Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Terrorist Attack in Manchester (Read MOD WARNING in OP Updated 24/05/2017))
Options
Comments
-
Trump_Wall wrote: »We have to be nuanced, though.
Usually the truth lurks in between two radically opposing views. I idea that Islamic terror would dry up the second that the West withdraws is absurd. Islamic terror would invariably continue; the Islamists would merely move on to their next demand.
At the same time, though, the idea that foreign policy has no link to Islamic terror is just as absurd. Ill-considered Western intervention is not the cause of Islamic terror but, when done improperly, can lead to power vacuums where Islamic terror can nurture.
Foreign policy is a small but not insignificant cog in this debate. Let's not lurch to either extreme stance based on the bias of our political outlook - be it Left or Right.
Well put0 -
Trump_Wall wrote: »We have to be nuanced, though.Usually the truth lurks in between two radically opposing views. I idea that Islamic terror would dry up the second that the West withdraws is absurd. Islamic terror would invariably continue; the Islamists would merely move on to their next demand.
There is actually no evidence to support that claim. A solution in the ME , a detente between Shia and Sunni, largely enforced by Iraq and Saudi and th realisation that the creation if a Arab Homeland may have too be realised , would largely deal with the vast majority of issues. As would a Kurdish homeland
Reestablishing law and order in Libya would also remove many issues
destroying two Muslim countries and destabilising several others tends to have well... destabilising effectsAt the same time, though, the idea that foreign policy has no link to Islamic terror is just as absurd. Ill-considered Western intervention is not the cause of Islamic terror but, when done improperly, can lead to power vacuums where Islamic terror can nurture.Foreign policy is a small but not insignificant cog in this debate. Let's not lurch to either extreme stance based on the bias of our political outlook - be it Left or Right.
US foreign policy and the desire to destabilise the old Soviet client states is largely behind almost all the issues we are dealing with. This is the problem when one nation has a military force bigger then the next 5 adversaries , it simply cant avoid not flexing its muscles , usually with disastrous results for the rest of us .
Its hard not to come to a conclusion that Europe is paying a price for aiding and abetting a colonial style US foreign policy0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Absolutely.
There is no excuse for killing innocent people. It's not acceptable.
The 2 men who stood up for those Muslim girls and were brutally murdered for it are heroes.
One of them was a Republican too. That gives tremendous hope for humanity.
Yet we have silence here when a Christian terrorist murders 2 people in cold-blood (and yes he's a Christian terrorist he has multiple social media posts about fighting for Jesus Christ the Lord).
Absolute crickets from people on this thread about it. Where are the calls for white communities to do more to report far-right/Christian terrorists? Where are the calls for internment of known far-right risks?
All we have is stunning hypocrisy.
In America you're 6 times more likely to be murdered for being a Muslim than you are to be murdered by a Muslim.
Then people wonder why the conditions to breed extremism exist....0 -
Trump_Wall wrote: »Comparing the IRA with ISIS is a grave and inaccurate folly.
The IRA had, for all their faults, a political goal that sought to end discrimination in the North - the objective of which was a United Ireland. So yes, it was possible to engage with IRA leaders for precisely this reason; as the root motivation of the problem was purely political in nature.
In contrast, ISIS have an overtly religious motivation and goal. They seek to reinstate the Caliphate on a global scale and, due to their interpretation of Q'uranic scripture, justify the obliteration of every type of Muslim and non-Muslim that does not align with their theocratic beliefs. As their modus operandi is purely religious in nature, they are quite literally impossible to negotiate with (unless the negotiator was God himself).
Political Islam is not a recent phenomenon. It goes well back to the 1920s and 1930s, with the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups. The movement has waxed and waned over the decades since, but the idea of limiting our focus to March 2003 and beyond is illusory and ignorant in the extreme. ISIS, and their affiliate groups, demand the end of Western intervention because they themselves want to intervene in those countries.
To deal with the problem, we must have a three-pronged approach.
First, Western intervention in the Middle East and North Africa should cease - not because ISIS and other groups demand it, but because our interventions have proved futile and ill-considered.
