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

Richard Hillman · 25-05-2017 11:57PM

In the years proceeding 9/11, the only strikes were one off strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan after the embassy bombings. Then there was the Iraq airstrikes in 98 that only lasted a few days and were confined to strikes on military targets.

In very violent counties where everybody has a million internal enemy's, we're not talking about landmark moments that would have turned the tide against the West. That would have radicalised a Generation.

Then 9-11 happened. Nobody can honestly say that the US were not justified in going to war in Afghanistan. The Taliban enabled Al-Qaeda and wouldn't hand over Bin-Laden and associates. They won the war (which was already happening before 9/11) and established a democracy there.

Iraq was ridiculous and we can all agree that it was a disaster and pointless but let's not pretend that there wasn't a massive movement within the Islamic World to target America and Europe before that and Afghanistan.

Romantic Rose · 26-05-2017 12:04AM

Also this whole malarkey of going back and forth to places like Libya and Syria to be 'soldiers of peace' is a disgrace. What a load of crap. They're hardly over there on UN peacekeeping missions. Ban them from coming back, regardless if they have family in the UK.

AllForIt · 26-05-2017 12:24AM

wakka12 wrote: »

Well I whole heartedly disagree
I don't believe that anybody knowingly bringing a live bomb to a concert full of young girls could or would ever be a 'nice guy' under any set of circumstnces, even if we lived in a peaceful world where he hadnt felt so enraged by evil westerners that he had to take it out on arianna grande fans

Your posts are teetering ever so close to the edge of justifying his acts

I see where your coming from but actually for me the issue of religious psychology can explain how someone can be a generally good guy and then do something atrocious.

So I would look at it this way. The guy did what he did because he feels he is in the right in terms of all kinds of world views. I can totally understand how someone can be so absorbed in their faith that such a case would arise.

My point could easily be open to misinterpretation as if I'm attempting to absolve him of his brutality but actually my point is a scathing attack on his character. He in my opinion is WORSE that someone who is 'a bad person', as he rationally did what he did ,not out of some kind of psychological dysfunction but someone who clear mindedly killed children inspired by his own religious views. Can't get much worse than that imo.

wonderfullife · 26-05-2017 12:43AM

Danzy wrote: »

The Mosque this man attended has had speakers that advocated murdering Jews, raping and beating wives, murdering people who leave Islam, murdering gays, murdering adulterers, murdering those who believe in more than one God.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/security-services-missed-five-opportunities-stop-manchester/

The same Mosque also banned Abedi and reported him to the authorities. So that kinda rips your narrative about them promoting extremism to shreds.

"Akram Ramadan, 49, part of the close-knit Libyan community in south Manchester, said Abedi had been banned from Didsbury Mosque after he had confronted the Imam who was delivering an anti-extremist sermon."

Mr Ramadan said he understood that Abedi had been placed on a “watch list” because the mosque reported him to the authorities for his extremist views.

A well-placed source at Didsbury Mosque confirmed it had contacted the Home Office’s Prevent anti-radicalisation programme as a result.

A US official also briefed that members of Abedi’s own family had contacted British police saying that he was “dangerous”, but again the information does not appear to have been acted upon.

BoatMad · 26-05-2017 12:47AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/security-services-missed-five-opportunities-stop-manchester/

The same Mosque also banned Abedi and reported him to the authorities. So that kinda rips your narrative about them promoting extremism to shreds.

dont bring facts in a boards argument, it unsettles them

Mountainsandh · 26-05-2017 01:19AM

Romantic Rose wrote: »

I was listening to the Father's interview about his son, the murderer. I actually have never heard someone be so ignorant and in so much denial in my whole life. He honestly thought the sun shone out of his backside and that butter wouldn't melt. What the flip.

Then others members of the Muslim community describing them as such a lovely family. Come on, there's loyalty and then there's ignorance beyond belief.

The sister's words seemed very equivocal too, there is a quote where she says whether the brother got his revenge is between him and their god.

I got the feeling she approved of the brother's actions but was wise enough to word it so as not to get in trouble.

BoatMad · 26-05-2017 01:24AM

hen others members of the Muslim community describing them as such a lovely family

maybe they were a lovely family , who knows

koumi · 26-05-2017 01:36AM

AllForIt wrote: »

I see where your coming from but actually for me the issue of religious psychology can explain how someone can be a generally good guy and then do something atrocious.

