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

Deleted User wrote: »

There are a lot of things the British were responsible for in Ireland.
The things you claim to believe the Irish people hold successive British Governments responsible for might best be described as delusional.

You can believe it. I've heard the British blamed for everything. Usually by those of a Republican persuasion, to be accurate.

neverever1 wrote: »

Yeah I think the bombing campaign is far more likely. Even ignoring his sisters testimony, radicalising someone because of unjust violence and murder of their 'people' will influence someone to kill more so than not liking what teenagers wear.

"their people"? He was a British citizen, of Libyan origin. He wasn't a Syrian.

AllForIt wrote: »

I don't believe for a second that the perpetrators of the Manchester attack or Paris attacks carried them out due to other Muslims being killed in foreign lands, rather because of their own deep discomfort of not having their Islamic views being respected in western countries.

The way you phrased that (not intentional I think, sorry) made it seem as if he had a genuine grievance.It was his extreme salafi views that he wanted respected..and one of the Mosques he attended would not indulge him in that, so he went off in a huff

wakka12 wrote: »

ISIS are demented lunatics who joined together to carry out unspeakable acts and I fully believe that the alleged political motivations are largely a cover for this. Not many normal people want to blow up people or decapitate gays no matter how mad they are at western people. It is populated entirely by psychopaths

I believe, rather, that the people at the top have genuine, albeit monstrous, beliefs of one kind or another, but they attract psychopaths to do their bidding, like many other despotisms we are familiar with.

BoatMad wrote: »

education is the effect of pulling yourself out of the sand. your conclusions cannot be arrived at by any examination of the history of the ME, and the issues behind the rise of IS ( and jihadism in general )

You seem to be under the illusion that nobody on this board, except yourself, has educated themselves on Middle Eastern affairs or the history of the region.

Deleted User wrote: »

When did qualifying degrees of wrongness equate to approval?

It's wrong to kill innocent people. Period.

The question is, is it more wrong to deliberately kill, say, 5 people, while trying to save several hundred, or is it more wrong to deliberately kill several hundred people, just because they don't agree with you?

It's wrong to kill innocent people,deliberately, but if there is no intention then we're in a different area. It's a matter of "Did one take sufficient precautions;what intelligence did one act on, were rules adhered to.. etc"

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?

You're using words imprecisely. Syria is not "being bombed". Britain, France and the US are bombing Islamic State and Jabat al-Nusra in Syria. Iraq is not "being bombed". The same countries (and others) are bombing IS in Iraq in co-operation with the Iraqi government and the Kurdish regional government.

neverever1 wrote: »

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

The point is:on whom are they dropping them? A vague statement like "dropped bombs on the Middle East" is of no informative value.

Exeggcute wrote: »

One of the worst uses of Chemical weapons was when Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in the 80's - thousands of Iranians were gassed by Saddam. Where did he get his weapons? The U.S.
Saddam was their golden boy.

A myth. The vast majority of Iraqi munitions were delivered by the then-USSR and other Warsaw pact states. Other weapons were sourced in a number of countries including Brazil, India and Germany. The gas itself was manufactured in Iraq.

gitzy16v wrote: »

Yes I do...What's your point?

Point is they aren't that different. It's the culture that surrounds certain aspects of the religion, not the religion itself.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

well, sit on the fence and throw around abject criticism seems to be your approach.

ISIS are marching around Northern Iraq and Syria committing atrocities on an hourly basis. They have killed thousands upon thousands "To use your phrase) and have even attempted to wipe out an entire religion.

If you are going to complain about the "West" bombing, at least have the decency to offer your solution.



I recall prior to the war in Afghanistan, how everyone was demanding the "West" do something about the Taliban, who at that time had banned women from working, leaving the house unaccompanied and without a burka etc. Public stoning of women who disobeyed were taking place daily in Kabul's football stadium (obviously, football had been banned by this time) and all the liberal lefty types were outraged and demanding something be done.

So, something was done. The Northern alliance were supported, the Taliban overthrown and elections held, with the UN assisting the new government by providing a security assistance force.

and so the same liberal lefty types complained about the West bombing Afghanistan :rolleyes:

And some areas in Afghanistan are worse off now than when they were under Taliban rule. Same with Iraq before the Americans went in. Aren't the main ISIS guys supposed to be ex-Iraqi military? Not sure if that's been verified though.

It's almost like these complex problems don't have simple solutions!

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I recall prior to the war in Afghanistan, how everyone was demanding the "West" do something about the Taliban, who at that time had banned women from working, leaving the house unaccompanied and without a burka etc. Public stoning of women who disobeyed were taking place daily in Kabul's football stadium (obviously, football had been banned by this time) and all the liberal lefty types were outraged and demanding something be done.

So, something was done. The Northern alliance were supported, the Taliban overthrown and elections held, with the UN assisting the new government by providing a security assistance force.

and so the same liberal lefty types complained about the West bombing Afghanistan :rolleyes:

If you really think that the USA & its lapdogs tactics, ie UK tactics in Afghansitan and Iraq and how democracy was imposed on the country were successful and not a contribution to the terrorist problem we have today then you are truly blinkered.