Second, we need to protect our own populations with a strict immigration policy. Not a policy that excludes Muslims, but a policy that serves to integrate minority populations at a sustainable and realistic rate. We mustn't add to the problem we have. Given that radicalization is rampant in many schools, mosques and prisons, greater monitoring needs to take place.
Third, we must reinstate treason. Anyone who has been shown to have more-than-direct links with ISIS and affiliate organizations should be tried before a court of law. If found guilty (and if they are a British citizen, in the case of the UK), they should be imprisoned for treason. Those who departed for Syria should have their passports removed and they should not be allowed to return to the UK. Citizens not from the UK, if found treasonous, should be deported to their country of origin.
While the problem will remain a long and perennial one, there is no quick and easy solution. The European populations are ahead of the politicians on this question; it's just a matter of time before the politicians catch up. Unfortunately, much of the damage - a la Merkel - has already been done. Nonetheless, by taking the above steps, and recognizing the threat as theocratic and not purely political in motivation, we can frame our efforts in the right way and make the effort that society is sorely waiting for.
treason is redundant and isn't needed. it never was needed actually. those who departed for syria have to be allowed to return to the uk otherwise they put the rest of the world at risk. should they not be and they attack another country, that country will then have the right to seek reparations from britain or do whatever necessary to avenge, as it will be britain's fault they have been attacked. britain must be forced to clean up it's own mess.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
How did foreign policy of Britain force Didsbury Mosque to host Speakers who call for the killing of Gays, Jews, Atheists, the need for women to be beaten by their husbands.
Sigh, I wanted to give a longer answer
IN the Middle east , the invasion and destruction wrought by advanced western military activity and the inability to restore a destroyed nation , has lead to radicalisation .
When you have radicalisation its because " radical " elements gain prominence, Why , because more and more " ordinary " people , looking at events and applying rather simplistic logic , begin to lend their support to these radical ideas ( rather like Brexit and Trump etc )
Hence the " rise " of radical elements, normally kept in check in a functioning balanced society
in summary conflict leads to polarisation , which leads to radicalisation,
This is why the Mosque is espousing radical Islam, because it is been given a platform to do so my the general acquissance of its public who themselves are at the early stages of radicalisation
A parallel ( but a limited one ) might be the mood swing in ireland post 1916 executions etc .0 -
Advertisement
-
end of the road wrote: »treason is redundant and isn't needed. it never was needed actually. those who departed for syria have to be allowed to return to the uk otherwise they put the rest of the world at risk. should they not be and they attack another country, that country will then have the right to seek reparations from britain or do whatever necessary to avenge, as it will be britain's fault they have been attacked. britain must be forced to clean up it's own mess.
no country has any right to " avenge " anything , vengeance is for lynch mobs0 -
NO , there would not be such a situation , I personally would prefer that innocents are killed in the defence of civil liberties then to see them eroded by those in power that seek to use fear to invoke reductions in civil liberties, and in most cases such liberties are lost forever
Well, whatever your personal feelings I think we're going to see public opinion on this in the West very strongly tested by events in the coming years.
Perhaps I misjudge people, but I don't think joe bloggs in a Western country with peace and relative prosperity at home for the last 2 generations is going to sign themselves up for the role of soldier fighting in a war for civil liberties while they go about their daily lives.0 -
It's absolutely impossible to debate with those of a Chomskyite disposition; every measure of objectivity gets hurled out the window. Instead, every argument has to fit the very narrow mold that the US-UK are the source of all human problems. I'm no cheerleader for the West, but what I do know is that we have to be objective about the facts.
Similar intransigence can be seen with extreme right-wing persons. Like their Chomskyite counterparts, no fact nor evidence can shape their views unless it conforms with their very narrow political outlook. The reason I'm bringing these views up is because we have seen, quite clearly, over the past few pages, rough examples of both.