So I would look at it this way. The guy did what he did because he feels he is in the right in terms of all kinds of world views. I can totally understand how someone can be so absorbed in their faith that such a case would arise.

My point could easily be open to misinterpretation as if I'm attempting to absolve him of his brutality but actually my point is a scathing attack on his character. He in my opinion is WORSE that someone who is 'a bad person', as he rationally did what he did ,not out of some kind of psychological dysfunction but someone who clear mindedly killed children inspired by his own religious views. Can't get much worse than that imo.

I've been listening to a video series the last few nights which was recorded in 2004 I think and it is an eye opening insight into the religion of Islam,its basic idealology from it's beginnings through to how it has gained momentum, particularly across the west in increasing numbers over the last couple of decades. The fact that it is from a christian versus perspective brings an element of understanding to it that it is mindblowing and revealing and insightful in equal measure. It's a pretty long series and I'm only on the third episode but it has cleared up a whole lot.

BoatMad · 26-05-2017 01:50AM

My point could easily be open to misinterpretation as if I'm attempting to absolve him of his brutality but actually my point is a scathing attack on his character. He in my opinion is WORSE that someone who is 'a bad person', as he rationally did what he did ,not out of some kind of psychological dysfunction but someone who clear mindedly killed children inspired by his own religious views. Can't get much worse than that imo

This is the nature of radicalisation , its why irish men and women , who if you meet them in the street would just be " ordinary " nice people , felt compelled to build and detonate bombs that killed innocent people.

To suggest this is around religion is far too simplistic , Islam has been around for a long time, the current radicalisation is a direct result of what is happening in the ME, and these " radicals " blame the West ( with some good justification ) for what is happening

saying its about Islam, is like saying the Northern Ireland conflict is about protestants against Catholics, as we know its much more then that simplistic assessment

AllForIt · 26-05-2017 02:39AM

koumi wrote: »

I've been listening to a video series the last few nights which was recorded in 2004 I think and it is an eye opening insight into the religion of Islam,its basic idealology from it's beginnings through to how it has gained momentum, particularly across the west in increasing numbers over the last couple of decades. The fact that it is from a christian versus perspective brings an element of understanding to it that it is mindblowing and revealing and insightful in equal measure. It's a pretty long series and I'm only on the third episode but it has cleared up a whole lot.

There is no doubt whatsoever that your average devout Christian believes that religious laws should supersede common law. In the west the sheer weight of intellectual opinion against this ever happening has avoided such a state of affairs. It has never occurred in the US because it was enshrined in their constitution that no such thing should come about, from the very beginning of the state.

The problem is is that in the Islamic world no such ideal exists, so they don't think that Islamic law is separate from common law, they think that all laws should be in line with Islamic ethos.

That is why you keep hearing about Sharia Law. A wealth of Muslims who believe that their personal opinions that they themselves subscribe to and believe in, should be enforced in society, whether that be in their own Muslim countries or even in WESTERN countries, where they have immigrated too.

This problem between the Islamic faith and the west has been brewing for decades not least because of the huge influx of Muslims to western countries. I'm not talking about the USA but more western European countries. I am not of the opinion that multiculturalism doesn't work but what I am saying is that if you have any demographic that feels that their religious views should trump common law then it's no wonder we're in the place we are in.

In Ireland we have a battle between those that think that schools should have a Catholic ethos, and those that don't. At least both sides agree we should have a choice. This is a far cry from the mentality of Muslim countries where no individuality should be considered at all.

gitzy16v · 26-05-2017 02:45AM

BoatMad wrote: »

saying its about Islam, is like saying the Northern Ireland conflict is about protestants against Catholics, as we know its much more then that simplistic assessment

Lol....No it's not the same at all.

Sunnis vs Shia might have some relevance.

I'm amazed some are so blind.

Catholic v Protestant is the same religion.
Islam v everyone else is something different all together.

koumi · 26-05-2017 02:56AM

AllForIt wrote: »

There is no doubt whatsoever that your average devout Christian believes that religious laws should supersede common law. In the west the sheer weight of intellectual opinion against this ever happening has avoided such a state of affairs. It has never occurred in the US because it was enshrined in their constitution that no such thing should come about, from the very beginning of the state.

The problem is is that in the Islamic world no such ideal exists, so they don't think that Islamic law is separate from common law, they think that all laws should be in line with Islamic ethos.

That is why you keep hearing about Sharia Law. A wealth of Muslims who believe that their personal opinions that they themselves subscribe to and believe in, should be enforced in society, whether that be in their own Muslim countries or even in WESTERN countries, where they have immigrated too.

