Another major (presumably terrorist) incident. Now in Manchester.

[walpurgis]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/may/22/manchester-arena-ariana-grande-concert-explosion-england

[Spectral Morn]

BBC news saying it was a concert attacked in Manchester, families and kids :(

Confirmation of numerous dead, many seriously injured. Reports of injuries consistent with a blast of some sort. Police are not confirming it was a terror attack, but what can explode in a concert venue entrance hall. Police dealing with car abandoned at cross roads in Manchester.

[Spectral Morn]

19 dead :( 50 seriously injured.

Police now saying it was a terror attack.

Reports of possible second device, bomb disposal teams dealing with it.

[struth]

Pretty low attacking kids like. Hope they are proud of themselves.... they are so brave. :punch:

[mikeyb]

No doubt be one of those radicalised British Caucasians the Police keep saying we need to be wary of, yeah right.

Cowardly C****S, hung drawn and quartered would be too good for them.

[Haselsh1]

My emotions this morning are with those who will now suffer for the remainder of their lives. Physical scars leading to serious mental scars. I deeply feel for them

[Spectral Morn]

Death toll at 22 now, 59 injured.

Confirmed now, a sucide bomber.

Pray for the victims, their families. Hold the emergency workers, police, paramedics, first responders, Drs, nurses in your thoughts too, the horror they have had to see.

[farflungstar]

My first thoughts this morning were of compassion for those involved. My second was that whether by design or coincidence May has now won the election.

[LC1979]

May has now won the election.
Yes, Just when Corbyn was closing the gap fast. Impeccable timing.

[farflungstar]

There are coincidences and there are coincidences. Two days before this all over the media Corben refuses to contemn terrorism (IRA). Now this. Just who radicalises these people?

People are considered collateral damage, the same as a bridge or road - that's the ugly truth whether we like it or not. We only have value within our own circle - outside of it we are in fact of very little value - less than an oil refinery - or the outcome of an election.

My thoughts are with those who suffered - but I'm not blinkered by grief or outrage.

'Strong Stable Leadership' - now it means so much more. The UK is fucked.

[LC1979]

There are coincidences and there are coincidences. Two days before this all over the media Corben refuses to contemn terrorism (IRA). Now this. Just who radicalises these people?

People are considered collateral damage, the same as a bridge or road - that's the ugly truth whether we like it or not. We only have value within our own circle - outside of it we are in fact of very little value - less than an oil refinery - or the outcome of an election.

My thoughts are with those who suffered - but I'm not blinkered by grief or outrage.

'Strong Stable Leadership' - now it means so much more. The UK is fucked.

Without getting too conspiranoid on this forum (though I could), it would be naive to think the security services don't know exactly who is doing the radicalising. Given that, what kind of infiltration has been done, what kinds of quid pro quo? Useful idiots everywhere, and yes, life is a cheap means to an end, very often.

[shane]

If blood will flow when flesh and steel are one
Drying in the color of the evening sun
Tomorrow's rain will wash the stains away
But something in our minds will always stay
Perhaps this final act was meant
To clinch a lifetime's argument
That nothing comes from violence and nothing ever could
For all those born beneath an angry star
Lest we forget how fragile we are
On and on the rain will fall
Like tears from a star
Like tears from a star
On and on the rain will say
How fragile we are

[RichB]

If blood will flow when flesh and steel are one
Drying in the color of the evening sun
Tomorrow's rain will wash the stains away
But something in our minds will always stay
Perhaps this final act was meant
To clinch a lifetime's argument
That nothing comes from violence and nothing ever could
For all those born beneath an angry star
Lest we forget how fragile we are
On and on the rain will fall
Like tears from a star
Like tears from a star
On and on the rain will say
How fragile we are

Good words. Is it a lyric?

[walpurgis]

Outrages like this have occured before and will no doubt happen again. There is a small isolationist minority in this country and across Europe, who lead insular lives and want nothing to do with 'outsiders' and in fact some of their number hate their 'hosts' and regard it as their duty to strike out at the general population in the name of their cause. I'm sure there will be a backlash. It is inevitable and is just a matter of time.





.

[farflungstar]

Events like this have occured before and will continue to happen. There is a small isolationist minority in this country and across Europe, who lead insular lives and want nothing to do with 'outsiders' and in fact hate their 'hosts' and regard it as their duty to strike out at the general population in the name of their cause. I'm sure there will be a backlash. It is inevitable and is just a matter of time.
The problem is we don't know their motives - we are told them by the Powers that be (and of course certain groups claim responsibility which they would). We are told this just the same as we are told that the 27 member states of the EU who are out to screw us when in fact that are not. Why this is so I don't know.

[struth]

Good words. Is it a lyric?

from a Sting song I think

[Spectral Morn]

The problem is we don't know their motives - we are told them by the Powers that be (and of course certain groups claim responsibility which they would). We are told this just the same as we are told that the 27 member states of the EU who are out to screw us when in fact that are not. Why this is so I don't know.

Watch Tom Hollands recent channel 4 documentary about ISIS and you will know their motives, they are chilling and implacable and they can very easily justify what they do.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/isis-the-origins-of-violence/on-demand/63137-001

All you need to know about the reasoning behind last night is contained in that program. Its a very hard watch at times and Tom Holland does an excellent job with very difficult material.

[Macca]

Agree there is no secret as to what their motives are.

[shane]

Good words. Is it a lyric?


https://youtu.be/lB6a-iD6ZOY

[farflungstar]

I don't doubt they have their ideology, but I ask where they get their weapons from, there training and I remember how after the twin towers all flights were grounded except the private jet carrying the Bin Laden family who had been at the Whitehouse. This is a documented fact and raises many questions about just what v governments know.

Trump has just sold 20billion dollars of death to Saudi Arabia - whose hands those weapons might end up in we don't know. Whatever the reasons or culpability of what happened last night today there are families in extreme pain - not because of idiots but because of a bigger political game of which we know very little.

What we do know, for those of us who remember the IRA is that peace can only be achieved through diplomacy, not arms sales.

[Macca]

As far as arms sales go I'd refer you to the classic episode of 'Yes Minister'. 'If we don't sell them weapons they will only buy them somewhere else.' Added to which munitions producers are generally located in marginal constituencies.

I never agreed with the so called solution to the IRA issue. Blair essentially reduced (did not solve) the problem by giving them what they wanted. I would have stuck with the shoot to kill policy personally but that's just me.

In any case this incident has nothing to do with arms sales and everything to do with psychopathic nutters. The only important thing is that we never give into them regardless of how many attacks they make.

[RobbieGong]

Totally and utterly heart breaking, spoiled my morning to say the least when I got in to work and was told. Cant even begin to imagine what those parents must be going through :(

My daughter was set to go to Fridays concert with her friend, likely it will be cancelled now and even if it isnt ...........

[andyrlb]

No doubt be one of those radicalised British Caucasians the Police keep saying we need to be wary of, yeah right.

Cowardly C****S, hung drawn and quartered would be too good for them.

Agreed... thing is it ain't going to better


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spectral Morn]

Just named the second victim.... she was 8.

[struth]

Won't bother them one iota. Quite the opposite.

[Spectral Morn]

Won't bother them one iota. Quite the opposite.

I know.

I feel deeply sad, and sick. I fear by end of day the full horror will be unbearable. I can but imagine, and poorly, what these families are going through or are about to go through.

[Ninanina]

The whole thing has left me very sad indeed, those poor people, my thoughts are with them at this terrible time :(

Stop building the Mosques and stop 90% of the problem... :sofa:

[Macca]

No, I don't think so. Much more complex a problem. No simple solutions. Possibly no difficult solutions either.

[Dynamics]

I believe that a large number of people in Muslim communities don't highlight bad and extreme attitudes of others in that community, because to do so would be to critisise 'their own'. Clearly you can't defend and not report those planning crimes, whatever community you are in, but my impression is these uk born extremists are people who have probably never done harm to people in their lives, but go on to horrendous crimes, so it's an easy thing for knowledge of their views and beliefs not to be challenged by others in their Muslim communities. They just think they won't go onto commit these crimes.

Also there are many Muslim people in communities that have attitudes that are far opposed to those of other people and religions. In some respects this lack of social cohesion in a societal way has been created by bigger expanding societies of Muslim people for which a pool of extremists is always going to be more. Clearly there are many moderate muslims, but I wonder how many of these moderates do turn a blind eye to others. I think it's a bigger number than we think, but it's beyond comprehension that nobody knew of this suicides bombers attitudes to extremism.

I don't know how you deal with it, but it strikes me we need to spend a whole lot more on counter terroism, we need to improve laws that make people in all communities, who ignore extreme attitudes of others and who then go into commit terrorist crimes, to be criminalised. We have also paid the price of these attacks by liberal laws which have taken some time to deal with the scumbag people like choudhary and a number of others who have got away with condoning terrorism. He was even allowed onto the tv - the bloody BBC - to spread his terrorist agenda. There are means and way to design these places with scanners and metal detectors to prevent accumulations of people. You don't let people into such places without being scanned and then being able to let bombs off in enclosed spaces within the building. What the bloody hell were the police doing in letting these people at the arena have licenses but they have no policy to screen people and run them past metal detectors. They could have got in with small concealed automatic weapons.

[Marco]

Whatever the reasons or culpability of what happened last night today there are families in extreme pain - not because of idiots but because of a bigger political game of which we know very little.


Spot on. We must always look at the bigger picture and apply some lateral thinking, in the aftermath of these atrocities, especially the corruption angle and how the elite/establishment, who insidiously control the world we live in, are liable to benefit.

An unpalatable thought, perhaps, but unfortunately a realistic one.

The fact is, some of the most "psychopathic nutters" of all aren't radicalised muslims, but those who occupy high positions within governments, fuelling hatred, which is ultimately why we're all expendable pawns, in their twisted quest to gain ever more wealth and power - and with it an increasing ability to RULE.

Marco.

[farflungstar]

Unfortunately Marco some people just cannot believe their own government will act against them - because of fear. Governments lie all the time - if it's about something as simple as cuts to benefits then people can see the lie - if it's about foreign policy or god forbid the death of citizens they cannot bring themselves to question whatever the government tells them.

Libya is in such a state of chaos right now (because of us) that only two organisations in there are capable of organising what happened - ISIS and the Secret Services (US.UK) - the odds are even until the words STRONG AND STABLE LEADERSHIP cone info the equation.

Anyway - I'm a fruitcake so will shut up now.

[Marco]

Unfortunately Marco some people just cannot believe their own government will act against them - because of fear. Governments lie all the time - if it's about something as simple as cuts to benefits then people can see the lie - if it's about foreign policy or god forbid the death of citizens they cannot bring themselves to question whatever the government tells them.


Absolutely, but for those who wish to open their eyes and see, rather than bury their heads in the sand, the evidence is there - and it's damning.

The lies are simply hidden by propaganda, driven by the elite/establishment, and fuelled by governments working covertly to maintain their best interests, all facilitated by brainwashing the public through their TV screens - and trust me, in that respect, the BBC are the biggest culprits of all.

You're far from a "fruitcake", Adrian. Like me, you're a realist, able to take the blinkers off, see through the propaganda, and embrace the (awful) reality.

Marco.

[LC1979]

Anyway - I'm a fruitcake so will shut up now.

What Marco said. Crazy times we're living in. In order to be wise in these times you have to be mad to the majority! Propaganda everywhere, almost impossible to know what to believe. But I sure as sh!t don't trust the msm to tell me what's really going on in the world.

No such thing as coincidence when such power politics is being played out, I think. This is a game to these unaccountable alphabet agencies, and the elites pulling the strings are not those who sit in the Houses of Parliament. Is that far-fetched or paranoid? I don't think so. Cui bono?

We're constantly being played, our emotions manipulated by fairly simple psychological programming - how many times have you heard 'strong and stable's these past few weeks? And that's just what you've noticed consciously. We've all been prepped by this rudimentary but effective Psy op, and all we needed was an emotional trigger event to complete the conditioning. Job done, another 5 years to push through the agenda.

Now, I couldn't say with 100% certainty, but it's all too convenient with many of these events coming at politically sensitive times when things could go one way or another with political decisions or people getting angry about the way they're being governed. Terrorism is grade A social control, and so the secret services are in it up to their eyeballs.

And why, oh why, do they always remember to bring their ID cards?!

Conspiranoid rant over, as you were ;)

[Marco]

Crazy times we're living in. In order to be wise in these times you have to be mad to the majority!


Or at least of a heretical disposition, sufficiently desensitised from the brainwash, thus inquisitive enough to cut through the propaganda, examine the bigger picture and see what's *really* happening.


No such thing as coincidence when such power politics is being played out, I think. This is a game to these unaccountable alphabet agencies, and the elites pulling the strings are not those who sit in the Houses of Parliament.


Nope, but they're a key part of the establishment, controlled by and acting on behalf of the global super-elite.


We're constantly being played, our emotions manipulated by fairly simple psychological programming - how many times have you heard 'strong and stable's these past few weeks? And that's just what you've noticed consciously. We've all been prepped by this rudimentary but effective Psy op, and all we needed was an emotional trigger event to complete the conditioning. Job done, another 5 years to push through the agenda.


Absolutely, and fear of seeking the truth and exposing the corruption/propaganda, will ultimately allow the above to continue, until the agenda is fulfilled and the ultimate goal is reached: the elite becoming wealthy beyond their wildest dreams and *openly* controlling the world.


Now, I couldn't say with 100% certainty, but it's all too convenient with many of these events coming at politically sensitive times when things could go one way or another with political decisions or people getting angry about the way they're being governed. Terrorism is grade A social control, and so the secret services are in it up to their eyeballs.


Yup, you better believe it!!

Marco.

[Dynamics]

I don't really subscribe to a conspiracy type view that our governments are wholly against us. Bad things go on and they act in self interest, sure, and lots of very dodgy things go on in our police forces having too much power and no 'eyes on them', but ultimately the government are working in our interests to stop terrorism. Whether it's working and enough and best financed, and is in our best interests, is another question.

But it strikes me the rhetoric that we 'stand together against terrorism' as is seen being propagated in Manchester, in other words all different religions and communities have the same stance against it, rather than having the opposite effect of making Muslim communities report those with concerning extremist views, perversely actually it does the opposite in emboldening these communities to stay silent in not reporting such people. This is because I think whenever the differences of religious communities are made aware to the public, that it is Muslim people who blow people up (not moderates but extremists) and not christians etc in our society, the reaction of Muslim communities is to stay silent because it highlights further bigger problems. Nobody wants to have an honest debate about why it comes from the Muslim community, because of the all inclusive society we live in, liberal attitudes, and lack of common sense. Ironically this then stops the debate about how it's caused and unwittingly the all community standing against terrorism approach, probably has a counter effect.

The telegraph is reporting today that the Imman of the mosque this bomber attended has given a statement to say he was aware of the bombers extremist views. What then happened. Was it reported to services. What did intelligence services do. I'm sure it will all come out. Im not making a sensationalist point but the likelihood is many moderate people knew about this guys views.

[LC1979]

They're always "known to the intelligence services", whatever that means.

[farflungstar]

If you trace back all terrorist events, including hungerford you will find that they happened at some pivotal political point, whether an election where one party wants absolute control and power, or an excuse to invade Iraq and kick start this whole shit off - 200 billion is making someone very rich.

And yes, it's amazing how someone blows themselves to smithereens but has an intact driving licence. Or that the twin towers can collapse and cause unimaginable destruction yet the ID cards of the culprits v are found in 24 hours - bullshit - wake up.

[Macca]

If you locked up all UK muslims with extremist views you would have to build a lot of new prisons. That is before you consider that holding extremist views is not actually a crime in this country.

BTW I'm not sure if some previous posters are suggesting that this was a false flag attack designed to influence the election result but if they are I have to say I consider that to be utterly risible.