Again, the truth of a matter invariably lurks between both extremes. Let's not skew our objective approach to suit our biased political hunches. Most of the time, we're going to be wrong; perhaps some modesty on that front would be helpful, too. When analyzing Islamic fundamentalism, we need to analyze all relevant factors and not only the ones that suit our agenda.0 -
Do you have any evidence to prove this?yes but radicalised by the conflict in the ME
The majority of ISIS's recruits do." Criminals" by and large dont become terrorists, its often intellectual types. but yes we have seen some with criminal behaviour but the vast majority have been distinguished by their ethnic and religious identification rather then anything else
But that solution will lead to the death, persecution, displacement and possible enslavement of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people.100% we try and find a solution , that solution has to contain bringing an end to the huge military action in the ME
We can walk away from bombing ISIS like the Allies could afford to walk away from attacking the Nazi's during WW2.0 -
fly_agaric wrote: »Well, whatever your personal feelings I think we're going to see public opinion on this in the West very strongly tested by events in the coming years.
Perhaps I misjudge people, but I don't think joe bloggs in a Western country with peace and relative prosperity at home for the last 2 generations is going to sign up for the role of some soldier fighting in a war for civil liberties while they go about their daily lives.
The evidence by and large ., in a Europe suffering from many such attacks is that civil remedies have largely been followed, refugee processes have continued and intolerance against Muslims has largely been avoided/ Thats to Europe credit and its a shining beacon in that regard
IN the US, post 9/11 largely free from both attacks and refugees, there has been a rise of intolerance ( resulting recently in two americans killed as a result ) a change in state policy in an attempt to persecute selected (innocent ) Muslims and a general rise in intolerance .
of course the US has never been a beacon for anything but self interest
I remain hopeful and I believe Europe will weather this onslaught without any descent into radicalism , the recent elections in France and the election of either Schult or Merkel bodes well for the continuation of tolerance0 -
Advertisement
-
Are people actually saying that they are against military action against ISIS? Seriously? You wanted us to leave them be, take Syria, take the Syrian Arsenal, take Lebanon and Jordan, and inevitably they would have turned their eyes on Israel. Really?
I have also seen the Gulf War being mentioned. So were we to allow Saddam Hussein invade Kuwait and get away with it?
Invading Afghanistan too? We're people actually against that war?
Iraq 2 and Libya were ridiculous interventions, agreed but are we to say that the west should stop intervening in wars and disputes?
Were they wrong to intervene in Kosovo war when it looked like Slobodan Milosevic was about go for another spot of genocide? Or was the original tactic during the Bosnian War of just sending in a few peacekeepers and "let them at it" the right approach?
I assume people who are so he'll bent on intervention must think that NATO were spot on in the Rwandan war?0 -
jackofalltrades wrote: »Do you have any evidence to prove this?
oh for gods sale.
We can walk away from bombing ISIS like the Allies could afford to walk away from attacking the Nazi's during WW2.
yes the parallels are the same , the US invaded germany , sacked the country , handed the Government to the Socialists that that then persecuted the remainder, then sided with Russia to attack that minority leading too a rise of the Nazis
dear god man, have you no concept of what happened in the ME
The US are the Nazis , thats the problem and we sided with them , ISIS might be regarded as the Resistance fighters ( I can only maintain the parallel to a point )
have you read any ME history , the origins of ISIS , the source of the choas in Iraq , the issue with The SUnnis there etc etc etc0 -
We've just heard from BoatMad that "the US are the Nazi's, that's the problem".
The disturbing thing is that both Islamists and those of a Chomskyite disposition have *exactly* the same view of the world - that Muslims are the aggrieved victim of Western imperialism.
I would consider it a great source of shame if my politics overlapped with Islamic extremists.
I know which side I'm on, though.0 -
Richard Hillman wrote: »Are people actually saying that they are against military action against ISIS? Seriously? You wanted us to leave them be, take Syria, take the Syrian Arsenal, take Lebanon and Jordan, and inevitably they would have turned their eyes on Israel. Really?