This problem between the Islamic faith and the west has been brewing for decades not least because of the huge influx of Muslims to western countries. I'm not talking about the USA but more western European countries. I am not of the opinion that multiculturalism doesn't work but what I am saying is that if you have any demographic that feels that their religious views should trump common law then it's no wonder we're in the place we are in.

In Ireland we have a battle between those that think that schools should have a Catholic ethos, and those that don't. At least both sides agree we should have a choice. This is a far cry from the mentality of Muslim countries where no individuality should be considered at all.

Basically this. I couldn't speak for the average christian but as conveyed so eloquently by the series speaker, the west recognizes the difference between sin, vice and crime or simply, the difference between religion and state. As the west has moved away from being a theocracy over the last number of centuries, Islam considers these the specific failures of Christianity which has resulted in the break down of society and consequently gives greater credence to their own tenets, making a very persuasive argument for the need of it.

Persephone kindness · 26-05-2017 05:28AM

Kinda weird ...the guy was fleeing Gaddafi ...who supplied most of the Semtex for the IRA weirdly. Gave huge support to Republican terrorists around the time of MC Guinness Just because he hated the UK. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1-1zCMxF7w

Gaddafi flooded libyan press with anti british and anti western propaganda ..it's fair to say if there are estremists in libya who hate the west ..he is partly to blame.

The manchester bombers father fought against Gaddafi ..in a terrorist fundamentalist group.

People with a history of violence are kind of different from the rest of us.

26-05-2017 07:47AM

BoatMad wrote: »

Ultimately him or his successor will have to do it

rather like our friends in the North , your comments would have been the same in the 80s

A solution will have to found, you cannot solve this with military force or terrorism , ultimately everyone will have to sit down and trash out a solution

What on earth makes you think that's possible, given the number of Countries and Religions ISIS is attacking?

Not to mention the individual members/supporters, who may, or may not listen to any calls for even a temporary truce!

BoatMad wrote: »

The UK/Irish Gov: " lads can we come to some sort of agreement to stop the violence "
The IRA " Brits out "
The UK/Irish Gov " what if we help the situation ,take a few solderers off the streets "
The IRA " Brits out now",

This goes on for a bit until everyone realises the futility , but we the west need to be seen as honest brokers and we are far far away from that

Yup, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, other branches of Islam, of various Nationalities - but we in the West need to be seen as honest brokers?

Is there any flesh left on that horse carcass you're flogging?

BoatMad wrote: »

you do accept that history is a continuos process, and what happens todays often influenced by events that took place decades ago.( or more )

while they may or may not be fools ( I've no evidence one way or the other ) . I suggest that a suicide bomber must be quite strong wiled in fact

I suggest a suicide bomber must be stupid, and easily brainwashed, if he/she thinks murdering innocent people, - often in the most gruesome manner possible - will achieve anything.

I further suggest that suicide bombers are weak willed, and have no self-respect, if they think their own lives are worth so little, because it's perfectly evident that those who would use them as cannon fodder certainly don't care about them, or have any respect for them. These "leaders" clearly only care about achieving their own goals...

BoatMad wrote: »

NO the Wests narrative

(a) Hate filled insane teerrorist

or

(b) Average Joe radicalised by West horrific treatment of ME

(a) allows us, the west, to go to bed at night, safe that we remain virtuous and we must seek to protect ourselves from " madmen', i.e. any retaliation is acceptable

(b) induces self doubt and makes us worry that we might have a hand in the problem, not a nice feeling

(a) it is then , cause thats MUCH easier to live with

Generalise much?

Plenty of us don't support the slaughter of innocents, in any Country.
It's called consistency.

bilston · 26-05-2017 08:13AM

neverever1 wrote: »

wakka12 wrote: »

Do you think its more productive to criticise a collapsed empire than talk about how a current regime thats causing untold misery for millions of people could be gotten rid of?

The British have dropped bombs on the Middle East nearly every day this year.

Dropped bombs on who? Have they deliberately targeted little girls at pop concerts or are they targeting psychos who chop kids heads off because they don't subscribe to the same belief systems as they do?