[walpurgis]

The telegraph is reporting today that the Imman of the mosque this bomber attended has given a statement to say he was aware of the bombers extremist views. What then happened. Was it reported to services. What did intelligence services do. I'm sure it will all come out. Im not making a sensationalist point but the likelihood is many moderate people knew about this guys views.

The point nobody seems willing to make, is that we are at war! And, under attack from an enemy hiding in plain sight. The extremist nuts that want to undertake attacks do not go totally 'under the radar'. Their communities will have within them, people that know full well who they are and are willingly keep quiet about them or even shelter and assist.

[walpurgis]

They're always "known to the intelligence services", whatever that means.

We are all known to intelligence services to one degree or another.

[farflungstar]

If you're government cared about you then 30,000 old people wouldn't die every year from cold. Means testing has been proved to show that for whatever reasons less older people apply - so more will die. How many? 40,000? These are people. These are facts. So don't tell me they care about the odd few. There should be vigils for the mothers, fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers who die every year because it's eat or heat.

[RothwellAudio]

BTW I'm not sure if some previous posters are suggesting that this was a false flag attack designed to influence the election result but if they are I have to say I consider that to be utterly risible.
I agree.

[farflungstar]

I'm not denying there are some twisted f*ckers n the UK - everywhere - but someone is manipulating them into taking action. I don't think they know who those people are - just as we don't truly know. What happened in Manchester happens every day in those middle Eastern countries we have meddled in and then walked away from leaving a vacuum and lots of arms. We think little of it when we hear of another suicide bombing in a market in Afghanistan or wherever - it doesn't affect us - but it does.

If we want to fix it in the UK then we have to fix it in the middle east - but for some reason the West doesn't seriously want to - 200billion and much more is the reason.

If we are at war it is with our own ideology which looked at from the other side is just as twisted.

And now I'll shut up - I'm here to speak about HiFi.... I can hear the applause.

[Marco]

This is because I think whenever the differences of religious communities are made aware to the public, that it is Muslim people who blow people up (not moderates but extremists) and not christians etc in our society, the reaction of Muslim communities is to stay silent because it highlights further bigger problems. Nobody wants to have an honest debate about why it comes from the Muslim community, because of the all inclusive society we live in, liberal attitudes, and lack of common sense. Ironically this then stops the debate about how it's caused and unwittingly the all community standing against terrorism approach, probably has a counter effect.


Spot on! Ultimately, however, the whole situation stems from people (not just the Muslims) being manipulated and controlled by the agenda of the elite. Scrape past the surface and dig deep (whilst searching the Internet and accessing certain content is still within your control), and you may be truly shocked at what you find...


The telegraph is reporting today that the Imman of the mosque this bomber attended has given a statement to say he was aware of the bombers extremist views. What then happened. Was it reported to services. What did intelligence services do. I'm sure it will all come out.

Or it might all be covered up, as usual, to protect the interests of the elite and further the brainwash. No doubt, however, that the Imam in question was indeed aware of the bomber's extremist views, but said nothing for the reasons you've outlined.


I don't really subscribe to a conspiracy type view that our governments are wholly against us. Bad things go on and they act in self interest, sure, and lots of very dodgy things go on in our police forces having too much power and no 'eyes on them', but ultimately the government are working in our interests to stop terrorism. Whether it's working and enough and best financed, and is in our best interests, is another question.


Simon, it's not as straightforward and simple as them being "wholly against us" [not everyone in our governments is bad or corrupt]. One must guard against such simplistic thinking of 'they're all out to get us', as it impedes the insight needed to get to the truth.

However, you have to grasp the concept that governments are ultimately controlled by the super-rich, often in the most insidious of ways, and so their ultimate actions are always steered in favour of protecting the former's best interests - and that can be achieved either knowingly or unknowingly by those responsible for making the key decisions, thus driving the agenda and furthering the process of making the elite, even richer and more powerful, to its ultimate end.

Marco.

[Marco]

If we want to fix it in the UK then we have to fix it in the middle east - but for some reason the West doesn't seriously want to - 200billion and much more is the reason.


Indeed... Money [and with it control and power] is at the root of what this is *ultimately* all about.

Don't shut up, as your erudite views are welcome, and this is after all the off-topic section! ;)

Marco.

[Arkless Electronics]

I'm not denying there are some twisted f*ckers n the UK - everywhere - but someone is manipulating them into taking action. I don't think they know who those people are - just as we don't truly know. What happened in Manchester happens every day in those middle Eastern countries we have meddled in and then walked away from leaving a vacuum and lots of arms. We think little of it when we hear of another suicide bombing in a market in Afghanistan or wherever - it doesn't affect us - but it does.

If we want to fix it in the UK then we have to fix it in the middle east - but for some reason the West doesn't seriously want to - 200billion and much more is the reason.

If we are at war it is with our own ideology which looked at from the other side is just as twisted.

And now I'll shut up - I'm here to speak about HiFi.... I can hear the applause.

Well said.

Ultimately this is all our own fault... We started illegal wars in the Middle East in order to protect oil supplies (in order to take control of other peoples oil would be more accurate) and in the process killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims, destabilised the regimes that had been keeping a lid on tribal and religious tensions and paved the way for the creation of Al Qaeda and ISIS. Remember that for every innocent Westerner killed in terrorist atrocities such as in Manchester there are probably 500 Muslims killed by Western armed forces.... Do you really expect them not to want revenge? If the boot were on the other foot would you not want revenge?

[Dynamics]

I don't see it Marco as being a government pandering to the elite, to the effect of how that can or can't impact on what gets done or not done, or who is responsible in the aftermath of this tradegy or if anyone in government has been responsible for any intelligence service inactivity. This is because politics will draw people according to the public views and the media have a huge part to play in that. They will find out if government fault is at part e.g. Services not having resources, a bungled investigation to the bomber etc. Pandering to elite happens.

I see it more as a government not admitting to its inefficiency and corruptability. An organisation which effectively governs itself will be corrupt. It goes deep when we trust police and intelligence services and have no idea what they do or overlook etc. We see this corruptibility in government with expense scandals and everyday with police etc. But it's doubtful what this really has to do with the issue at question at the moment because it's early days, the real question is how we prevent these terrorist attacks.

I'm absolutely sure it comes from the public, insisting laws deal with people who turn a blind eye to terrorists and extreme views, and greater societal tackling of the problem. If I talk up to police in the knowledge of extremists, if I were a Muslim and these nutters were in my community circle, and so does everyone else, it's much more powerful than the pokey police and intelligence services with paltry budgets. I'd prefer more power in societies hands in this kind of way. They could have gone round and they'd have intelligence on this bomber.

I also wonder what the hell is anyone 23 years old going to visit Syria and returning to bomb people in Manchester. Services knew this Syria visit as reported today. He is hardly going there for a holiday, and he should have vans and surveillance outside his house, phones tapped, the whole caboodle. What the hell are we doing letting hate preachers go round the country encouraging terrorism, happening just last year. I can find a hate preach video on you tube encouraging terrorism in about a minute. I'm talking about a British Muslim hate preacher and video in the uk.

[Marco]

Can you do that again please, Simon, this time with paragraphs? Just makes it so MUCH easier to read. Ta! :)

Marco.

[Marco]

Well said.

Ultimately this is all our own fault... We started illegal wars in the Middle East in order to protect oil supplies (in order to take control of other peoples oil would be more accurate) and in the process killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims, destabilised the regimes that had been keeping a lid on tribal and religious tensions and paved the way for the creation of Al Qaeda and ISIS. Remember that for every innocent Westerner killed in terrorist atrocities such as in Manchester there are probably 500 Muslims killed by Western armed forces.... Do you really expect them not to want revenge? If the boot were on the other foot would you not want revenge?

An uncomfortable and unpalatable way of looking at the situation, Jez, but ultimately one that contains much truth. Of course, that doesn't in any way justify or condone their heinous actions.

Marco.

[Dynamics]

Well said.

Ultimately this is all our own fault... We started illegal wars in the Middle East in order to protect oil supplies (in order to take control of other peoples oil would be more accurate) and in the process killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims, destabilised the regimes that had been keeping a lid on tribal and religious tensions and paved the way for the creation of Al Qaeda and ISIS. Remember that for every innocent Westerner killed in terrorist atrocities such as in Manchester there are probably 500 Muslims killed by Western armed forces.... Do you really expect them not to want revenge? If the boot were on the other foot would you not want revenge?


I'm sorry but I've got to pull you up on this because this is so terribly ill informed and just wrong. There has been Islamic extremism since the beginning of Islam. In a historical context certainly. Islam has a violent religious element, whilst people live with it as moderates too.

Also sadaam hussein killed inordinately more muslims than any democratic western forces have killed innocent muslims in friendly fire. He killed more muslims than anyone else in the late 20th century. That's why we went in to get him out. I always believed it right for removal on a regime change basis therefore, whilst the wmd issue was a political uk smokescreen. The Americans wanted him out for regime change. This was to stop these heinous crimes and try and institute democracy.

Isis are killing huge numbers of innocent people e.g. The Yazidi communities, raping and murdering people. Thousands of people.

There are not 500 people against 1. This I'm afraid is not true. They are killing muslims themselves for goodness sake. Isis are just barbaric, and these communities deserve the full intervention of our power and governments to eradicate Isis. Just like our intervention in Kosovo which also protected Muslim people and was a great success / campaign.

This issue is not to be conflated with how a twenty year old British man can decide to kill his own citizens at pop concert, far worse children. It has absolutely nothing to do with this above seperate forces involvement. If this bomber supports a cause for legitimate ends, which is so far beyond comprehension when killing people, how do you suppose he can do so when that same cause is also killing innocent muslims in Syria and Iraq etc.

[farflungstar]

Well said.

Ultimately this is all our own fault... We started illegal wars in the Middle East in order to protect oil supplies (in order to take control of other peoples oil would be more accurate) and in the process killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims, destabilised the regimes that had been keeping a lid on tribal and religious tensions and paved the way for the creation of Al Qaeda and ISIS. Remember that for every innocent Westerner killed in terrorist atrocities such as in Manchester there are probably 500 Muslims killed by Western armed forces.... Do you really expect them not to want revenge? If the boot were on the other foot would you not want revenge?
+1

[LC1979]

BTW I'm not sure if some previous posters are suggesting that this was a false flag attack designed to influence the election result but if they are I have to say I consider that to be utterly risible.

That's your prerogative, and I completely understand and respect that view. I only wish I could share it.

I wouldn't wish to call this out as a false flag with so little evidence. And what constitutes a FF anyway? Complete orchestration by the secret services, or an even less accountable subgroup therein? Colluding and actively supporting or directing an attacker? Or knowing of a planned attack and allowing it to occur at a certain time by manipulating events in subtle ways?

Of course, these are in ascending order of plausibility. If you cannot fathom that any such thing could occur in the UK I would encourage you to really examine why you feel it is so impossible.

Wars have always been waged for the advantage of the elites, and many innocent lives sacrificed for the securing of wealth and power. Other justifications were created for the purposes of motivating the masses, naturally. It is ever the same. Innocent lives sacrificed for the greater good (of the powerful).

Did you notice the groundswell of support Jeremy Corbyn was mobilising, especially among the young. Noticed what an anti-war pacifist he is? What would the implications be if he were to be the PM of the UK?

If you don't​ think that the military-industrial complex/ deep state/ whatever you want to call it has a vested interest in this election (or don't believe that such a thing exists) and that they wouldn't be prepared to meddle in a bit of terrorism to further their interests (as they do on a regular basis in the ME, I believe, actively fostering groups such as AlQaeda and ISIS) then there is clearly very little that I or anyone else could say that might make you think twice about it being "utterly risible".

Again, I can't say what happened was 100% one thing or another, but to ignore the possibility is to deny the reality of the world we live in, unfortunately.

[Dynamics]

News are reporting he was the mule and the imman at the mosque he went too has said he was radicalised in 2011. This beggars belief that nothing was done to check him.

[Dynamics]

That's your prerogative, and I completely understand and respect that view. I only wish I could share it.

I wouldn't wish to call this out as a false flag with so little evidence. And what constitutes a FF anyway? Complete orchestration by the secret services, or an even less accountable subgroup therein? Colluding and actively supporting or directing an attacker? Or knowing of a planned attack and allowing it to occur at a certain time by manipulating events in subtle ways?

Of course, these are in ascending order of plausibility. If you cannot fathom that any such thing could occur in the UK I would encourage you to really examine why you feel it is so impossible.

Wars have always been waged for the advantage of the elites, and many innocent lives sacrificed for the securing of wealth and power. Other justifications were created for the purposes of motivating the masses, naturally. It is ever the same. Innocent lives sacrificed for the greater good (of the powerful).

Did you notice the groundswell of support Jeremy Corbyn was mobilising, especially among the young. Noticed what an anti-war pacifist he is? What would the implications be if he were to be the PM of the UK?

If you don't​ think that the military-industrial complex/ deep state/ whatever you want to call it has a vested interest in this election (or don't believe that such a thing exists) and that they wouldn't be prepared to meddle in a bit of terrorism to further their interests (as they do on a regular basis in the ME, I believe, actively fostering groups such as AlQaeda and ISIS) then there is clearly very little that I or anyone else could say that might make you think twice about it being "utterly risible".

Again, I can't say what happened was 100% one thing or another, but to ignore the possibility is to deny the reality of the world we live in, unfortunately.

No because this has zero credibility i.e. conspiracy theories. I can cast out the possibility aliens live in my flat with me, because I haven't seen any at home with me.

[LC1979]

News are reporting he was the mule and the imman at the mosque he went too has said he was radicalised in 2011. This beggars belief that nothing was done to check him
.
It was. He 'was known'. The security services likely knew more about his movements than his own mother. You don't just get on a plane to Libya and come back to the UK without it being well known! He was just a kid, and likely very easy to manipulate.

[Arkless Electronics]

An unpalatable way of looking at the situation, Jez, but ultimately one that contains much truth.

Marco.

I'm afraid there is a prevalent attitude in the west that foreigners are "worth less" than us, and that by the time these foreigners we're talking about are Arabs, of different appearance, culture, religion etc they are so worthless that it doesn't even cause anyone to look up from their breakfast when they hear of yet another suicide bombing in Iraq, or a USA bombing mission gone wrong and wiped out 150 people at a wedding etc. A true story to illustrate this: I was in a house of, well I suppose "chav" types and the news came on the TV. The lead story was of some atrocity in somewhere like Iraq and over 400 were dead... the "lady of the house" refused to turn up the TV as it was apparently " a load of fucking shite".... at the end of the news we came to the local news... as a story started about a child 2 miles away being bitten on the leg by a stray dog the volume went right up and we were told "STFU this is important I want to listen to this!". So there you go.. to British thicko Daily Mair reading, UKIP voting scum a local white British girl getting bitten by a dog is infinitely more important than the lives of 400 Iraqis being lost. Mad dogs and English woman...

Obviously I abhor and condemn murder and terrorism wherever it occurs.. and to who ever it occurs.. But people in "The West" are brainwashed to think that it's somehow OK for us to murder foreigners with impunity... but how dare they defend themselves against us! Who the hell do they think they are! etc etc... and if they take revenge then they are evil incarnate and worse than Satan etc...

The situation with Iran and N. Korea is a case in point. No country is going to start a nuclear war due to mutually assured destruction. However, "The West" (USA more accurately) feigns moral indignation and outrage because these country's refuse to leave themselves undefended and liable to be swatted like a fly by The West at any time/for any reason of The West's choosing! The arrogance and hypocrisy almost requires a new species of hyperbole...

[struth]

most things are possible, even if unlikely. ..but no proof so I wont be going down that route.... I'm not big on coincidence either tho;). Best or should say worst option would be someone letting it happen I guess, but its an awful cross to bear. Churchill did it during the war on more than one occasion of course so its not unheard of.