You forget that large amounts if finance to ISIS was channelled through Turkey with US agreement , because it suited the Turks ( and the US) to deny a Kurdish homeland
You accept , ?? that the destabilisation of Syria , was largely financed by the US , ignorer to remove old soviet client states , believing Russia was too weak to retaliate
You accept ??.that in Fact the US funded and supplied what in fact became IS in the Levant
You accept ??, That Libya and Egypt were equally destabilised by self same US policy to unseat old Soviet supporters
The major supporter of Sunni terror and the financiers behind 9/11 were Saudi Arabia , yet the US never invaded or took any sanctions against that state
Yet it invaded Afghanistan , why ??, yet the Taliban remain in place and infact are regaining prominence in Afghanistan as the only group that isnt overtly a warlord
The US didnt give too fu#ks about Kuwait. It gave a whole lot off fu@ks about Kuwaits oil
Just how many if this stockpiles off WWMDs did we find to justify the invasion of a sovereign countryI have also seen the Gulf War being mentioned. So were we to allow Saddam Hussein invade Kuwait and get away with it?
Invading Afghanistan too? We're people actually against that war?
Iraq 2 and Libya were ridiculous interventions, agreed but are we to say that the west should stop intervening in wars and disputes?
Yes, getter yanks to stay the fu@k at home for a few decades, the world would be a safer place ( and get them to stop selling arms to nut jobs too )
Churchill had the right comment for the Balkans , look it up.Were they wrong to intervene in Kosovo war when it looked like Slobodan Milosevic was about go for another spot of genocide? Or was the original tactic during the Bosnian War of just sending in a few peacekeepers and "let them at it" the right approach?
I assume people who are so he'll bent on intervention must think that NATO were spot on in the Rwandan war?
western intervention has largely been in self interest , largely resulted in destruction and mayhem and any gains have been totally totally outweighed by the resulting choas and mayhem that resulted0 -
Trump_Wall wrote: »We've just heard from BoatMad that "the US are the Nazi's, that's the problem".
The disturbing thing is that both Islamists and those of a Chomskyite disposition have *exactly* the same view of the world - that Muslims are the aggrieved victim of Western imperialism.
I would consider it a great source of shame if my politics overlapped with Islamic extremists.
I know which side I'm on, though.
IN the context of the ME , yes the US is playing the role akin to National Socialism view of Europe.
That is that its national desires override the views of the locals so affected
coupled with ( just like Germany initially ) massive military effectiveness and a belief that what is being done " is in your interest , country Im invading "
What you have witnessed in the ME is naked US colonialism, spurred on by the belief under the Bush ( 2) administrations that the Soviet Uniuon was too weak to counter US policy
The problem of course is the US will not engage in nation building , after destroying a country, preferring to slap itself on the back and withdraw, leaving total choas behind
Are you suprised into a country without a functioning state, with widespread intimidation of the Sunni population , a group , saying it had a solution, was listened too. !!!!!
The only difference is the Nazis could be stopped , the US cant
Dear god man, how can you be so ignorant of modern history0 -
I'm far from ignorant of modern history but, as I'm sure you're well aware, there is never one sole interpretation of history.
We can all selectively choose our own historical facts, bend them to suit a certain narrative, and leave things at that. I simply interpret modern history through a more nuanced, objective lens. You're wedded to the same conclusion no matter what facts, including future facts, come into your line of sight. I work precisely the other way around.0 -
So I take it from your hysterics that you can't backup that claim.oh for gods sale
yes the parallels are the same , the US invaded germany , sacked the country , handed the Government to the Socialists that that then persecuted the remainder, then sided with Russia to attack that minority leading too a rise of the Nazis
dear god man, have you no concept of what happened in the ME
The US are the Nazis , thats the problem and we sided with them , ISIS might be regarded as the Resistance fighters ( I can only maintain the parallel to a point )
have you read any ME history , the origins of ISIS , the source of the choas in Iraq , the issue with The SUnnis there etc etc etc
It also mightn't be the best tactic to question others peoples knowledge, when your own has been shown to be lacking.0 -
wonderfullife wrote: »The 2 men who stood up for those Muslim girls and were brutally murdered for it are heroes.
One of them was a Republican too. That gives tremendous hope for humanity.