Ariana Grande had said she will return to Manchester for a benefit concert for the victims of the attack, full statement here
https://twitter.com/ArianaGrande/status/868164986887176192

neverever1 wrote: »

Its really amazing how easy it is for the American and British warlords to fool their people. Even on this thread we can see it. You've just shown one example, another was that they denied Britain/America has killed thousands or civilians in the Middle East. They actually believe the line that they are only in the Middle East to grant the natives freedom!

And yet the Shia in Iraq grabbed this freedom with both hands.
One thing you fail to explain is why, if Britain and America are so vicious, so reviled, so Imperialistic etc etc , are so many parties in the Middle East willing to work with them.
Look at just Iraq. A couple of years after the invasion, due to the misrule of the US governors, a ferocious insurgency broke out which pushed the American forces to breaking point. Yet in a few years more, some of those same insurgents (mainly Tribal Arabs) were working with American forces to track down Al Qaeda and indigenous Jihadis. Strange.
The Kurds have maintained a long-standing military relationship with the USA in Iraq and are working with US advisors in both Syria and Iraq.
The Shia Mehdi army was a dreadful thorn in the side of the Americans and the British. Yet the Shia administration are now relying on US advisers to re-equip, retrain and to help them destroy Islamic State.
Funny old world, eh? And one more complex than your simplistic view.

BoatMad wrote: »

naw. most likely he saw evidence of the west killing of thousands of innocents in the ME and figured a little payback was in order

Just as a test I input the words "children dead syria" into a search engine.
I found scores of horrible images and links. How did they die?
I saw many pictures of dead children killed in the Gas attack. Either assad (most likely) or Jihadis store of released gas killed them.
Then there were pictures of children in the massacre at Darayya, whom some claim were killed by the Syrian army.
Next the 68 children killed in the bus bombing by Jihadis.
Then pictures of children killed in Barrel bombings.

Did Abedi care about them? Apparently not. Did he see them. He'd have to be a half-wit to be unaware of them, considering his interest in Syria. But they didn't count, acknowledging their existence would disrupt his carefully constructed narrative of victimhood and hate. He looked at Syria through a filter that removed the inconvenient facts.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

With deepest regret and condolences to those killed.

The saddest thing is that this awful atrocity will be gone off the front pages by Monday.

Then it's back to the General Election in Britain after the BH on Tuesday.

I actually had to think there and remember when the Westminster atrocity happened, so quickly did it move on.

So sad for everyone concerned, but it is a few days wonder at the end of the day. I mean that from a realistic/media point of view.

Back to the hustings on Tuesday. That is the reality now.

I wouldn't agree with this at all. Of course news stories come and go. But this attack I think is different. I think that this attack is going to have serious political/societal ramifications.

Manchester is just an ordinary city. It's not like London that is a political/financial/cultural cesspit. Manchester is a city that the north of England are proud off. It is a city of people that I have never ever heard anyone speak badly of. I can't tell you how many ppl have said to me personally that I should get my ass out of London and move to Manchester because the ppl are so much nicer.

And that is the irony in all of this. The one city in the north of England that has totally accepted Muslims in their community, in the interest of diversity and acceptance of diversity, that has been attacked as a direct result of their acceptance and passion for diversity.

What really grates on my nerves in all of this is that Muslim immigration to the UK comes about for no other reason than economic ones. In my opinion the sole reason that Muslims don't live in a county that is economically viable is precisely because of their totalitarian Islamic faith.

Deleted User wrote: »

It seems to me that any children killed by Syrian forces would have reinforced his misguided support for ISIS, and the children killed by ISIS would probably have been regarded as either "infidel", or the enemy - or both.

To that, I'd add that he'd regard Sunni children killed by Jihadis as being fortunate, sent straight to the arms of Allah. So, in a way, he parallels the kind of thinking that was current in Christianity during the Albigensian Crusade "Strike them all down, God will recognise his own" (attributed to Simon de Montfort, among others)

Deleted User wrote: »

Certainly, there is little point in assuming that the murder of children is going to horrify a child murderer in the same way that it horrifies ordinary people!

Isn't this the very point! His sister relays this narrative of "righteous indignation", of sorrow and anger,as if this character was displaying empathy and so many people swallow it as if he was a normal person.
It's as if a Nazi came on TV and whinged about the dead children of Hamburg, and people took him at his word, forgetting that the dead children of Treblinka and Warsaw meant less than nothing to him.

wonderfullife wrote: »

So were the officers who shot and murdered innocent Brazilian man Jean Charles de Menezes in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings.



Anders Breivik only got 21 years in jail for massacring 77 people, mostly children. Set next to that, 15 years looks ridiculously harsh.

At the end of the day, I actually think the restorative justice system in Norway is probably more effective than the retributive justice systems we have in the UK, Ireland and elsewhere.

Whatever about prison time, breivik will never be a functioning member of society again, he will be in some kind of psych ward for the rest of his days so its really irrelevant to us