[Arkless Electronics]

I don't really subscribe to a conspiracy type view that our governments are wholly against us. Bad things go on and they act in self interest, sure, and lots of very dodgy things go on in our police forces having too much power and no 'eyes on them', but ultimately the government are working in our interests to stop terrorism. Whether it's working and enough and best financed, and is in our best interests, is another question.

But it strikes me the rhetoric that we 'stand together against terrorism' as is seen being propagated in Manchester, in other words all different religions and communities have the same stance against it, rather than having the opposite effect of making Muslim communities report those with concerning extremist views, perversely actually it does the opposite in emboldening these communities to stay silent in not reporting such people. This is because I think whenever the differences of religious communities are made aware to the public, that it is Muslim people who blow people up (not moderates but extremists) and not christians etc in our society, the reaction of Muslim communities is to stay silent because it highlights further bigger problems. Nobody wants to have an honest debate about why it comes from the Muslim community, because of the all inclusive society we live in, liberal attitudes, and lack of common sense. Ironically this then stops the debate about how it's caused and unwittingly the all community standing against terrorism approach, probably has a counter effect.

The telegraph is reporting today that the Imman of the mosque this bomber attended has given a statement to say he was aware of the bombers extremist views. What then happened. Was it reported to services. What did intelligence services do. I'm sure it will all come out. Im not making a sensationalist point but the likelihood is many moderate people knew about this guys views.

I'm afraid I have a HUGE problem with anyone who thinks the word "Liberal" can have ANY pejorative connotations.

[Dynamics]

I'm afraid there is a prevalent attitude in the west that foreigners are "worth less" than us, and that by the time these foreigners we're talking about are Arabs, of different appearance, culture, religion etc they are so worthless that it doesn't even cause anyone to look up from their breakfast when they hear of yet another suicide bombing in Iraq, or a USA bombing mission gone wrong and wiped out 150 people at a wedding etc. A true story to illustrate this: I was in a house of, well I suppose "chav" types and the news came on the TV. The lead story was of some atrocity in somewhere like Iraq and over 400 were dead... the "lady of the house" refused to turn up the TV as it was apparently " a load of fucking shite".... at the end of the news we came to the local news... as a story started about a child 2 miles away being bitten on the leg by a stray dog the volume went right up and we were told "STFU this is important I want to listen to this!". So there you go.. to British thicko Daily Mair reading, UKIP voting scum a local white British girl getting bitten by a dog is infinitely more important than the lives of 400 Iraqis being lost. Mad dogs and English woman...

Obviously I abhor and condemn murder and terrorism wherever it occurs.. and to who ever it occurs.. But people in "The West" are brainwashed to think that it's somehow OK for us to murder foreigners with impunity... but how dare they defend themselves against us! Who the hell do they think they are! etc etc... and if they take revenge then they are evil incarnate and worse than Satan etc...

The situation with Iran and N. Korea is a case in point. No country is going to start a nuclear war due to mutually assured destruction. However, "The West" (USA more accurately) feigns moral indignation and outrage because these country's refuse to leave themselves undefended and liable to be swatted like a fly by The West at any time/for any reason of The West's choosing! The arrogance and hypocrisy almost requires a new species of hyperbole...

It well be that some people are decensitised to news of suicide bombings but I'm not any less horrified when I watch and read that news. I'd dispair if other people ignore it but what I think you are talking about is un-educated people who don't want to understand what goes on in the world.

I think your points about our governments murdering foreigners with impunity is ill thought out without all the information. It's well known for instance that sadaam hussein killed, over his rule, infinitely more people than foreign forces in the Iraq conflict - his killing of the Kurds, wars with Iran, torturing of citizens, imprisoned children, mass graves. The list went on. We were doing it for regime change to stop this happening, or certainly the Americans were as the main drive. Or even if you think the Americans had other reasons, the effect by going in was to do it for this reason.

But the biggest problem I have with your line of thinking is in your last para. Wars to institute regime change, are a last resort, but the greater good to life has to be looked at. But that's not quite the point, as you say how dare they retaliate, but we are taking about Isis and al quaeda here. These people kill fellow muslims in suicide bombings , yazidis etc, so I have a problem that you use a line of saying they are defending themselves. They are killing people of their own faith.

There is nothing therefore for someone to draw a line of similarity to say because our governments have inadvertently killed muslims in foreign wars, it somehow allows people to think its unsurprising for terrorists, who kill their own people both overseas and in the uk, can have any level of legitimacy or sympathy or whatever word you want to use. To use any such explanation in this way is basically the same thing and legitimises terrorism for those that would do it, it's what that scumbag choudhary was doing on tv all the time before he was jailed. We should all have an attitude as British citizens that it's a completely different thing for a democratically elected government to make decisions in intervention in wars, to those that people would take action with no democracy, to kill people with zero mandate. It's a totally different thing.

These Isis fighters aren't some form of disgruntled people that are fighting in retaliation of inadvertent actions against muslims, by western forces, but are twisted ill educated religious people jumping on the back of political ideals to pedal their horrible agenda and caliphate state. That's absolutely it.

The issue of North Korea is quite different for this thread.

[Firebottle]

we are at war! And, under attack from an enemy hiding in plain sight.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's a war we can't win (on our terms) because our belief structures are too different.

How do you 'win' a war when the opposition puts no value to life?

[farflungstar]

The UK government realised the power it had due to the gullibility and let's face it stupidity of the UK population on 7/7. How coincidental that a major terrorist attack on the underground and on public transport simulation was taking place in more or less the same location on the same day, at the same time. They passed this off as sheer coincidence and the sheep that bleat in servitude believed them. What this actually means is that either they knew it was going to happen but did nothing to warn citizens or they carried it out. There really is no other conclusion to draw unless you're a village idiot.

This was done to justify war in Iraq - and by association adds credibility to the 9/11 cover up.

It astounds me how stupid people can be. There should have been a public inquiry - but it was swept under the carpet - and those of us who question it are classed as being on the loony fringe when it's actually the other way round.

[Macca]

That's your prerogative, and I completely understand and respect that view. I only wish I could share it.

I wouldn't wish to call this out as a false flag with so little evidence. And what constitutes a FF anyway? Complete orchestration by the secret services, or an even less accountable subgroup therein? Colluding and actively supporting or directing an attacker? Or knowing of a planned attack and allowing it to occur at a certain time by manipulating events in subtle ways?

Of course, these are in ascending order of plausibility. If you cannot fathom that any such thing could occur in the UK I would encourage you to really examine why you feel it is so impossible.

Wars have always been waged for the advantage of the elites, and many innocent lives sacrificed for the securing of wealth and power. Other justifications were created for the purposes of motivating the masses, naturally. It is ever the same. Innocent lives sacrificed for the greater good (of the powerful).

Did you notice the groundswell of support Jeremy Corbyn was mobilising, especially among the young. Noticed what an anti-war pacifist he is? What would the implications be if he were to be the PM of the UK?

If you don't​ think that the military-industrial complex/ deep state/ whatever you want to call it has a vested interest in this election (or don't believe that such a thing exists) and that they wouldn't be prepared to meddle in a bit of terrorism to further their interests (as they do on a regular basis in the ME, I believe, actively fostering groups such as AlQaeda and ISIS) then there is clearly very little that I or anyone else could say that might make you think twice about it being "utterly risible".

Again, I can't say what happened was 100% one thing or another, but to ignore the possibility is to deny the reality of the world we live in, unfortunately.

At best I would be prepared to accept a small possibility that they knew something might happen but did nothing. As Grant says that sort of decision was taken several times in WW2. However to relate that to this specific situation then I think no. To imply that it was a political decision is ludicrous. Aside from the sheer cold bloodedness it would require there would also be the danger of it leaking out.

As for Corbyn and the idea that he was getting a 'groundswell of support' prior to this, that is sheer wishful thinking. He really is a no-hoper and has been since he was a child. As for being a 'man of peace', I'm sorry, but he is just hopelessly naïve.

If some miracle were to happen and he did get elected he would soon discover that his simplistic moral stance would atomise in the face of cold hard reality and he would quickly become as unpopular with those who voted for him as Blair became after Iraq.

[LC1979]

No because this has zero credibility i.e. conspiracy theories. I can cast out the possibility aliens live in my flat with me, because I haven't seen any at home with me.

Not a very good analogy.

Zero credibility if you only watch Aunty Beeb, but gains credibility once you begin to do some independent research. CIA training of jihadists, funding of these groups by US/UK allies (Saudi Arabia, Quatar etc). Going back to the 1960s and 70s at least. Not imagined, not a conspiracy theory.

What about proven false flags such as the Israeli secret service bombings in Cairo in 1954? Not imagined, not a conspiracy theory.

How much better at covering their tracks do you think they might have gotten in 60 years?

I'm beginning to think there might well be aliens in your flat, you're just not looking hard enough...

[Dynamics]

The UK government realised the power it had due to the gullibility and let's face it stupidity of the UK population on 7/7. How coincidental that a major terrorist attack on the underground and on public transport simulation was taking place in more or less the same location on the same day, at the same time. They passed this off as sheer coincidence and the sheep that bleat in servitude believed them. What this actually means is that either they knew it was going to happen but did nothing to warn citizens or they carried it out. There really is no other conclusion to draw unless you're a village idiot.

This was done to justify war in Iraq - and by association adds credibility to the 9/11 cover up.

It astounds me how stupid people can be. There should have been a public inquiry - but it was swept under the carpet - and those of us who question it are classed as being on the loony fringe when it's actually the other way round.

This is a bit offensive to be saying this on a day like this after what's happened. I was at Aldgate on 7/7 and the office for the company I worked at was just around the corner at crutched friars. I saw people being taken out with horrendous injuries, stopped to do what I could. To think that someone thinks that a government would then go to massive lengths to find out what happened is appalling really.

I'm not going to say anything else on this thread as I might regret what I might say.

[farflungstar]

At best I would be prepared to accept a small possibility that they knew something might happen but did nothing. As Grant says that sort of decision was taken several times in WW2. However to relate that to this specific situation then I think no. To imply that it was a political decision is ludicrous. Aside from the sheer cold bloodedness it would require there would also be the danger of it leaking out.

As for Corbyn and the idea that he was getting a 'groundswell of support' prior to this, that is sheer wishful thinking. He really is a no-hoper and has been since he was a child. As for being a 'man of peace', I'm sorry, but he is just hopelessly naïve.

If some miracle were to happen and he did get elected he would soon discover that his simplistic moral stance would atomise in the face of cold hard reality and he would quickly become as unpopular with those who voted for him as Blair became after Iraq.
The thing about change is it takes one person to make it first, to break the status quo. This is the same for arm sales. Someone posted that if we don't sell them then someone else would - well fine - let them have blood on their hands for the sake of money - why should we - why can't we take a moral stance?

Yes Jeremy would find things more difficult than he might think - but I prefer to be ruled by idealism than by fear and control.

[farflungstar]

This is a bit offensive to be saying this on a day like this after what's happened. I was at Aldgate on 7/7 and the office for the company I worked at was just around the corner at crutched friars. I saw people being taken out with horrendous injuries, stopped to do what I could. To think that someone thinks that a government would then go to massive lengths to find out what happened is appalling really.

I'm not going to say anything else on this thread as I might regret what I might say.
Why is it offensive? It's true, isn't it or am I wrong and the simulation took place a year before, or a week before, or a day before? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I do get things arse about tit sometimes.

You're welcome to draw your conclusion that it was sheer coincidence - and likewise, if it's true, I'm able to draw my own that it wasn't coincidence.

No one, including myself, is saying what happened wasnt appalling, but that isn't enough to not question it - unless I've got my dates wrong.

[Marco]

I'm not going to say anything else on this thread as I might regret what I might say.

This is undoubtedly an emotive discussion, and so folks are passionate about their opinions, but there's nothing being said here so far that's offensive or out of order.

It's a good debate, with some excellent points being made, by everyone who's participating, so let's not spoil it with getting upset by strongly held views expressed, which are contrary to our own. Let's keep calm, debate the relevant issues, and respect the fact that we're never all going to agree :)

Marco.

[Macca]

The thing about change is it takes one person to make it first, to break the status quo. This is the same for arm sales. Someone posted that if we don't sell them then someone else would - well fine - let them have blood on their hands for the sake of money - why should we - why can't we take a moral stance?

Yes Jeremy would find things more difficult than he might think - but I prefer to be ruled by idealism than by fear and control.

Reminds me of Homer Simpson's description of Christianity: 'The one with all the well-meaning rules that don't work in real life.'

If we lived in Rainbow Land then I would agree with you. But we don't, it is a hard , cold world and hard, cold decisions need to be taken all day every day. That is never going to change and if we were adopt a Rainbow Land approach to the world we would be eaten alive in days.

The job of the government is not to 'care' about people. The job of the government is to prevent anarchy and chaos. That is because no matter how bad you might think it is now for 'the disadvantaged and vulnerable', if there was anarchy and chaos it would be a million times worse for them.

They are pretty good at it in this country, they have had a thousand years of practical experience, of course. But it does mean we can squander our time discussing such high level concepts as opposed to spending all our efforts trying to find food, shelter and avoiding injury and death.

Consequently I find it strange that people born and brought up in the exceptional stability and safety of this country should be so aggressively anti the very 'establishment' that provides that stability and security, regarding it as an enemy that needs to be torn down because it is not moral enough, or not idealistic enough.

It is the idealists who are the problem. The people who want to change the world have caused more death and suffering in history than everyone else combined.

[RothwellAudio]

So there you go.. to British thicko Daily Mail reading, UKIP voting scum a local white British girl getting bitten by a dog is infinitely more important than the lives of 400 Iraqis being lost. Mad dogs and English woman...

Broadly speaking, I agree that the "us and them" mentality is at the root of most conflicts - however, it wasn't UKIP that took us into the war with Iraq, it was a party that liked to portray itself as liberal.

[farflungstar]

Reminds me of Homer Simpson's description of Christianity: 'The one with all the well-meaning rules that don't work in real life.'

If we lived in Rainbow Land then I would agree with you. But we don't, it is a hard , cold world and hard, cold decisions need to be taken all day every day. That is never going to change and if we were adopt a Rainbow Land approach to the world we would be eaten alive in days.

The job of the government is not to 'care' about people. The job of the government is to prevent anarchy and chaos. That is because no matter how bad you might think it is now for 'the disadvantaged and vulnerable', if there was anarchy and chaos it would be a million times worse for them.

They are pretty good at it in this country, they have had a thousand years of practical experience, of course. But it does mean we can squander our time discussing such high level concepts as opposed to spending all our efforts trying to find food, shelter and avoiding injury and death.

Consequently I find it strange that people born and brought up in the exceptional stability and safety of this country should be so aggressively anti the very 'establishment' that provides that stability and security, regarding it as an enemy that needs to be torn down because it is not moral enough, or not idealistic enough.

It is the idealists who are the problem. The people who want to change the world have caused more death and suffering in history than everyone else combined.
Anarchy and chaos - ahhhh yes - exactly what we gave to the middle East - poor poor people.

[Marco]

Consequently I find it strange that people born and brought up in the exceptional stability and safety of this country should be so aggressively anti the very 'establishment' that provides that stability and security, regarding it as an enemy that needs to be torn down because it is not moral enough, or not idealistic enough.


That fact doesn't stop the unselfish and intelligent amongst us from seeing the bigger picture, outside of our own cosy environs, identifying establishment corruption and propaganda, being appalled by it (together with man's horrific greed for wealth and power), and recognising that ultimately we're all simply expendable fodder for the elite - nor does it stop us from abhorring every last bit of it.

Not all of us, Martin, are satisfied simply with protecting our own little world, and ensuring that 'I'm all right, Jack'. I'd gladly trade some so-called stability and safety [but think realistically how true that is now within our current culture and the threat that currently exists to public safety], for a fairer society with greater equality and division of wealth.

Marco.