Yet we have silence here when a Christian terrorist murders 2 people in cold-blood (and yes he's a Christian terrorist he has multiple social media posts about fighting for Jesus Christ the Lord).
Absolute crickets from people on this thread about it. Where are the calls for white communities to do more to report far-right/Christian terrorists? Where are the calls for internment of known far-right risks?
All we have is stunning hypocrisy.
In America you're 6 times more likely to be murdered for being a Muslim than you are to be murdered by a Muslim.
Then people wonder why the conditions to breed extremism exist....
Thats a lie & you know it0 -
I remain hopeful and I believe Europe will weather this onslaught without any descent into radicalism , the recent elections in France and the election of either Schult or Merkel bodes well for the continuation of tolerance
I hope so, things will likely be okay if situation doesn't get any worse and public think the "normal politicians" have a handle on things.
Otherwise, the "normal politicians" are going to be called on to do very some illiberal things last seen in democracies during ww2, or some of the previously un-electable fascist movements who have gained supporters recently are probably going to get real political power.
The process has begun already with the massive amount of spying on people going on, the anti radicalisation/(thoughtcrime??) type programmes in the UK etc, that feeling of living in some sort of police state you now get at events in some countries, going through airports and the like. I really think alot of that stuff would have been unthinkable before the current wave of Islamic terrorism. So people are already trading some freedom for security.0 -
The last line is why terrorists exist
What about the other lines?
You're coming across more and more strongly as an ISIS apologist, which is disturbing, to say the least!The position of radical Islam on Gays, women,is unchanged ,before and after the current ME crisis
IN that regard it has nothing to do with it. The treatment of such peoples in countries largely ruled by Sharia law is for those people to work out,
A Free and progressive society only applies to " us " , its not for us to decide someone else should be forcefully " be free and progressive ". Such cultural attitudes are in fact colonialism in disguise
Muslims have been practising Sharia law for a long time, however they have only recently began terror campaigns of any magnitude in Europe in recent years , you might ask yourself what events are co-incident with that ???
What about when they're practising sharia law in the West? Is that not for Western Countries to "work out"?
(nice attempt at deflection, btw.)wonderfullife wrote: »The 2 men who stood up for those Muslim girls and were brutally murdered for it are heroes.
One of them was a Republican too. That gives tremendous hope for humanity.
Yet we have silence here when a Christian terrorist murders 2 people in cold-blood (and yes he's a Christian terrorist he has multiple social media posts about fighting for Jesus Christ the Lord).
Absolute crickets from people on this thread about it. Where are the calls for white communities to do more to report far-right/Christian terrorists? Where are the calls for internment of known far-right risks?
All we have is stunning hypocrisy.
In America you're 6 times more likely to be murdered for being a Muslim than you are to be murdered by a Muslim.
Then people wonder why the conditions to breed extremism exist....
Yes, they are heroes. Full credit where it's due.
Where it becomes problematic is when you start equating the actions of the murderer with Christianity.
Until you can quote where Jesus advocated killing anybody (which will not happen, because he didn't!) - then this guy was fighting his own warped battle. It had nothing to do with following Jesus, by any stretch of the imagination.end of the road wrote: »treason is redundant and isn't needed. it never was needed actually. those who departed for syria have to be allowed to return to the uk otherwise they put the rest of the world at risk. should they not be and they attack another country, that country will then have the right to seek reparations from britain or do whatever necessary to avenge, as it will be britain's fault they have been attacked. britain must be forced to clean up it's own mess.
First and foremost, it will be the fault of the attackers, if they choose to attack some other Country.
Secondly, why on earth should Britain, or any other Country, be responsible for citizens that are not its own?.
The post you quoted clearly said that British citizens should be jailed, and non-British should be deported to their Country of origin.
I've no problem with a Country being forced to clean up its own mess.
Here's the question, though.
Will you apply the same standards to every other Country?Richard Hillman wrote: »Are people actually saying that they are against military action against ISIS? Seriously? You wanted us to leave them be, take Syria, take the Syrian Arsenal, take Lebanon and Jordan, and inevitably they would have turned their eyes on Israel. Really?