Snake Plisken · 26-05-2017 08:50AM

This article by Richard Kemp lays out the proper way that we should be dealing with this Islamic threat and it should be implemented across Europe!
https://medium.com/@ColonelRichardKemp/detain-deport-exclude-this-is-how-britain-should-respond-to-terror-7da5666f74da

cournioni · 26-05-2017 09:02AM

There are two very clear differences between the IRA and ISIS:

One of the aforementioned is/have/had been set on conquering and killing off other cultures (non-Muslim) by force and creating a Caliphate.

The other was set on removing what it sees as foreign occupancy on it's land by force.

Both murderous, but I think comparisons are very wide of the mark based on their aims. Their tactics are vastly different also.

NIMAN · 26-05-2017 09:04AM

This story kinda slipped under the news radar
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-40051640

Things like this will be seen by many Muslims as the lack of sympathy towards them compared to Westerners.

Nearly 5 times as many civilians killed by the US military as died in Manchester, yet compare the media response.

In the great scheme of things, its not helping young Muslims, who might see that their lives are worth less than a European.

cournioni · 26-05-2017 09:23AM

NIMAN wrote: »

This story kinda slipped under the news radar
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-40051640

Things like this will be seen by many Muslims as the lack of sympathy towards them compared to Westerners.

Nearly 5 times as many civilians killed by the US military as died in Manchester, yet compare the media response.

In the great scheme of things, its not helping young Muslims, who might see that their lives are worth less than a European.

... and that's just the BBC. In a lot of cases, the military are just as bad as terrorists in their approach to warfare (collateral damage is almost a given).

Elmer Blooker · 26-05-2017 09:29AM

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.

Look here at how the good old BBC play the "moderate" card to cover up for this Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. This article is almost six years old and before Syria but the "moderate" card would be played in the Syria conflict again and again.

The moderate tone is generally consistent with what most LIFG leaders have been saying in the last six months, whether in eastern or western Libya. It seems their experiences in armed conflicts in Afghanistan, Libya and Algeria have forced them to mature politically, re-calculate strategically, and moderate their behaviour and ideology.
The former "fighting group" has even toned down its name, becoming the Islamic Movement for Change.

"mature politically" - nauseating!
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14728565

xckjoo · 26-05-2017 09:41AM

gitzy16v wrote: »

Lol....No it's not the same at all.

Sunnis vs Shia might have some relevance.

I'm amazed some are so blind.

Catholic v Protestant is the same religion.
Islam v everyone else is something different all together.

You do know that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all Abrahamic Religions don't you? They aren't that different.

26-05-2017 10:18AM

NIMAN wrote: »

This story kinda slipped under the news radar
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-40051640

Things like this will be seen by many Muslims as the lack of sympathy towards them compared to Westerners.

Nearly 5 times as many civilians killed by the US military as died in Manchester, yet compare the media response.

In the great scheme of things, its not helping young Muslims, who might see that their lives are worth less than a European.

It's appalling, and unjustifiable.

In fairness, though - you have to ask who is most responsible, the Country who (allegedly) tried to avoid civilian casualties, or ISIS, who stored explosives in a building they had good reason to suspect might be targeted, then forced innocent people into that building?

I'm not justifying the killing of innocents anywhere. There is no excuse for it.
However, the "precision" strike at least tried to target the guilty, whereas the ISIS tactics were to ensure they took as many innocent people with them as possible, in the event of a strike.

Both actions were awful - but if there's a scale of "wrongness" involving in the taking of innocent human life, then ISIS actions top that scale in this instance, imo.

Again, that is no comfort to the bereaved, nor does it excuse it - but it should lay blame proportionately.

Saying ISIS will try to use it is probably true - but that doesn't mean we should just allow ISIS to claim a moral victory from an action that they are more culpable for. Again, that does not exonerate America from blame - it just lays the most blame where it belongs - with ISIS.

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Look here at how the good old BBC play the "moderate" card to cover up for this Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. This article is almost six years old and before Syria but the "moderate" card would be played in the Syria conflict again and again.

"mature politically" - nauseating!
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14728565

There is nothing moderate about Islamic terrorism.

That article is doing nothing more than attempting to justify an Immigration policy that failed to take into account the fact that just because people move to a different Country, it doesn't mean their core beliefs change.

The question is, how many of the Ghaddafi era refugees still support Islamic fundamentalist groups, and how many of those refugees, or their UK/European born families are now willing to "fight" for ISIS or similar groups?

The next logical question is, should refugees be given permanent residency in Europe, as opposed to asylum until the political situation in their own Countries is no longer a threat to their own political beliefs.

In other words, does the "right" to make a permanent home in a new Country supercede the fact that their beliefs may pose a real threat to the lives of people in that Country, should the political situation change in the future?