[farflungstar]

I'd like to point something out - I'm not Republican I'm a royalist. I own an English school and every day I expound British culture, it's society, it's history and it's values. There are 5 portraits of the queen and 30 (yes 30) union jacks in total in the classrooms and adorning the front of the school. Over the top? Maybe - but I've always been proud to be British/English - however that doesn't blinker me.

[walpurgis]

Anarchy and chaos - ahhhh yes - exactly what we gave to the middle East - poor poor people.

I don't think so. No doubt westerners have not helped, but the middle east has always been a murderous, unstable place.

[LC1979]

It is the idealists who are the problem. The people who want to change the world have caused more death and suffering in history than everyone else combined.

You've lost me here. I don't really understand, but suspect you're probably wrong ;)

[Marco]

I'm a royalist. I own an English school and every day I expound British culture, it's society, it's history and it's values. There are 5 portraits of the queen and 30 (yes 30) union jacks in total in the classrooms and adorning the front of the school. Over the top? Maybe - but I've always been proud to be British/English - however that doesn't blinker me.

Oh dear, and there was me thinking that we were largely singing from the same hymn sheet...! :doh:;)

Please don't fall out of me when I say this, Adrian, but in terms of the 'blinkered' bit, have you ever considered that some of the royal family are as big a part of the problem you've outlined, in terms of establishment corruption, paedophilia, murders and serious wrong-doings in our society, as any of our governments?

As examples of the above, I give you Princess Diana's 'unfortunate accident' in Paris, or Jill Dando...

Marco.

[LC1979]

I don't think so. No doubt westerners have not helped, but the middle east has always been a murderous, unstable place.

We capitalised on that to our best advantage, carved up lands in arbitrary ways ensuring a good mix of warring people in each new nation state, as in Africa and elsewhere.

Were we interested in helping the ME resolve its problems? Feck no! Don't be daft! We played at geopolitics, divide and rule, prolong the wars, back both sides if necessary, keep them squabbling while we secure the resources.

And it worked, largely. But you can't then put the genie back in the bottle. No other choice but to continue to infiltrate and recruit within these extremist factions: my enemy's enemy is my friend etc etc. Play both sides, blackmail bribe and coerce with threats of punishment.

We've perfected these black arts over centuries. I really doubt how much control or knowledge the government (whether blue or red) really has over these kinds of activities. It's a legacy of Imperial times, and back then private interests were more powerful than states (think East India Company with its own private armies etc) and I suspect that remains to this day.

[Marco]

Excellent post, Luke [and oh so true]... :clap: :clap:

Marco.

[Arkless Electronics]

We capitalised on that to our best advantage, carved up lands in arbitrary ways ensuring a good mix of warring people in each new nation state, as in Africa and elsewhere.

Were we interested in helping the ME resolve its problems? Feck no! Don't be daft! We played at geopolitics, divide and rule, prolong the wars, back both sides if necessary, keep them squabbling while we secure the resources.

And it worked, largely. But you can't then put the genie back in the bottle. No other choice but to continue to infiltrate and recruit within these extremist factions: my enemy's enemy is my friend etc etc. Play both sides, blackmail bribe and coerce with threats of punishment.

We've perfected these black arts over centuries. I really doubt how much control or knowledge the government (whether blue or red) really has over these kinds of activities. It's a legacy of Imperial times, and back then private interests were more powerful than states (think East India Company with its own private armies etc) and I suspect that remains to this day.

All very true.

[Macca]

You've lost me here. I don't really understand, but suspect you're probably wrong ;)

Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pott, Mau, and that's just the 20th century. Go back a bit further you've got Mohammed and Jesus. All tried to change the world for the better (or what they thought was better) net result was far more death and suffering than if they had just left it alone. The law of Unintended Consequences.

Now if they had just limited themselves to helping out others in their immediate vicinity, there would have been no problem. Indeed it could be argued if we all made efforts to enhance the quality of life just in our immediate environment, things would soon improve globally.

But that is not enough for the idealist, he must take power and then try to bend and shape everyone else to his will. Result is always a complete disaster for the ordinary man. The idealist is driven by what he grandly calls his 'emotions', his anger at the injustice he perceives, his absolute conviction that he has the solutions, his ability to convince himself that the end justifies the means. End result: he makes things immeasurably worse for the very people he set out to help.

[Marco]

But that is not enough for the idealist, he must take power and then try to bend and shape everyone else to his will. Result is always a complete disaster for the ordinary man.

Sounds exactly like the behaviour of the establishment, with the same net result. Simply replace "idealist" with 'elitist' (as in member of the elite).

Marco.

[Macca]

We capitalised on that to our best advantage, carved up lands in arbitrary ways ensuring a good mix of warring people in each new nation state, as in Africa and elsewhere.

Were we interested in helping the ME resolve its problems? Feck no! Don't be daft! We played at geopolitics, divide and rule, prolong the wars, back both sides if necessary, keep them squabbling while we secure the resources.

And it worked, largely. But you can't then put the genie back in the bottle. No other choice but to continue to infiltrate and recruit within these extremist factions: my enemy's enemy is my friend etc etc. Play both sides, blackmail bribe and coerce with threats of punishment.

We've perfected these black arts over centuries. I really doubt how much control or knowledge the government (whether blue or red) really has over these kinds of activities. It's a legacy of Imperial times, and back then private interests were more powerful than states (think East India Company with its own private armies etc) and I suspect that remains to this day.

Okay I largely agree with this with two exceptions: I did use to wonder why when they gave independence to the African nations they did not divide them up into smaller countries where each tribal/religious group got their own nation and a slice of the pie.

I suspect the answer was not some Machiavellian plot to keep them unstable but that the Foreign Office didn't want the extra workload and complexities of dealing with a hundred extra new countries so just crossed their fingers and hoped it would all work out. That tends to be how these things really happen, cock-ups not conspiracies, or just plain old human nature: 'Screw doing that, it's way too much effort.'

Our interference on the middle-east has nothing to do with the legacy of imperialism and everything to do with oil. If there was no oil there would be no problem. But our entire society is 100% dependant on that oil. The old stability and security thing again. Oil stops: chaos and anarchy start. So regardless of the moral implications and the consequences to those who are in the way, the oil must be secured and kept secure. Nothing can be allowed to prevent that.

Now that doesn't mean that the middle east has to be as much a mess as it is, but then we are back to the human nature/cock-up thing again.

[Arkless Electronics]

Reminds me of Homer Simpson's description of Christianity: 'The one with all the well-meaning rules that don't work in real life.'

If we lived in Rainbow Land then I would agree with you. But we don't, it is a hard , cold world and hard, cold decisions need to be taken all day every day. That is never going to change and if we were adopt a Rainbow Land approach to the world we would be eaten alive in days.

The job of the government is not to 'care' about people. The job of the government is to prevent anarchy and chaos. That is because no matter how bad you might think it is now for 'the disadvantaged and vulnerable', if there was anarchy and chaos it would be a million times worse for them.

They are pretty good at it in this country, they have had a thousand years of practical experience, of course. But it does mean we can squander our time discussing such high level concepts as opposed to spending all our efforts trying to find food, shelter and avoiding injury and death.

Consequently I find it strange that people born and brought up in the exceptional stability and safety of this country should be so aggressively anti the very 'establishment' that provides that stability and security, regarding it as an enemy that needs to be torn down because it is not moral enough, or not idealistic enough.

It is the idealists who are the problem. The people who want to change the world have caused more death and suffering in history than everyone else combined.

I disagree so strongly with both the above and your previous post that... well that I'll have to keep most of it in to avoid severe ad hominem.

Jeremy Corbyn is the best PM we have never yet had and I back him and his aims 100%. Idealism and morals are exactly what we do need! More importantly we need real socialism and redistribution of wealth.

"Consequently I find it strange that people born and brought up in the exceptional stability and safety of this country should be so aggressively anti the very 'establishment' that provides that stability and security, regarding it as an enemy that needs to be torn down because it is not moral enough, or not idealistic enough" --

I would tear down that establishment, kill it and dance on its grave before finally taking a shit on it! This establishment of the elites that take untold wealth from the usury of the working man and then expect him to be grateful to even receive the crumbs from their table, the establishment that allows the existence (positively encourages it in fact!) of "Sir" Philip Green and Mike Ashley types that exploit the most needy on ZHC's whilst they relax in £2 Billion personal yachts, the establishment that propagates the most foul and vile propaganda via The Daily Mair etc (what happened to the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 which they are in continuous breach of?) which has brainwashed the thick into almost holding marches demanding their own health service is taken away and their wages be cut immediately so their "masters" can be even richer.. You can almost imagine the ghastly sight of thick Little Englanders marching down the road with placards supplied by The Daly Mair and chanting "what do we want? LESS HUMAN RIGHTS AND A LONGER WORKING WEEK! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? TO DIE IN THE STREET FROM EASILY CURABLE DISEASES LIKE THE PLEBS WE ARE! When do we want it NOW!!

Law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, dog eat dog etc should remain in the jungle, amongst animals.. not civilised human beings!

[Arkless Electronics]

Okay I largely agree with this with two exceptions: I did use to wonder why when they gave independence to the African nations they did not divide them up into smaller countries where each tribal/religious group got their own nation and a slice of the pie.

I suspect the answer was not some Machiavellian plot to keep them unstable but that the Foreign Office didn't want the extra workload and complexities of dealing with a hundred extra new countries so just crossed their fingers and hoped it would all work out. That tends to be how these things really happen, cock-ups not conspiracies, or just plain old human nature: 'Screw doing that, it's way too much effort.'

Our interference on the middle-east has nothing to do with the legacy of imperialism and everything to do with oil. If there was no oil there would be no problem. But our entire society is 100% dependant on that oil. The old stability and security thing again. Oil stops: chaos and anarchy start. So regardless of the moral implications and the consequences to those who are in the way, the oil must be secured and kept secure. Nothing can be allowed to prevent that.

Now that doesn't mean that the middle east has to be as much a mess as it is, but then we are back to the human nature/cock-up thing again.

I find that more offensive than if you had advocated the legalisation of paedophilia!!!!!!

[Macca]

I find that more offensive than if you had advocated the legalisation of paedophilia!!!!!!

You should understand that I am describing the viewpoint of Government here, not necessarily my own view. I'm suggesting that this is why things are how they are, not saying it is how things should be.

[Marco]

Idealism and morals are exactly what we do need! More importantly we need real socialism and redistribution of wealth.


Hear, hear!! :clap:


I would tear down that establishment, kill it and dance on its grave before finally taking a shit on it! This establishment of the elites that take untold wealth from the usury of the working man and then expect him to be grateful to even receive the crumbs from their table,

You and me both, Jez, although I'd pish on it too, then set it on fire, just to be sure! ;)

In terms of your last bit, unfortunately that appears to be exactly what Martin thinks we should all be grateful for...... :doh::mental:

Oh, along with the "security and safety" we apparently all enjoy. Tell that to the families of the victims of the Manchester bombing. I'm sure the dead all felt 'safe and secure' beforehand.....

Marco.

[Macca]

I disagree so strongly with both the above and your previous post that... well that I'll have to keep most of it in to avoid severe ad hominem.

Jeremy Corbyn is the best PM we have never yet had and I back him and his aims 100%. Idealism and morals are exactly what we do need! More importantly we need real socialism and redistribution of wealth.

"Consequently I find it strange that people born and brought up in the exceptional stability and safety of this country should be so aggressively anti the very 'establishment' that provides that stability and security, regarding it as an enemy that needs to be torn down because it is not moral enough, or not idealistic enough" --

I would tear down that establishment, kill it and dance on its grave before finally taking a shit on it! This establishment of the elites that take untold wealth from the usury of the working man and then expect him to be grateful to even receive the crumbs from their table, the establishment that allows the existence (positively encourages it in fact!) of "Sir" Philip Green and Mike Ashley types that exploit the most needy on ZHC's whilst they relax in £2 Billion personal yachts, the establishment that propagates the most foul and vile propaganda via The Daily Mair etc (what happened to the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 which they are in continuous breach of?) which has brainwashed the thick into almost holding marches demanding their own health service is taken away and their wages be cut immediately so their "masters" can be even richer.. You can almost imagine the ghastly sight of thick Little Englanders marching down the road with placards supplied by The Daly Mair and chanting "what do we want? LESS HUMAN RIGHTS AND A LONGER WORKING WEEK! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? TO DIE IN THE STREET FROM EASILY CURABLE DISEASES LIKE THE PLEBS WE ARE! When do we want it NOW!!

Law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, dog eat dog etc should remain in the jungle, amongst animals.. not civilised human beings!

So there are things you don't like about the Establishment (what you've listed) but no matter how many times you tear it down there will always be a new one that springs up. And it may be worse than the one you had.

Yes, we get outrageously ripped off by them, IMO as a cynical pragmatist that is the price we pay for the security and stability. However I believe that reforming the Establishment of some of the things you rightly accuse it of doing, at least to some degree, is possible. The swamp could be partially drained without too much upset.

Now if Corbyn was a more capable man than he is then I would be all for him to do that even though I am not keen at all on the more idealistic aspects of Socialism. But the fact is that he couldn't even pass his bloody A levels, never had a proper job, and I don't think he has a scooby how the real world works.

[Arkless Electronics]

You should understand that I am describing the viewpoint of Government here, not necessarily my own view. I'm suggesting that this is why things are how they are, not saying it is how things should be.

I'm glad to hear it!:) You seemed to be saying that it matters not how many foreigners are killed, regimes changed, wars started etc so long as we get our oil and remain a wealthy elite of "Westerners"...

[Arkless Electronics]

So there are things you don't like about the Establishment (what you've listed) but no matter how many times you tear it down there will always be a new one that springs up. And it may be worse than the one you had.

Yes, we get outrageously ripped off by them, IMO as a cynical pragmatist that is the price we pay for the security and stability. However I believe that reforming the Establishment of some of the things you rightly accuse it of doing, at least to some degree, is possible. The swamp could be partially drained without too much upset.

Now if Corbyn was a more capable man than he is then I would be all for him to do that even though I am not keen at all on the more idealistic aspects of Socialism. But the fact is that he couldn't even pass his bloody A levels, never had a proper job, and I don't think he has a scooby how the real world works.

Whilst I'll partially agree on his level of intellectual competence etc (he's no Enoch Powell, Tony Benn or George Galloway when it comes to brains and oratory skills but he's hardly thick either...), he is that rare and special thing... an honest politician who CARES and puts people before profit;):cool:

[Firebottle]

.... the Foreign Office didn't want the extra workload and complexities of dealing with a hundred extra new countries so just crossed their fingers and hoped it would all work out. That tends to be how these things really happen, cock-ups not conspiracies, or just plain old human nature: 'Screw doing that, it's way too much effort.'

Our interference on the middle-east has nothing to do with the legacy of imperialism and everything to do with oil. If there was no oil there would be no problem. But our entire society is 100% dependant on that oil. The old stability and security thing again. Oil stops: chaos and anarchy start. So regardless of the moral implications and the consequences to those who are in the way, the oil must be secured and kept secure. Nothing can be allowed to prevent that.

Now that doesn't mean that the middle east has to be as much a mess as it is, but then we are back to the human nature/cock-up thing again.

I'm sure this is much nearer the truth, but look towards the US of A for the real thrust behind keeping the oil flowing.

[Haselsh1]

Well said.

Ultimately this is all our own fault... We started illegal wars in the Middle East in order to protect oil supplies (in order to take control of other peoples oil would be more accurate) and in the process killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims, destabilised the regimes that had been keeping a lid on tribal and religious tensions and paved the way for the creation of Al Qaeda and ISIS. Remember that for every innocent Westerner killed in terrorist atrocities such as in Manchester there are probably 500 Muslims killed by Western armed forces.... Do you really expect them not to want revenge? If the boot were on the other foot would you not want revenge?

So, so true. We systematically destroy their countries in the name of justice and good and then wonder why they hate us so intensely. I remember back in the 80's, the situation in Northern Ireland.