I have also seen the Gulf War being mentioned. So were we to allow Saddam Hussein invade Kuwait and get away with it?
Invading Afghanistan too? We're people actually against that war?
Iraq 2 and Libya were ridiculous interventions, agreed but are we to say that the west should stop intervening in wars and disputes?
Were they wrong to intervene in Kosovo war when it looked like Slobodan Milosevic was about go for another spot of genocide? Or was the original tactic during the Bosnian War of just sending in a few peacekeepers and "let them at it" the right approach?
I assume people who are so he'll bent on intervention must think that NATO were spot on in the Rwandan war?
I'm not arguing against military intervention against ISIS.
I am making the point that innocent people don't really care too much whether they're being slaughtered by "security forces", or "terrorists".
They just don't want to be slaughtered.
For that reason, I don't think past intervention in the ME can be justified. Because it caused as much trouble as it was meant to solve, and killed a whole lot of innocent people in the process.
I've made the point that Saddam shouldn't be let get away with it.
I'm not sure declaring war was the best way to achieve that, though.
Certainly, peaceful means would be preferable, if it were possible - though I acknowledge that there's no easy solution.oh for gods sale
yes the parallels are the same , the US invaded germany , sacked the country , handed the Government to the Socialists that that then persecuted the remainder, then sided with Russia to attack that minority leading too a rise of the Nazis
dear god man, have you no concept of what happened in the ME
The US are the Nazis , thats the problem and we sided with them , ISIS might be regarded as the Resistance fighters ( I can only maintain the parallel to a point )
have you read any ME history , the origins of ISIS , the source of the choas in Iraq , the issue with The SUnnis there etc etc etcYou forget that large amounts if finance to ISIS was channelled through Turkey with US agreement , because it suited the Turks ( and the US) to deny a Kurdish homeland
You accept , ?? that the destabilisation of Syria , was largely financed by the US , ignorer to remove old soviet client states , believing Russia was too weak to retaliate
You accept ??.that in Fact the US funded and supplied what in fact became IS in the Levant
You accept ??, That Libya and Egypt were equally destabilised by self same US policy to unseat old Soviet supporters
The major supporter of Sunni terror and the financiers behind 9/11 were Saudi Arabia , yet the US never invaded or took any sanctions against that state
Yet it invaded Afghanistan , why ??, yet the Taliban remain in place and infact are regaining prominence in Afghanistan as the only group that isnt overtly a warlord
The US didnt give too fu#ks about Kuwait. It gave a whole lot off fu@ks about Kuwaits oil
Just how many if this stockpiles off WWMDs did we find to justify the invasion of a sovereign country
Yes, getter yanks to stay the fu@k at home for a few decades, the world would be a safer place ( and get them to stop selling arms to nut jobs too )
Churchill had the right comment for the Balkans , look it up.
western intervention has largely been in self interest , largely resulted in destruction and mayhem and any gains have been totally totally outweighed by the resulting choas and mayhem that resulted
It's too late! The damage is already done, and much of what was done was wrong!
How does that make it only the "West's" fault if even more innocent people are being killed, now?
Because you seem to lay all the blame on "The West", while ignoring the simple fact that innocent people have now been killed in Europe, yet you don't seem to be anywhere near as upset about it?0 -
Advertisement
-
It's too late! The damage is already done, and much of what was done was wrong!
yes but a start is to start undoing damage , rather then in Syria , compounding that damage, every day, or leaving Libya lawlessBecause you seem to lay all the blame on "The West", while ignoring the simple fact that innocent people have now been killed in Europe, yet you don't seem to be anywhere near as upset about it?
None is denying that innocents are getting killed on all sides, That the tragedy of war. ( and we are participants in a war )
and yes I am upset, so upset that I want a solution
and I have been suggesting a solution , one based on trying to understand through education , just what happened and what are the issues
as opposed to " send in the marines"
and Im not solely blaming the West , There are other actors , particularly Iran and Saudi Arabia as this is also a proxy war , but the major protagonist is the US and its foreign policy0 -
I've made the point that Saddam shouldn't be let get away with it.