I believe the "permanent residency" status for asylum seekers needs to be eliminated, and replaced with asylum that can be revoked where people pose a security threat to the Country that protected them.

Danzy · 26-05-2017 10:58AM

BoatMad wrote: »

This is the nature of radicalisation , its why irish men and women , who if you meet them in the street would just be " ordinary " nice people , felt compelled to build and detonate bombs that killed innocent people.

To suggest this is around religion is far too simplistic , Islam has been around for a long time, the current radicalisation is a direct result of what is happening in the ME, and these " radicals " blame the West ( with some good justification ) for what is happening

saying its about Islam, is like saying the Northern Ireland conflict is about protestants against Catholics, as we know its much more then that simplistic assessment

Islamic Militancy has been the hallmark of the faith since it was founded, it is its unique selling point, if you will.

There is nothing new in it at all.

neverever1 · 26-05-2017 11:00AM

bilston wrote: »

Dropped bombs on who? Have they deliberately targeted little girls at pop concerts or are they targeting psychos who chop kids heads off because they don't subscribe to the same belief systems as they do?

It may not be comfortable to admit but far more children and innocents are dying every week at the hands of the west than this attack in Manchester.

Danzy · 26-05-2017 11:04AM

Because America dropped bombs on Iraq or British Soldiers did their usual rough up and shoot the natives routine in Southern Iraq routine is not the reason that the Didsbury Mosque, a large one, invited speakers who call for killing all gays, atheists, apostates, Jews, adulterers, who advocate wife beating and excuse marital rape, who say a Muslim musty not be friends or integrate, must refuse democracy and on and on and on.

The raw ultra fascism that is oozing out of that building is enough to damage society there and that is all done to the faith.

neverever1 · 26-05-2017 11:10AM

Deleted User wrote: »

It's appalling, and unjustifiable.

In fairness, though - you have to ask who is most responsible, the Country who (allegedly) tried to avoid civilian casualties, or ISIS, who stored explosives in a building they had good reason to suspect might be targeted, then forced innocent people into that building?

I'm not justifying the killing of innocents anywhere. There is no excuse for it.
However, the "precision" strike at least tried to target the guilty, whereas the ISIS tactics were to ensure they took as many innocent people with them as possible, in the event of a strike.

Both actions were awful - but if there's a scale of "wrongness" involving in the taking of innocent human life, then ISIS actions top that scale in this instance, imo.

Again, that is no comfort to the bereaved, nor does it excuse it - but it should lay blame proportionately.

Saying ISIS will try to use it is probably true - but that doesn't mean we should just allow ISIS to claim a moral victory from an action that they are more culpable for. Again, that does not exonerate America from blame - it just lays the most blame where it belongs - with ISIS.

So you think one country should be bombed because of the murderous actions of a few but it's completely wrong for another country to be bombed despite their murderous actions?

Danzy · 26-05-2017 11:12AM

neverever1 wrote: »

It may not be comfortable to admit but far more children and innocents are dying every week at the hands of the west than this attack in Manchester.

and treble that are dying at the hands of men like that bomber, his father, the men his local Mosque invite to speak to them.

The invasion of Iraq and Libya were completely wrong, bombing Isis in Syria was the correct thing to do and probably has prevented the whole region having a civil war, at the least it stopped genocide in Northern Iraq.

murpho999 · 26-05-2017 11:15AM

I see they now have armed police on trains in the UK now.

I find this a totally over the top reaction. I would not like to be on a train with this.

Also, I don't see how it prevents a guy from getting on and blowing himself up.

A terrorist can quickly move to another target very easily.

sjb25 · 26-05-2017 11:21AM

murpho999 wrote: »

I see they now have armed police on trains in the UK now.

I find this a totally over the top reaction. I would not like to be on a train with this.

Also, I don't see how it prevents a guy from getting on and blowing himself up.

A terrorist can quickly move to another target very easily.

Why they are not going to shoot you!
The are extremely well trained firearms officers.
I'd rather them on the train as a preventive measure to make the terrorist think twice, than be sitting beside jihadi Jim and his back pack

Fratton Fred · 26-05-2017 11:21AM

neverever1 wrote: »

So you think one country should be bombed because of the murderous actions of a few but it's completely wrong for another country to be bombed despite their murderous actions?

So what should be done with ISIS? Should the "west" just sit back and watch them commit genocide after genocide?

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

Comments