[Macca]

I'm glad to hear it!:) You seemed to be saying that it matters not how many foreigners are killed, regimes changed, wars started etc so long as we get our oil and remain a wealthy elite of "Westerners"...

That is how the western governments look at it, because as I said earlier it is not the purpose of government to 'care' but to provide security and stability. They will take any necessary steps to do that. It's absolute pragmatism.

If there was a problem with oil supplies and the price skyrocketed, instant economic depression in the West. Unemployment, power and fuel shortages, blackouts, rationing and eventually rioting and anarchy. So it isn't as simple as just saying it is wrong to safeguard the oil, so let's stop doing it, because that will have terrible consequences of its own.

Now if you have a solution to that very real problem that does not involve the collapse of western civilisation I am all ears. :)

[Marco]

Whilst I'll partially agree on his level of intellectual competence etc (he's no Enoch Powell, Tony Benn or George Galloway when it comes to brains and oratory skills but he's hardly thick either...), he is that rare and special thing... an honest politician who CARES and puts people before profit;):cool:

Mmm... Is there *really* such a thing?? I do agree, however, that he portrays a convincing illusion of such. Regardless, I'd have him in No10, like a shot, at the expense of May the Witch!

Putting people before, not profit (which in the right context is fine), but rather gratuitous greed, power and control, however, is definitely something we need to see MUCH MORE of in politics!!

:exactly:

Marco.

[Marco]

That is how the western governments look at it, because as I said earlier it is not the purpose of government to 'care' but to provide security and stability.

You keep going on about this "security and stability", Martin, as if we should all be eternally grateful. Being caring is an inherent trait of any decent human being, and more genuinely decent human beings is what's needed in politics!

We only enjoy "security and stability" at its most basic level (and the more we arrogantly meddle in the affairs of other countries, the less 'secure' we'll be).

The above is indeed a privilege we enjoy from living in the west, but one could argue, with some conviction, that the world would be a helluva lot safer and secure, if governments didn't continually start wars to create wealth for those who own the vast majority of arms.

The ordinary people (you and I) simply want to 'make love, not war', and get on with one another in peace, regardless of class or race, which is generally what happens in real life in the civilised world, minus the intrusion of governments!!

Marco.

[pgarrish]

I'm upset about this, my daughter was friends with the little girl that died, so it's hit close to home.... I started writing a big rant about everything from the Knights Templar to Haliburton.... None of it matters. the problem is we think differently to the East and we won't f**ing well leave them alone to live how they want. There is simply too much money to be made going to war and the US (and the UK, but mainly the US, we just follow them) is totally and utterly driven by $$$

May will use this to take away even more rights and freedoms, whilst taking the money from the front line where they can protect us
Corbyn has (to me) a much more principled view, but against the psychopaths that run the world, he will get (I fear) chewed up and spat out because he simply can't conceive how twisted they are.

The only thing most of us can do is to carry on as if nothing has happened. Live our lives in our way and, by doing that, give a big f-u to the sick few that think that blowing up kids advances their cause.


The positive things from Monday are the way so many people (from the homeless chaps who ran in to help to the cabbies who travelled from miles away to take people home) did what they could to help. THAT is what we need to focus on.

[farflungstar]

That is how the western governments look at it, because as I said earlier it is not the purpose of government to 'care' but to provide security and stability. They will take any necessary steps to do that. It's absolute pragmatism.

If there was a problem with oil supplies and the price skyrocketed, instant economic depression in the West. Unemployment, power and fuel shortages, blackouts, rationing and eventually rioting and anarchy. So it isn't as simple as just saying it is wrong to safeguard the oil, so let's stop doing it, because that will have terrible consequences of its own.

Now if you have a solution to that very real problem that does not involve the collapse of western civilisation I am all ears. :)
Including murdering their own people in the name of stability and security - or is that too preposterous?

[Arkless Electronics]

Hear, hear!! :clap:



You and me both, Jez, although I'd pish on it too, then set it on fire, just to be sure! ;)

In terms of your last bit, unfortunately that appears to be exactly what Martin thinks we should all be grateful for...... :doh::mental:

Oh, along with the "security and safety" we apparently all enjoy. Tell that to the families of the victims of the Manchester bombing. I'm sure the dead all felt 'safe and secure' beforehand.....

Marco.

:cool:

As to your last paragraph... "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité + Peace and Love :)

[Macca]

The ordinary people (you and I) simply want to 'make love, not war', and get on with one another in peace, which is generally what happens in real life, minus the intrusion of governments!!

Marco.

It is what happens in real life in western democracies. Because they have strong and stable government. It would be a lot less easy to get on with one another in peace in a state of anarchy. Fact is by sheer accident of birth we got to live in one of the most peaceful, law-abiding and prosperous countries in the world. The reason it is like that is not (I would argue) the result of happy chance but of 1000 years of Establishment. An Establishment that later extended itself to Australia, America, and Canada as well. Again all top countries to hit in the birth lottery. Chance?

Okay so the Establishment has corruption and nepotism and rips us off. They are the negatives. Can you have the positives without any negatives? No, not in the real world, so it is a trade-off I accept. Could we reduce the negatives? Yes. But not easily.

[Arkless Electronics]

I'm upset about this, my daughter was friends with the little girl that died, so it's hit close to home.... I started writing a big rant about everything from the Knights Templar to Haliburton.... None of it matters. the problem is we think differently to the East and we won't f**ing well leave them alone to live how they want. There is simply too much money to be made going to war and the US (and the UK, but mainly the US, we just follow them) is totally and utterly driven by $$$

May will use this to take away even more rights and freedoms, whilst taking the money from the front line where they can protect us
Corbyn has (to me) a much more principled view, but against the psychopaths that run the world, he will get (I fear) chewed up and spat out because he simply can't conceive how twisted they are.

The only thing most of us can do is to carry on as if nothing has happened. Live our lives in our way and, by doing that, give a big f-u to the sick few that think that blowing up kids advances their cause.


The positive things from Monday are the way so many people (from the homeless chaps who ran in to help to the cabbies who travelled from miles away to take people home) did what they could to help. THAT is what we need to focus on.

+1 Well said. Sorry to hear that this atrocity has taken a friend of your daughters.

[Arkless Electronics]

It is what happens in real life in western democracies. Because they have strong and stable government. It would be a lot less easy to get on with one another in peace in a state of anarchy. Fact is by sheer accident of birth we got to live in one of the most peaceful, law-abiding and prosperous countries in the world. The reason it is like that is not (I would argue) the result of happy chance but of 1000 years of Establishment. An Establishment that later extended itself to Australia, America, and Canada as well. Again all top countries to hit in the birth lottery. Chance?

Okay so the Establishment has corruption and nepotism and rips us off. They are the negatives. Can you have the positives without any negatives? No, not in the real world, so it is a trade-off I accept. Could we reduce the negatives? Yes. But not easily.

I'm glad I didn't have a mouthful of coffee to blurt out when I read that! You can not be serious!!?? Peaceful??? Expanded it's wonders to the colonies?

I'll raise you the Crimean war, the Napoleonic wars, the civil war, the war of the roses, Korea and on to the war of Jenkin's ear, slavery, the east indies etc etc etc.

Go and ask the Inuit, The Iroquois, The Sioux, The Aborigines, The Maori etc etc how much they loved their peace loving English/Western pals coming over to "help" them!

[southall-1998]

My best description of Theresa May. ''Tall, lanky, ugly shemale!!!''

S.

[Macca]

I'm glad I didn't have a mouthful of coffee to blurt out when I read that! You can not be serious!!?? Peaceful??? Expanded it's wonders to the colonies?

I'll raise you the Crimean war, the Napoleonic wars, the civil war, the war of the roses, Korea and on to the war of Jenkin's ear, slavery, the east indies etc etc etc.

Go and ask the Inuit, The Iroquois, The Sioux, The Aborigines, The Maori etc etc how much they loved their peace loving English/Western pals coming over to "help" them!

Yes, it isn't the point I am making though. The point is that all of those countries in today's world are the most stable and peaceful places to live and they all share the same Establishment and for want of a better phrase 'philosophy of government' that always sees to it that that remains the case.

Whilst the oil in the middle east remains necessary to that end nothing will change in our interactions there, not even if Corbyn becomes PM. He would not be able to do anything about it at all. No-one could.

[Spectral Morn]

This is worth a read. Let the Koran speak for itself.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

[Marco]

It is what happens in real life in western democracies. Because they have strong and stable government.


No, if governments didn't selfishly start wars, seeking to secure greater power and financial gain for the elite, and meddle in places they shouldn't, fuelling hatred in the process, ordinary people would get on much better, worldwide.


It would be a lot less easy to get on with one another in peace in a state of anarchy.


Indeed, but the "state of anarchy" you mention is ironically caused by the very folk you think are responsible for our "security and stability". It also stands to reason that the easiest way to get on with one another in peace, is when there is no war.


Okay so the Establishment has corruption and nepotism and rips us off. They are the negatives.


No, they're only the obvious ones - there is much worse, when you dig deep enough to find it.


Can you have the positives without any negatives? No, not in the real world, so it is a trade-off I accept. Could we reduce the negatives? Yes. But not easily.

The validity of your first sentence is undeniable, but I don't necessarily agree with what you consider as positives, or rather I'd say that things could be much more positive under rather different circumstances.

Marco.

[LC1979]

The idea that Corbyn wasn't building massive momentum in this election campaign before the tragic events of Monday night is what the papers and BBC would have you believe, but he was clearly on a roll. Have you seen the biased photos used of Corbyn & May on the campaign trail? Close up of May outside the battle bus up North somewhere made to look like a big jostling crowd and yet a sneaky distance shot shows it was about 12 people, all part of her retinue, crowded together with placards! Corbyn got the opposite treatment, close up photos at odd angles to make the crowds look tiny, whereas the ditnace shots that weren't used show great hordes of people numbering in the hundreds, if not thousands. Pure propaganda.

I've just seen someone post the following on Facebook. It seems apt for this thread...

"For the first time in modern history, the political and corporate elite who have ruled the UK for decades are edging dangerously close to being removed by the people. A Labour government under Corbyn would completely jeopardise both their domestic and international plans which have been in full effect since the Thatcher era.....

What has happened in Manchester is truly horrific and who's responsible for it will probably remain unclear for many years to come. One thing is for certain though, that this has come at an unbelievably ideal time for those in power and over the next two weeks the media will now be entirely focused on this terrorist attack and not the disastrous Conservative party campaign that was losing support daily. It will be entirely focused on using this attack as further proof of why we need a 'strong and stable' leader and not a man of peace with 'terrorist links'. It will be focused on the need to get behind the party that will take the fight to the Islamic state and not the party who want to reduce military action in the Middle East. It will be used as proof of why we need to invest in nuclear weapons instead of social care. Ultimately it will be used to further divide and conquer society and to try and stop the current progressive left uprising in its tracks. Don't let this tragic loss of innocent life be used as a campaign tool for the people who inflict so much misery on the world.

We need to double up our efforts and remind people of exactly why we need a government committed to equality and peace, not warmongering and western imperialism because the lives of people both here and overseas are depending on it more than ever."

Sounds about right to me.

[Marco]

+1 Well said. Sorry to hear that this atrocity has taken a friend of your daughters.

+1. Very well said indeed!!

Paul. I'm most saddened to hear about your personal involvement in the Manchester bombing. I hope your daughter and all concerned are coping as well as they can.

Marco.

[Ninanina]

not to be conflated with how a twenty year old British man can decide to kill his own citizens at pop concert

The trouble is this, so called, British man did not see it as killing his own citizens

If we do not follow the Quran and do not 'believe' then we are all 'infidels'... The Quran actually quotes this.. it goes something like this: "chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called hypocrites and warned that Allah will send them to hell if they do not join the slaughter

It is also true that no Muslim can ever be called an infidel, however many he/she kills or maims, as long as he/she believes in Allah. If we do not 'believe' we don't stand a chance

Don't forget though that we are all told they "enrich our lives" yeah right

[farflungstar]

The idea that Corbyn wasn't building massive momentum in this election campaign before the tragic events of Monday night is what the papers and BBC would have you believe, but he was clearly on a roll. Have you seen the biased photos used of Corbyn & May on the campaign trail? Close up of May outside the battle bus up North somewhere made to look like a big jostling crowd and yet a sneaky distance shot shows it was about 12 people, all part of her retinue, crowded together with placards! Corbyn got the opposite treatment, close up photos at odd angles to make the crowds look tiny, whereas the ditnace shots that weren't used show great hordes of people numbering in the hundreds, if not thousands. Pure propaganda.

I've just seen someone post the following on Facebook. It seems apt for this thread...

"For the first time in modern history, the political and corporate elite who have ruled the UK for decades are edging dangerously close to being removed by the people. A Labour government under Corbyn would completely jeopardise both their domestic and international plans which have been in full effect since the Thatcher era.....

What has happened in Manchester is truly horrific and who's responsible for it will probably remain unclear for many years to come. One thing is for certain though, that this has come at an unbelievably ideal time for those in power and over the next two weeks the media will now be entirely focused on this terrorist attack and not the disastrous Conservative party campaign that was losing support daily. It will be entirely focused on using this attack as further proof of why we need a 'strong and stable' leader and not a man of peace with 'terrorist links'. It will be focused on the need to get behind the party that will take the fight to the Islamic state and not the party who want to reduce military action in the Middle East. It will be used as proof of why we need to invest in nuclear weapons instead of social care. Ultimately it will be used to further divide and conquer society and to try and stop the current progressive left uprising in its tracks. Don't let this tragic loss of innocent life be used as a campaign tool for the people who inflict so much misery on the world.

We need to double up our efforts and remind people of exactly why we need a government committed to equality and peace, not warmongering and western imperialism because the lives of people both here and overseas are depending on it more than ever."

Sounds about right to me.
+1

[Arkless Electronics]

The idea that Corbyn wasn't building massive momentum in this election campaign before the tragic events of Monday night is what the papers and BBC would have you believe, but he was clearly on a roll. Have you seen the biased photos used of Corbyn & May on the campaign trail? Close up of May outside the battle bus up North somewhere made to look like a big jostling crowd and yet a sneaky distance shot shows it was about 12 people, all part of her retinue, crowded together with placards! Corbyn got the opposite treatment, close up photos at odd angles to make the crowds look tiny, whereas the ditnace shots that weren't used show great hordes of people numbering in the hundreds, if not thousands. Pure propaganda.

I've just seen someone post the following on Facebook. It seems apt for this thread...

"For the first time in modern history, the political and corporate elite who have ruled the UK for decades are edging dangerously close to being removed by the people. A Labour government under Corbyn would completely jeopardise both their domestic and international plans which have been in full effect since the Thatcher era.....

What has happened in Manchester is truly horrific and who's responsible for it will probably remain unclear for many years to come. One thing is for certain though, that this has come at an unbelievably ideal time for those in power and over the next two weeks the media will now be entirely focused on this terrorist attack and not the disastrous Conservative party campaign that was losing support daily. It will be entirely focused on using this attack as further proof of why we need a 'strong and stable' leader and not a man of peace with 'terrorist links'. It will be focused on the need to get behind the party that will take the fight to the Islamic state and not the party who want to reduce military action in the Middle East. It will be used as proof of why we need to invest in nuclear weapons instead of social care. Ultimately it will be used to further divide and conquer society and to try and stop the current progressive left uprising in its tracks. Don't let this tragic loss of innocent life be used as a campaign tool for the people who inflict so much misery on the world.

We need to double up our efforts and remind people of exactly why we need a government committed to equality and peace, not warmongering and western imperialism because the lives of people both here and overseas are depending on it more than ever."

Sounds about right to me.

Spot on!