Get away with what
"invading a country that didnt want you "
we might look closer to home !!!.
and if you think the invasion of Kuwait was rebuffed to save the nice cuddly Kuwaitis , seriously !!!!0 -
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
I recall reading posts possibly here on boards but probably on the journal complaing that miss grande hadn't announced this the next day... Such absolute cnts that think they know it all0 -
You're coming across more and more strongly as an ISIS apologist, which is disturbing, to say the least!
if you'd like to descend to the base motive of " labelling " I can only say that last resort of the ideologically destitute.
I am sickened by what ISIS has done, but I seek to understand the whys and wherefores and the more I look the more I see the wests hand in its creation
( in that Trump was partially right Obama crreated ISIS )What about when they're practising sharia law in the West? Is that not for Western Countries to "work out"?
of course and countries like France have sought to tackle it head on. The allowance of religious groups to practice their religion is complex
as an atheist , I am not in favour of the state having anything to do with religion, but I accept its a complex area0 -
Ash.J.Williams wrote: »I recall reading posts possibly here on boards but probably on the journal complaing that miss grande hadn't announced this the next day... Such absolute cnts that think they know it all
I know what you mean I read on twitter some people complaining when she announced she wouldn't be doing any shows through to June 5th and how she was letting terrorists win. All I could think was how selfish they were she was also in the arena that night she was traumatised just like everyone else there but all they cared about was if they weren't getting a concert they wanted their money back0 -
I know what you mean I read on twitter some people complaining when she announced she wouldn't be doing any shows through to June 5th and how she was letting terrorists win. All I could think was how selfish they were she was also in the arena that night she was traumatised just like everyone else there but all they cared about was if they weren't getting a concert they wanted their money back
humanity isnt very nice , when you scratch the surface !!0 -
It sounds as if this guy may as well have been walking around with one of these on his head...yet he wasn't picked up? What's up with that?
0 -
Junkyard Tom wrote: »It sounds as if this guy may as well have been walking around with one of these on his head...yet he wasn't picked up? What's up with that?
Probably because there are 22,999 other people just like him according to the security services. It's impossible to watch all of them0 -
Trump_Wall wrote: »I know which side I'm on, though.
What side is that?Thats a lie & you know it
No it's not. There was wall-to-wall coverage on news channels about Manchester.
The Portland Terrorist didn't get even 1% of the same attention and spotlight.Deleted User wrote: »Yes, they are heroes. Full credit where it's due.
Where it becomes problematic is when you start equating the actions of the murderer with Christianity.
Until you can quote where Jesus advocated killing anybody (which will not happen, because he didn't!) - then this guy was fighting his own warped battle. It had nothing to do with following Jesus, by any stretch of the imagination.
It had as little to do with Jesus as any Islamic terrorist has to do with Muhammad. They both think they are doing things in the name of their religion yet neither are.
And he's a Christian terrorist not just a murderer.
It doesn't matter if Jesus advocated for murder - there's plenty of passages in the Bible that do exactly that. There's also plenty of passages in the Quran where Muhammad called for 'jihad' and emphasised that the concept of 'jihad' is to better yourself, not to kill others.
You can quote whatever passages you want from either book but the bottom line is these people are committing murder in both religions based on 2000 year old books set in a completely different era in humanity.
They're all fighting warped battles because of their 'faith' in these religions and all these religions are based on books that are fairytales.
It would be false to say Radical Christian Terrorists are as big a problem as Radical Islamic ones but they're both problematic.0 -
Advertisement
-
Probably because there are 22,999 other people just like him according to the security services. It's impossible to watch all of them
Of course a way to reduce that number (therefore making it more manageable for authorities to monitor the situation) would be to curb immigration significantly, but that is generally badly received by the same people who tend to blame the West for its own demise at the hands of terrorists.
It's still perceived as right wing, when really in the current climate, it would just be a pragmatic (hopefully temporary) measure.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement