanistan, I'm struck by the fact that once again the attackers are not from these places but from the societies they seek to destroy. If a set of beliefs can drive an otherwise rational person into a violent frenzy, I don't think simply fixing the rest of the world problems (which incidentally is another thing we might have difficulty doing) is going to sway them.

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

What we want is no little girls to be killed. The difference between us & you is we don't want children in Manchester or Paris to be killed at the hands of ISIS, but we also don't want little children killed at the hands of Israeli drones in Gaza or US Cruise missiles in Iraq, Lybia or Syria.

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.

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