[Marco]

The idea that Corbyn wasn't building massive momentum in this election campaign before the tragic events of Monday night is what the papers and BBC would have you believe, but he was clearly on a roll. Have you seen the biased photos used of Corbyn & May on the campaign trail? Close up of May outside the battle bus up North somewhere made to look like a big jostling crowd and yet a sneaky distance shot shows it was about 12 people, all part of her retinue, crowded together with placards! Corbyn got the opposite treatment, close up photos at odd angles to make the crowds look tiny, whereas the ditnace shots that weren't used show great hordes of people numbering in the hundreds, if not thousands. Pure propaganda.

I've just seen someone post the following on Facebook. It seems apt for this thread...

"For the first time in modern history, the political and corporate elite who have ruled the UK for decades are edging dangerously close to being removed by the people. A Labour government under Corbyn would completely jeopardise both their domestic and international plans which have been in full effect since the Thatcher era.....

What has happened in Manchester is truly horrific and who's responsible for it will probably remain unclear for many years to come. One thing is for certain though, that this has come at an unbelievably ideal time for those in power and over the next two weeks the media will now be entirely focused on this terrorist attack and not the disastrous Conservative party campaign that was losing support daily. It will be entirely focused on using this attack as further proof of why we need a 'strong and stable' leader and not a man of peace with 'terrorist links'. It will be focused on the need to get behind the party that will take the fight to the Islamic state and not the party who want to reduce military action in the Middle East. It will be used as proof of why we need to invest in nuclear weapons instead of social care. Ultimately it will be used to further divide and conquer society and to try and stop the current progressive left uprising in its tracks. Don't let this tragic loss of innocent life be used as a campaign tool for the people who inflict so much misery on the world.

We need to double up our efforts and remind people of exactly why we need a government committed to equality and peace, not warmongering and western imperialism because the lives of people both here and overseas are depending on it more than ever."

Sounds about right to me.

And me - brilliant stuff (that last bit in particular), which hits the nail firmly on the head, clearly written by someone with a good grasp of the current reality!

Marco.

[Arkless Electronics]

The trouble is this, so called, British man did not see it as killing his own citizens

If we do not follow the Quran and do not 'believe' then we are all 'infidels'... The Quran actually quotes this.. it goes something like this: "chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called hypocrites and warned that Allah will send them to hell if they do not join the slaughter

It is also true that no Muslim can ever be called an infidel, however many he/she kills or maims, as long as he/she believes in Allah. If we do not 'believe' we don't stand a chance

Don't forget though that we are all told they "enrich our lives" yeah right

I don't recall any Islamic terrorism directed at the west before we started bombing them... just saying..

[farflungstar]

The trouble is this, so called, British man did not see it as killing his own citizens

If we do not follow the Quran and do not 'believe' then we are all 'infidels'... The Quran actually quotes this.. it goes something like this: "chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called hypocrites and warned that Allah will send them to hell if they do not join the slaughter

It is also true that no Muslim can ever be called an infidel, however many he/she kills or maims, as long as he/she believes in Allah. If we do not 'believe' we don't stand a chance

Don't forget though that we are all told they "enrich our lives" yeah right

Wait a minute here - there's equally as much shite in the Christian Bible - it's ignorant and misguided to suggest that all Muslim immigrants are out to chop people's heads off - they are not. Of course there are those with extreme views but there are Christians with extreme views - some of the views expressed here including my own might be classed as extreme and if I was a Muslim maybe a phonecall would have been made to the relevant authorities. Don't let this turn into racism - immigrants do enrich the British culture - it's the thing I miss here in Spain - diversity, in everything.

You are looking in the wrong place to put blame. You are being short sighted. You are not using that wonderful organ the brain - because it's been turned to mush by the media.

[Arkless Electronics]

Wait a minute here - there's equally as much shite in the Christian Bible - it's ignorant and misguided to suggest that all Muslim immigrants are out to chop people's heads off - they are not. Of course there are those with extreme views but there are Christians with extreme views - some of the views expressed here including my own might be classed as extreme and if I was a Muslim maybe a phonecall would have been made to the relevant authorities. Don't let this turn into racism - immigrants do enrich the British culture - it's the thing I miss here in Spain - diversity, in everything.

You are looking in the wrong place to put blame. You are being short sighted. You are not using that wonderful organ the brain - because it's been turned to mush by the media.

+1

[Marco]

As to your last paragraph... "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité + Peace and Love :)

Bien sur, mon ami :grouphug:

Let's have more hugs and less bombs. Don't get too 'frisky', though! :D

Marco.

[Ninanina]

Wait a minute here - there's equally as much shite in the Christian Bible - it's ignorant and misguided to suggest that all Muslim immigrants are out to chop people's heads off - they are not. Of course there are those with extreme views but there are Christians with extreme views - some of the views expressed here including my own might be classed as extreme and if I was a Muslim maybe a phonecall would have been made to the relevant authorities. Don't let this turn into racism - immigrants do enrich the British culture - it's the thing I miss here in Spain - diversity, in everything.

You are looking in the wrong place to put blame. You are being short sighted. You are not using that wonderful organ the brain - because it's been turned to mush by the media.

Yes that is all very true but 'generally' people who are Christians, or believe in other religions, even those with extreme views don't go around killing and maiming people

I actually have used my 'brain' and it's not been turned into 'mush' by the media.. however that is my view of things

I'm an atheist and I don't feel the need to believe in any religion to be a good law-abiding citizen

[Spectral Morn]

I'm upset about this, my daughter was friends with the little girl that died, so it's hit close to home....

The positive things from Monday are the way so many people (from the homeless chaps who ran in to help to the cabbies who travelled from miles away to take people home) did what they could to help. THAT is what we need to focus on.

I am very sorry to read that Paul :(

[Macca]

"For the first time in modern history, the political and corporate elite who have ruled the UK for decades are edging dangerously close to being removed by the people. A Labour government under Corbyn would completely jeopardise both their domestic and international plans which have been in full effect since the Thatcher era.....

What has happened in Manchester is truly horrific and who's responsible for it will probably remain unclear for many years to come. One thing is for certain though, that this has come at an unbelievably ideal time for those in power and over the next two weeks the media will now be entirely focused on this terrorist attack and not the disastrous Conservative party campaign that was losing support daily. It will be entirely focused on using this attack as further proof of why we need a 'strong and stable' leader and not a man of peace with 'terrorist links'. It will be focused on the need to get behind the party that will take the fight to the Islamic state and not the party who want to reduce military action in the Middle East. It will be used as proof of why we need to invest in nuclear weapons instead of social care. Ultimately it will be used to further divide and conquer society and to try and stop the current progressive left uprising in its tracks. Don't let this tragic loss of innocent life be used as a campaign tool for the people who inflict so much misery on the world.

We need to double up our efforts and remind people of exactly why we need a government committed to equality and peace, not warmongering and western imperialism because the lives of people both here and overseas are depending on it more than ever."

Sounds about right to me.

I was in 6th form in Liverpool in the 80s, knew a few of the Militant Tendancy boys. This is the same sort of thing they used to come out with. Although interestingly they dated the hegemony of the 'political and corporate elite' to way back before Thatcher. I suppose a generation has passed and there is no need to go back any further now, would only complicate the issue. Good to see 'western imperialism' used, the MT lads were very fond of that one. Brings back memories.

[walpurgis]

I'm an atheist and I don't feel the need to believe in any religion to be a good law-abiding citizen

Careful Bev. You'll have people telling you Atheism is a faith.

[farflungstar]

Yes that is all very true but 'generally' people who are Christians, or believe in other religions, even those with extreme views don't go around killing and maiming people

I actually have used my 'brain' and it's not been turned into 'mush' by the media.. however that is my view of things

I'm an atheist and I don't feel the need to believe in any religion to be a good law-abiding citizen
Wake up - this isn't about religion.

This is about brainwashed guys held in Guantanamo bay and trained by the US to carry out these kinds of ops or to aid others for the motives of the US.

It's about politics and power.

[Ninanina]

Careful Bev. You'll have people telling you Atheism is a faith.

:doh:

[Ninanina]

I'm withdrawing from this thread as I can see it getting nasty

I'm going to listen to some music instead, much nicer.. :)

[Marco]

I was in 6th form in Liverpool in the 80s, knew a few of the Militant Tendancy boys.

Lol... "Militant Tendency boys" [corrected your spelling error, btw], is that another term for 'free-thinkers'? ;)

Marco.

[farflungstar]

I'm confused - for someone to suggest that all Muslims are murderers and then say they are leaving because the thread is getting nasty when someone disagrees with them is profoundly confusing....

[Marco]

My best description of Theresa May. ''Tall, lanky, ugly shemale!!!''


Apparently, before she became PM, she once appeared in an advert for Tena lady. Nothing changes, she's still full of pish!

Marco.

[Macca]

Lol... "Militant Tendency boys" [corrected your spelling error, btw], is that another term for 'free-thinkers'? ;)

Marco.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_(Trotskyist_group)

[Marco]

Yes I know... My comment was tongue-in-cheek, but also relevant to the thread, in terms of the usual meaning of militant, and the concept of brainwashing ;)

Marco.

[Marco]

Here's an interesting website for 'militants' who refuse to toe the party line (read as swallow government propaganda): http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=129693

Adrian, you should give the Jill Dando article a good read, especially the connection with Jimmy Saville and the Duke of Edinburgh..... In fact, everyone should read that article for the truth on the disgusting sickness that pervades the establishment, and the corruption that's rife in the BBC!

As for the Manchester bombing atrocity, here's a rather sober and 'non-brainwashed' take on things:

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=152156


This reminds me so much of the fatuous response to 9/11: “Why do they hate us so much?” What a joke. That’s a bit like Jack the Ripper asking: “Why am I so unpopular among prostitutes?”


Indeed!!

Marco.

[Macca]

Here's an interesting website for 'militants' who refuse to toe the party line (read as swallow government propaganda): http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=129693



Just utter twaddle attempting to defend the indefensible. With some anti-Semitism thrown in at the end. Nice. We are clearly a long way apart in our views on this matter, Marco.

[Macca]

My mistake quoted the wrong link but the Jill Dando stuff is equally batshit.

[Marco]

Ha - thought you'd say that!

I didn't say that I agreed with every word written (in reference to Manchester) - it's simply another take on proceedings, which makes you 'think outside the box', essential in my experience to cut through the propaganda and 'psychological programming', perpetrated by governments, and get to the truth with anything, which usually lies in the middle of the extremes.

Think what you like, mate... There's plenty more of that around, if you know where to look, backed up by REAL evidence, as confirmed by friends I have who work for certain newspapers. I could tell you stuff that would make your toes curl.

Anyway, not to worry, one day the truth will out (as it eventually did with Saville), and we'll see what's "batshit" ;)

Marco.

[Macca]

Ha - thought you'd say that!

I didn't say that I agreed with every word written (in reference to Manchester) - o.

I don't agree with a single word of it. in fact I'd like to see people like that kicked out of the country. Put them on a plane and wave goodbye to them. It's no different from attempting to justify the Moors Murderers. I'm appalled that you would even link to it.

[Marco]

People like what, exactly? Folk who refuse to simply swallow what the government and certain parts of the media want you to believe?? 'Outrage' is often the result when you force folk to examine what they fear and don't want to believe is true.

So what's your view on what happened to Jill Dando? The case, to this day, remains unresolved, and much real evidence also remains un-investigated by police. The level of cover-up that's taken place is shocking - and such cover-ups happen all the time!

A lot of what was discussed in that article, in reference to the propaganda angle about Manchester, was mentioned on this very thread earlier, and agreed upon by folks here. *That* is what I'm referring to.

I'm afraid if you can't see the brainwashing and deflection that's taking place (in reference to the forthcoming election, and what that entails, in terms of maintaining the best interests of the elite), and still continuing now, then you're blind.

Marco.

[ianlenco]

I'm no friend of Teresa May or the Tories but to suggest, as some have here, that there was some kind of collusion between the government and security forces to allow the Manchester atrocity to take place for political advantage beggars belief. Instead of offering condolensces to the parents who have lost children and the children who have lost parents this thread has deteriorated into a very unpleasant rant with racist undertones. Perhaps it's time to lock it down or even better delete it and get back to what this forum is supposed to be about - a friendly place to discuss a shared hobby.

[farflungstar]

Holy crap people - we are all appalled and disgusted and saddened by what happened. On this we can agree I think. That we have different opinions on who and why it occurred is normal. Some of us accept the official line whilst others judge governments on past lies and remarkable coincidences. All opinions are valid in a democracy.

There are some sick groups - but there is also concrete evidence that they were trained and armed by the West, namely the US. This cannot be disputed because it is true and accepted.

Those who are truly behind the shit are not stupid - they know that to hide an unpalatable truth that simply have to hide it in the middle of a lot of other, ridiculous conspiracy theories. An example being 9/11. I suggest anyone who has the interest watch Michael Moore's documentary amongst many others.

As to saville - they waited until he was dead before doing anything - why? Because he would open his mouth and speak.

Marco I will check the Dando stuff - but as I've said many lies are spun to hide a single truth.

We are all entitled to hold extremist views - this is not a crime. It is democracy. Unless you want to live in Stalinist Russia. It becomes an offence when those views are put into action.

99.9999% of Muslims are good people. The same cannot be said of Christians, or other faiths who murder each other every day for money, petty squabbles or just because someone's face didn't fit.

I'm very worried for the UK - which is heading down an isolationist, racist, bigoted shit hole of a country populated by people who value only their own family unit and measure themselves by their latest mobile phone purchase or big screen instead of humanity.

[Marco]

I'm no friend of Teresa May or the Tories but to suggest, as some have here, that there was some kind of collusion between the government and security forces to allow the Manchester atrocity to take place for political advantage beggars belief. Instead of offering condolensces to the parents who have lost children and the children who have lost parents this thread has deteriorated into a very unpleasant rant with racist undertones. Perhaps it's time to lock it down or even better delete it and get back to what this forum is supposed to be about - a friendly place to discuss a shared hobby.

Ian, condolences have duly been offered, and of course every one of us is shocked and appalled by what happened in Manchester - that goes without saying (although it has been said many times). What's needed now is some insight into what was responsible for the tragedy, and that's what is currently being debated.

Intelligent people attempt to fathom the reason why such atrocities occur, so in that respect it's inevitable that the discussion will be extrapolated into different areas, some of which may be unpalatable, but often 'ugly truths' are only discovered when people face up to what they dare not believe, and that's what others and I are attempting to do here, simply because there's much more than meets the eye, as portrayed by the media, in terms of Monday's atrocity.

This is also the off-topic section of the forum, where political threads are discussed, so if that isn't to your taste, then with respect, I suggest you ignore it and concentrate instead on the many hi-fi and music discussions taking place alongside this on the main forum :)

Marco.

[Marco]

Holy crap people - we are all appalled and disgusted and saddened by what happened. On this we can agree I think. That we have different opinions on who and why it occurred is normal. Some of us accept the official line whilst others judge governments on past lies and remarkable coincidences. All opinions are valid in a democracy.


Precisely! And on AoS, we don't shy away from tackling the difficult stuff - head on.

I'll get to the rest of your post in a mo :)

Marco.

[Marco]

There are some sick groups - but there is also concrete evidence that they were trained and armed by the West, namely the US. This cannot be disputed because it is true and accepted.

Those who are truly behind the shit are not stupid - they know that to hide an unpalatable truth that simply have to hide it in the middle of a lot of other, ridiculous conspiracy theories. An example being 9/11. I suggest anyone who has the interest watch Michael Moore's documentary amongst many others.


Indeed, and I'm with you on the whole 9/11 thing, too. So much that went on there, much of which is virtually indisputable, simply doesn't fit with the account of events, as portrayed by the 'powers that be' :nono:


As to saville - they waited until he was dead before doing anything - why? Because he would open his mouth and speak.


Exactly, so if they can cover that up like that, what else is similarly being covered up, in order to pull the wool over our eyes?


Marco I will check the Dando stuff - but as I've said many lies are spun to hide a single truth.


Yup, I get that.

However, please do check out the Dando stuff - and dig DEEP - as you'll have to plough through both the excesses of mentalist nonsense from the worst of the conspiracy theorists, as well as establishment spin, to get to the truth, and trust me, prominent members of the royal family, as well as politicians, are up to their eyes in the whole pedophile ring thing.....

One of the reasons why Saville was never properly investigated for his crimes, while he was alive, was because he had friends in very high places, and so he knew that he was untouchable.

My friend, who's a reporter for one of the national newspapers, said that the editor at the time had suggested on numerous occasions to expose the whole Saville affair, whilst he was alive, but was 'told' by his bosses that they simply couldn't go there...

I could say plenty more on the matter, trust me! But here isn't the appropriate place. In the meantime, in reference to Dando, read this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4199724/Hitman-claims-KNOW-shot-Jill-Dando.html

Forget that it's the Daily Mail, and concentrate instead on the FACTS Mark Williams-Thomas outlines on the TV show This Morning. It's simply cover-up city!


We are all entitled to hold extremist views - this is not a crime. It is democracy. Unless you want to live in Stalinist Russia. It becomes an offence when those views are put into action.


Indeed, although I don't consider views that have been expressed so far by any of us here as "extremist"; more 'un-blinkered' and free-thinking, than extremist.

If folk simply want to swallow the 'official line', fed to them by the establishment-controlled media, then good luck to them, but please don't act all shocked and affronted when what you've chosen to ignore, to protect your sensibilities, is exposed to justified scrutiny!!


I'm very worried for the UK - which is heading down an isolationist, racist, bigoted shit hole of a country populated by people who value only their own family unit and measure themselves by their latest mobile phone purchase or big screen instead of humanity.

Hear, hear... And Jez provided evidence of that earlier. The sad fact is, we're on an inevitable path to ruin, unless something fundamentally drastic is done now, starting with a vote for ANYONE but the Tories, [or closet, and not so closet, racist parties] on 8th June!

Marco.

[Macca]

People like what, exactly?.

People like the wanker who writes that blog you linked to. People like that disgust me. Deportation is the least worst thing that should happen to them. It should be a criminal offence to express any support for these suicide bombers or to try to excuse their actions in any way. I'm normally an advocate for free speech but free speech does not give anyone the right to shout Fire! in a crowded theatre and offering excuses or support for child murderers is far worse than that.

[farflungstar]

I haven't read that blog. I don't support violence of any type. Period. But I want you to think about this...


Take a moment to think about how you feel for your wife, your kids, your home, yourself.

Now imagine this....

You live in a poor area of scrubland in the back of no where.

You are 12 years old, you don't go to school, and you live with your dad, your mum, and your sister in a little house raising goats. You're happy. Life is simple. The sun rises and sets. Laughter is within your home and your heart.

Then one day you see planes crossing the sky. You hear your parents whispering together at night. The ruler of your land has been killed by outsiders. They are afraid but they tell you not to worry.

Then a few weeks later people you recognise as from your own people turn up and you watch as your sister is raped in front of your family and sold into prostitution, as your mum is raped then butchered, and as a bullet is put into the head of your weeping father.

Who do you blame for this - the people who did it or the people who took out the person in charge, the law and control.

Those who murdered your family whisper lies to you, they brainwash you and put a gun in your hand and a bomb round your waist. You don't know what is right or what is wrong or who is to blame for the destruction of your way of life. But now there is no laughter in your heart - only hate and confusion.

This is the reality of the situation. This is why terrorists exist and are created.

Now - think again about your family.

[Dynamics]

People like the wanker who writes that blog you linked to. People like that disgust me. Deportation is the least worst thing that should happen to them. It should be a criminal offence to express any support for these suicide bombers or to try to excuse their actions in any way. I'm normally an advocate for free speech but free speech does not give anyone the right to shout Fire! in a crowded theatre and offering excuses or support for child murderers is far worse than that.

I totally agree with you martin. Ok so I will say it..... The rubbish being said by Adrian is ignorant and beggars belief and it's the same crap these jihadi symphathises and jihadists come up with. You are right it should be banned. What he ignores is that Isis is killing more of their own but different types of Muslim then any American plane or planes or army etc. Read about what they are doing to the yadize people. Watch the Stacey Dooley film on that issue, and female defence forces.

He needs to read a few books on the subject or read a paper. The ignorance is unbelievable and I actually think we have so many ill educated and ignorant people in this country. He can't understand that these Isis groups are hi jacking a political agenda for their ideal and Islamic state agenda with strict Islamic laws interpreted by the Koran strictly i terpretated. Islamic Terrorism exists where these people hi jack political ideals i.e. Use American planes collateral damage (for a different reason e.g. Removal of hussein and Iraq conflict with regime change) to sustain a cause of an Islamic state, recruiting these nut jobs who go to Syria etc. Islamic terrorism can be traced back long before the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a complex interplay of social problems of people in developing countries, their lack of education and concept of civil rights in a civilised society, strong religion, etc.

The problem is gullible people believe what some of these jihadi symphathises say and have no idea of how it is in reality on the ground in these countries.

[Arkless Electronics]

I don't agree with a single word of it. in fact I'd like to see people like that kicked out of the country. Put them on a plane and wave goodbye to them. It's no different from attempting to justify the Moors Murderers. I'm appalled that you would even link to it.

And for balance... I do agree with virtually every word of it and disagree with pretty much everything you and "Dynamics" say...

[Macca]

I haven't read that blog. I don't support violence of any type. Period. But I want you to think about this...


Take a moment to think about how you feel for your wife, your kids, your home, yourself.

Now imagine this....

You live in a poor area of scrubland in the back of no where.

You are 12 years old, you don't go to school, and you live with your dad, your mum, and your sister in a little house raising goats. You're happy. Life is simple. The sun rises and sets. Laughter is within your home and your heart.

Then one day you see planes crossing the sky. You hear your parents whispering together at night. The ruler of your land has been killed by outsiders. They are afraid but they tell you not to worry.

Then a few weeks later people you recognise as from your own people turn up and you watch as your sister is raped in front of your family and sold into prostitution, as your mum is raped then butchered, and as a bullet is put into the head of your weeping father.

Who do you blame for this - the people who did it or the people who took out the person in charge, the law and control.

Those who murdered your family whisper lies to you, they brainwash you and put a gun in your hand and a bomb round your waist. You don't know what is right or what is wrong or who is to blame for the destruction of your way of life. But now there is no laughter in your heart - only hate and confusion.

This is the reality of the situation. This is why terrorists exist and are created.

Now - think again about your family.

Thought about it and it is still no sale.

'Brainwashing' is no excuse. You really think these people are so confused they don't know what they are doing? If you are not condemning it then you are encouraging it. Please do read the blog Marco inexplicably linked to so that you realise what we are actually dealing with here, maybe it will change your mind.

I should also take issue with your description of England:

I'm very worried for the UK - which is heading down an isolationist, racist, bigoted shit hole of a country populated by people who value only their own family unit and measure themselves by their latest mobile phone purchase or big screen instead of humanity

I appreciate that you don't live in the UK but I do, in one of the poorest neighbourhoods of one of the poorest cities (the 'brexit capital' in fact), and I don't recognise your description at all.

[Joe]

H
As to saville - they waited until he was dead before doing anything - why? Because he would open his mouth and speak.



Why didn't 'they' just kill him and eliminate the risk? These supposedly all-powerful people seem remarkably inept at handling threats.

I'm not sure what's more depressing on this thread; Macca's 'ends justify the means' hand-washing or the tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists.

As for Islam as a religion of violence vs Christianity as a religion of peace, this is laughable in the light of such horrors as the Thirty Years War, the English Civil War, the US Civil War, WWI and WW2, in which millions of Christians killed millions of other Christians. The Muslims have some catching-up to do in this respect. Of course, the three biggest mass-murderers (Hitler, Stalin and Mao) were all atheists.

[Arkless Electronics]

Thought about it and it is still no sale.

'Brainwashing' is no excuse. You really think these people are so confused they don't know what they are doing? If you are not condemning it then you are encouraging it. Please do read the blog Marco inexplicably linked to so that you realise what we are actually dealing with here, maybe it will change your mind.

I should also take issue with your description of England:

I'm very worried for the UK - which is heading down an isolationist, racist, bigoted shit hole of a country populated by people who value only their own family unit and measure themselves by their latest mobile phone purchase or big screen instead of humanity

I appreciate that you don't live in the UK but I do, in one of the poorest neighbourhoods of one of the poorest cities (the 'brexit capital' in fact), and I don't recognise your description at all.

I completely agree with Adrians description of England, and brainwashing, in many forms, is exactly the reason for this! My greatest hatred (and I mean hatred) is for the likes of The Daily Mair, which I regard as an illegal publication under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. It is one of my most strongly held beliefs that if you read The Daily Mair, and agree with it, you are a complete arsehole.

[Dynamics]

Why didn't 'they' just kill him and eliminate the risk? These supposedly all-powerful people seem remarkably inept at handling threats.

I'm not sure what's more depressing on this thread; Macca's 'ends justify the means' hand-washing or the tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists.

As for Islam as a religion of violence vs Christianity as a religion of peace, this is laughable in the light of such horrors as the Thirty Years War, the English Civil War, the US Civil War, WWI and WW2, in which millions of Christians killed millions of other Christians. The Muslims have some catching-up to do in this respect. Of course, the three biggest mass-murderers (Hitler, Stalin and Mao) were all atheists.

Let's bring it down to reality here. 22 people got blown up in Manchester, before that Lee rigby got 'cut up' in the street. Before that we had 7/7 - 52 dead. Also in France, Belgium, Australia, Germany, US, Tunisia, Turkey. These incidents all happened relatively recently and are caused by ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM AND EXTREMISM.

By the way hitler was a Roman Catholic, Stalin was an atheist, and not sure about mao. But the point is they didn't do their killing through the concept of atheism or in its name. The point is some of these muslims do it through their religion and in its name, almost exclusively in these attacks. It has a Muslim origin, and doesn't happen with christians. Some believe they will be infidels by blowing themselves up, many believe in a Muslim caliphate state dictated by sharia law. An example of a crime under sharia law of apostecy (leaving the Muslim religion) is punishable by death. British muslims regularly advocate following this law in countries where it is allowed. They go on TV saying this and when pinned down on it, they agree with following the doctrine of it, if allowed. If you don't think this is a problem and that their religion plays a part in condoning uk terrorism, turning a blind eye to it, it's simply ludicrous. These people who have these views on tv are often leaders of Islamic organisations. How do you suppose that all Muslim's in a mosque will discourage violent thinking when its ingrained in the thinking of an interpretation of it that more senior immans and these Islamic organisation leaders won't discuss and deplore. Let me find you a few clips e.g. Douglas Murray challenging choudhary and other nutters.

Adam Deen, an ex extremist, was going on tv saying that these people believe that they are doing right in their faith by blowing people up. It's highly religious and in done the name of Islam. Clearly there are many more moderate muslims, but the problem is of attitudes to the religion in the Muslim community that can allow these crimes. So if you agree as a Muslim to the doctrines of sharia law, as many British muslims do, you have to accept the worst implications that can have to someone that as a Muslim, wants to bomb a concert. How can they have a conversation as a faith to combat terrorism in such people. In the inability of our services to look over the 3000 potential jihadis on the list (which the bomber was on this list), we have to rely on the Muslim community to route it out and agree to modification of their beliefs as moderates such it doesn't spill into those indoctrinated. Muslim attitudes to things like homophobia don't help in a tolerant society such as ours. The statistics on what Muslim people believe on such matters are far flung from normal British tolerant values.

[Macca]

I'm not sure what's more depressing on this thread; Macca's 'ends justify the means' hand-washing or the tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists.

.

Think you might need to re-read my posts Joe, my point appears to have eluded you.

And just because bad things happened in the name of God 500 years ago does not excuse murdering children now.

[Macca]

I completely agree with Adrians description of England, and brainwashing, in many forms, is exactly the reason for this! My greatest hatred (and I mean hatred) is for the likes of The Daily Mair, which I regard as an illegal publication under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. It is one of my most strongly held beliefs that if you read The Daily Mair, and agree with it, you are a complete arsehole.

I don't read any newspapers. Like the majority of people in Britain if the current circulation figures are anything to go by. Daily Mail sold 1.4 million copies a day in Dec 2016, so not exactly read in every household.

[Arkless Electronics]

Let's bring it down to reality here. 22 people got blown up in Manchester, before that Lee rigby got 'cut up' in the street. Before that we had 7/7 - 52 dead. Also in France, Belgium, Australia, Germany, US, Tunisia, Turkey. These incidents all happened relatively recently and are caused by ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM AND EXTREMISM.

By the way hitler was a Roman Catholic, Stalin was an atheist, and not sure about mao. But the point is they didn't do their killing through the concept of atheism or in its name. The point is some of these muslims do it through their religion and in its name. Some believe they will be infidels by blowing themselves up, many believe in a Muslim caliphate state dictated by sharia law. An example of a crime under sharia law of apostecy (leaving the Muslim religion) is punishable by death. British muslims regularly advocate following this law in countries where it is allowed. They go on TV saying this and when pinned down on it, they agree with following the doctrine of it, if allowed. If you don't think this is a problem and that their religion plays a part in condoning terrorism, turning a blind eye to it, it's simply ludicrous. These people who have these views on tv are often leaders of Islamic organisations. How do you suppose that all Muslim's in a mosque will discourage violent thinking when its ingrained in the thinking of an interpretation of it that more senior immans and these Islamic organisation leaders won't discuss.

Adam Deen was going on tv saying that these people believe that they are doing right in their faith by blowing people up. It's highly religious and in the name of Islam.

There was no Islamic terrorism against us until we went it gung ho with "shock and awe" etc to secure their oil and killed 100.000's of them... the destabilisation of the whole region and regime changes allowed the rise of religious nutters determined to create a medieval Islamic death cult. There would be no Al Qaeda or ISIS if the West had not gone in poking its nose where it was not wanted. Now these terrorist nutters are here the West is hardly doing its all to get rid of them... If the so called caliphate was in major oil producing areas, to the extent that it affected The Wests profits, you can be sure they would have gone in with everything, guns blazing and thousands of boots on the ground... Oh and of course it would be for "humanitarian reasons", protecting civilians etc.... followed by the shock-troops of Haliburtons accountants!!

Here's a conspiracy theory for you... The West allowed and encouraged the likes of ISIS and all the civil wars and tribal in fighting in order to create perpetual chaos amongst ME countries. Strong, organised and independent nation states have armies, military research facilities, air forces etc. USA wants the region as weak as possible (other than its "friends" like the terrorist supporting Saudi's) so it can't threaten israel, oil supplies or any other western interests. Discuss...

[Dynamics]

Here you are, what does this tell you of the problem. A survey at the end of last year.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/738852/British-Muslims-Sharia-Law-enforced-UK-Islam-poll

- 48% of 3000 uk muslims surveyed said they would not report those close to them to the police if they became Linked to Syrian terrorism. This is one in two Muslim people

- 30% of muslims believe in conspiracy theories in respect to 9/11 that it wasn't caused by al quaeda. That's one in three British muslims.

[Dynamics]

There was no Islamic terrorism against us until we went it gung ho with "shock and awe" etc to secure their oil and killed 100.000's of them... the destabilisation of the whole region and regime changes allowed the rise of religious nutters determined to create a medieval Islamic death cult. There would be no Al Qaeda or ISIS if the West had not gone in poking its nose where it was not wanted. Now these terrorist nutters are here the West is hardly doing its all to get rid of them... If the so called caliphate was in major oil producing areas, to the extent that it affected The Wests profits, you can be sure they would have gone in with everything, guns blazing and thousands of boots on the ground... Oh and of course it would be for "humanitarian reasons", protecting civilians etc.... followed by the shock-troops of Haliburtons accountants!!

Here's a conspiracy theory for you... The West allowed and encouraged the likes of ISIS and all the civil wars and tribal in fighting in order to create perpetual chaos amongst ME countries. Strong, organised and independent nation states have armies, military research facilities, air forces etc. USA wants the region as weak as possible (other than its "friends" like the terrorist supporting Saudi's) so it can't threaten israel, oil supplies or any other western interests. Discuss...

But you forget the reasons for going into these countries intilayy were distinct from Isis which has come about after, but you also ignore that Isis groups have killed more civilians than any western forces. As to the rubbish about oil, I don't believe in conspiracy theorists. This was said around the time of going into Iraq, despite the entire political agenda of many countries around a desire to remove leaders such as sadaam hussein. They went in with the aim of removing him. I don't suppose you know if these countries have benefited from oil anyway.

And as to other conspiracy theories about governments being involved in Manchester let me shoot that down too. Unless you haven't realised, these terrorist incidents have happened all across Europe, so is there some form of multi government conspiracy. It gets even more far fetched.

And it is distressing and offensive to write this. What do you suppose the survivors, family members or relatives think, or those that have experienced terrorist incidents (like me on 7/7) think when they read this sort of bad ignorant views, going back to my earlier post around page 7

[farflungstar]

Don't tell me im speaking rubbish when I have family in Libya experiencing the aftermath of the wests interference in what was a stable, prosperous, tolerant society.

The only people safe in that country are the snakes dealing oil from the US and the UK.

Yes ISIS kills Muslims - why? Because its backed by the West.

Anyone who quotes statistics from a newspaper needs education - not me. I've been places u haven't. I've met people you haven't. And you never will.

I don't discourse with those whose knuckles scrape the floor when they walk.

I'm out of this conversation. I hate ignorance and stupidity.

[Arkless Electronics]

But you forget the reasons for going into these countries intilayy were distinct from Isis which has come about after, but you also ignore that Isis groups have killed more civilians than any western forces. As to the rubbish about oil, I don't believe in conspiracy theorists. This was said around the time of going into Iraq, despite the entire political agenda of many countries around a desire to remove leaders such as sadaam hussein. They went in with the aim of removing him. I don't suppose you know if these countries have benefited from oil anyway.

And as to other conspiracy theories about governments being involved in Manchester let me shoot that down too. Unless you haven't realised, these terrorist incidents have happened all across Europe, so is there some form of multi government conspiracy. It gets even more far fetched.

And it is distressing and offensive to write this. What do you suppose the survivors, family members or relatives think, or those that have experienced terrorist incidents (like me on 7/7) think when they read this sort of bad ignorant views, going back to my earlier post around page 7

Try actually reading my posts before replying....

As far as Manchester goes well for a start I didn't mention it... But i will now. The completely OTT blanket news reporting on all media, interviews with grieving relatives etc etc is exactly what the terrorists want to see. We are playing into their hands. We should just keep calm and carry on. There was no OTT hand wringing etc when similar atrocities were perpetrated by the IRA.
That some atrocity such as this was on the cards has been known for a long time. There is no rational reason why it should change anything, but this whole thing is now being used for political capital in the forthcoming general election and being used as an excuse for racism and religious intolerance by dick heads.

[Pieoftheday]

I have never understood terrorist s that kill innocent people going about their lives? What does it achieve? Do they think ooh I'll kill a load of children it can't fail to help our cause? :scratch:

[Dynamics]

Try actually reading my posts before replying....

As far as Manchester goes well for a start I didn't mention it... But i will now. The completely OTT blanket news reporting on all media, interviews with grieving relatives etc etc is exactly what the terrorists want to see. We are playing into their hands. We should just keep calm and carry on. There was no OTT hand wringing etc when similar atrocities were perpetrated by the IRA.
That some atrocity such as this was on the cards has been known for a long time. There is no rational reason why it should change anything, but this whole thing is now being used for political capital in the forthcoming general election and being used as an excuse for racism and religious intolerance by dick heads.

You are going off tangent to the point I made against your point there...

[Macca]

I don't discourse with those whose knuckles scrape the floor when they walk.

I'm out of this conversation. I hate ignorance and stupidity.

Out of order. Debate like a mature individual or don't debate at all.

[Dynamics]

Don't tell me im speaking rubbish when I have family in Libya experiencing the aftermath of the wests interference in what was a stable, prosperous, tolerant society.

The only people safe in that country are the snakes dealing oil from the US and the UK.

Yes ISIS kills Muslims - why? Because its backed by the West.

Anyone who quotes statistics from a newspaper needs education - not me. I've been places u haven't. I've met people you haven't. And you never will.

I don't discourse with those whose knuckles scrape the floor when they walk.

I'm out of this conversation. I hate ignorance and stupidity.

To me you hold the worst views of people on this matter because it strikes me you are ignorant as to the situation in the Middle East.

Your points about why people join Isis and being due to western influences is appalling and is condoning terrorism or apologising for it (or any word of similar meaning). I notice you didn't reply to that and it is a horrible attitude which is ignorant of all the facts of what goes on. I'd refer you to my previous reply. it's the thing if I was in government I'd squash out. Ignorance to the situation in the Middle East is what can perpetuate uk people to commit terror crimes against the uks people, and that's a very dangerous thing indeed.

[Joe]

Think you might need to re-read my posts Joe, my point appears to have eluded you.

And just because bad things happened in the name of God 500 years ago does not excuse murdering children now.

Fair enough; I'm in the middle of some tedious DIY and may be guilty of speed-reading at the expense of comprehension, my brains fuddled by noxious fumes.

I'm (of course) not attempting to excuse child murder, simply pointing out that self-identifying Christians have been murdering other Christians by the million for centuries (and up to the last century, not just 500 years ago), so a simplistic Christianity = peace, Islam = war equation won't work. Both religions advocate peace, leaders of both religions advocate or condone war.

[farflungstar]

To me you hold the worst views of people on this matter because it strikes me you are ignorant as to the situation in the Middle East.

Your points about why people join Isis and being due to western influences is appalling and is condoning terrorism or apologising for it (or any word of similar meaning). I notice you didn't reply to that and it is a horrible attitude which is ignorant of all the facts of what goes on. I'd refer you to my previous reply. it's the thing if I was in government I'd squash out. Ignorance to the situation in the Middle East is what can perpetuate uk people to commit terror crimes against the uks people, and that's a very dangerous thing indeed.
How dare you say I condone terrorism - I do not. But it's about time this was looked at in an adult way as to why those in the middle East become radicalised and the wests part in it. They don't just wake up and suddenly hate us - they have their reasons - no matter how twisted in our eyes. As to why people in the UK become radicalised I have no idea. That's something I cannot and have not commented on.

Anyway - Marco -apology given.

[Marco]

Guys,

Before I get the chance to reply to some posts made while I was out, I must *insist* that everyone 'plays the ball, not the man', and that no-one criticises, personally insults or demeans anyone's intelligence or 'lack of knowledge' [at the end of the day with something like this, none of us are experts, so we simply know what our experience has told us or what we have read to date on the matter] - and worse of all, accuse anyone of 'condoning terrorism', simply due to not having properly grasped their argument! :doh:

So, let's rein in the emotion, stop the personal comments ("dickheads", "arses", etc), and STICK SOLELY to the topic of discussion. That applies to everyone. Ta! :cool:

Marco.

[Dynamics]

I haven't read that blog. I don't support violence of any type. Period. But I want you to think about this...


Take a moment to think about how you feel for your wife, your kids, your home, yourself.

Now imagine this....

You live in a poor area of scrubland in the back of no where.

You are 12 years old, you don't go to school, and you live with your dad, your mum, and your sister in a little house raising goats. You're happy. Life is simple. The sun rises and sets. Laughter is within your home and your heart.

Then one day you see planes crossing the sky. You hear your parents whispering together at night. The ruler of your land has been killed by outsiders. They are afraid but they tell you not to worry.

Then a few weeks later people you recognise as from your own people turn up and you watch as your sister is raped in front of your family and sold into prostitution, as your mum is raped then butchered, and as a bullet is put into the head of your weeping father.

Who do you blame for this - the people who did it or the people who took out the person in charge, the law and control.

Those who murdered your family whisper lies to you, they brainwash you and put a gun in your hand and a bomb round your waist. You don't know what is right or what is wrong or who is to blame for the destruction of your way of life. But now there is no laughter in your heart - only hate and confusion.

This is the reality of the situation. This is why terrorists exist and are created.

Now - think again about your family.

Can you just clarify this. You think the person who bombed Manchester has nothing to do with religion, you said in a previous post. That is quite outrageous.

. In clarification of this point above, you think that Isis strong holds in Syria are to do with foreign governments. You think the murdered victims of Isis crimes, cause people to join Isis and other terrorist groups. This is very f--ked up if I may say so, as is not how the situation is working in the Middle East. This is very ignorant indeed. Can you also consider and comment on the number of people Isis have killed against estimates from foreign forces.

This is condoning terrorism or whatever word you want to use, because you are legitimising it using this language and that the democratic decisions of our government taken for different reasons allow people to retaliate and be terrorists and that it's acceptable or a reasonable or foreseeable response. In other words our government caused more Isis fighters to kill infinitely more people. Absolutely not. No. It's being an apologist for terrorism. This is what choudhary was doing on tv. Not that isis members should take responsibility for themselves overseas. Do you not realise you are doing this. you are doing this through ignorance.

[Joe]

The West (effectively the US and the UK) has, by a series of cack-handed 'interventions', destabilised at least four countries in the Middle East, with hundreds of thousands killed and millions displaced. To suggest that there might be some link between our actions there and the actions of terrorists here is not to condone terrorism, nor does it require belief in some far-fetched conspiracy involving Jill Dando, Jimmy Saville and Princess Diana. The interventions were for a variety of reasons; aiding the 'enemy of our enemy' led to us arming Afghan freedom fighters, who became terrorists when they turned against us. The interventions in Libya and Syria were aimed at promoting democracy and 'freedom'. It's worth bearing in mind what the road to Hell is paved with.

[Dynamics]

You don't too think it's to do with the application of what these Isis people believe as Sunni muslims and that Shia muslims are believed by them to be apostates and should die as a consequence. You don't think that's why they are killing Shia muslims. You think it's our government still.

[farflungstar]

1. I was hypothesising why a 12 year old child with probable PTSD might be manipulated into becoming radicalised.

2. I was hypothesising why one Muslim might kill another - meaning they are not Muslims but acting politically and suggesting this might be traceable back to the west.

3. My family was in Lebanon during the last Israeli bombing and I and my family saw both the reality and the propaganda on TV.

4. My sister's husband's family live in their cellar in Libya and don't know if today is their last if they go to the market.

5. My sister's husband is involved in the oil industry both there and here and knows who is safe going in and going out - the US/UK.

This s experience - not from the Daily mail.

[Joe]

You don't too think it's to do with the application of what these Isis people believe as Sunni muslims and that Shia muslims are believed by them to be apostates and should die as a consequence. You don't think that's why they are killing Shia muslims. You think it's our government still.

I will admit to not knowing the killer's motives, which may have been simple, or complicated.

When we aided Stalin in WWII, we did so because Hitler needed to be defeated. We did not intend that post-War, Stalin should take control over swathes of Eastern Europe, killing and forcibly displacing millions in the process, but he was able to do so partly, at least, because of the arms and equipment we supplied him with. That doesn't excuse his actions, of course, and we may have had no choice but to arm and support him.

[Dynamics]

1. I was hypothesising why a 12 year old child with probable PTSD might be manipulated into becoming radicalised.

2. I was hypothesising why one Muslim might kill another - meaning they are not Muslims but acting politically and suggesting this might be traceable back to the west.

3. My family was in Lebanon during the last Israeli bombing and I and my family saw both the reality and the propaganda on TV.

4. My sister's husband's family live in their cellar in Libya and don't know if today is their last if they go to the market.

5. My sister's husband is involved in the oil industry both there and here and knows who is safe going in and going out - the US/UK.

This s experience - not from the Daily mail.

You weren't hypothesising, you stated in your message this is why terrorism occurrs, in your last sentences. But it's so far flung to state that those killed or harmed by Isis are now joining them due to thinking that the reasons for Isis starting and causing injury to that persons family, is due to western forces. This is so far fetched to the reality of what's going on, who is killing who in the Middle East, it's clearly ignorant. Do you really believe this as a way for how Isis carries on. You don't think they are using a political agenda of the type of beliefs you hold, i.e. That's it's the western fault, to latch on to a caliphate state which is their aim, killing people in the process. We didn't destabilise and create Isis, we gave them an excuse they have used to kill and hurt people, and recruit our citizens to their horrible cause.

[Arkless Electronics]

I condemn the past few posts by "Dynamics" in the strongest possible terms! Outrageous! How dare you accuse anyone merely trying to understand WHY these people turn to extremism, their motives, who talked them into it, whether any western govs are indirectly involved etc, of condoning or apologising for such horrific acts.

I'm out of here... it smells bad.

[farflungstar]

Who supplies the arms?
Who supplies the training?

The CIA trained the rebels (whoever they might have been) and gave them arms in Libya. This is known.

Whatever you might think this is about power and politics - and it's naive to believe the West, all powerful as it is, isn't involved. Whether training and arming - or for strategic reasons.

Is there a particular reason why you're trying to put me into a corner?

[walpurgis]

Stop bickering guys. You are in danger of mass deletions or finding this thread locked.

[walpurgis]

Discuss calmly and politely please. If this thread is to continue, kindly avoid argumentative comments and personal remarks!

[Pieoftheday]

I'm really not liking what some news channels are doing, earlier today one of them went to where the recent bomber came from, as the report went on they played music over sections as though to increase the tension,like a fookin film, what's up with these people,tossers

[Dynamics]

Who supplies the arms?
Who supplies the training?

The CIA trained the rebels (whoever they might have been) and gave them arms in Libya. This is known.

Whatever you might think this is about power and politics - and it's naive to believe the West, all powerful as it is, isn't involved. Whether training and arming - or for strategic reasons.

Is there a particular reason why you're trying to put me into a corner?


No I can confidently say that a decision of a British man, who was basically little more than a kid, being indoctrinated to kill fellow British citizens has nothing to do with anyone else except him. We all have responsibility for our actions, and to start blaming foreign policy decisions on causing suicide bombers is in poor taste. You think the west caused him to press the button and blow himself up, not a far stretched political and religious ideal he aspired too.

[Firebottle]

I'm really not liking what some news channels are doing, earlier today one of them went to where the recent bomber came from, as the report went on they played music over sections as though to increase the tension,like a fookin film, what's up with these people,tossers

I agree. IMO it is all part of the 'capitalist' indoctrination of the media. More viewers, more airtime, more sales, more profit. Saddening.

[Macca]

re ISIS my understanding is that they were formed from the remanants of the Iraqui Republican Guard.

They expected to remain in the Iraqi army after the coalition and continue to keep Iraq stable. The Americans made an enourmosu blunder by completely dismantling the existing Iraqi army and starting afresh.

Disillusioned and feeling rejected they decided to start out on their own.

A lot of the issues were caused by the West/The Americans. That cannot be denied. On the other hand you cannot invade and attempt to reconstruct a country like Iraq without making at least some mistakes. It did not help that as soon as Saddam and his army were history the Sunni and Shia were at each other's throats immediately. Why was that necessary? We are not dealing with an entirely rational mindset here.

Joe - re Gadaffi and Saddam I do not think the intention was to bring them democracy by intervening. Nothing so high-minded. It is postulated that both leaders were threatening to start selling oil in Euros instead of dollars, thus threatening the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency. Perhaps that is untrue, I don't know but it certainly seems more likely than the 'bringing democracy' argument. Plenty of other nations are not democracies and we are not invading them.

Removing the Americans from any foreign policy making decisions would help a lot IMO. Trouble is they have all the troops, planes and boats so they call the shots and they make bad calls way too often.
To my mind a man attacks troops invading his country, that is warfare and can be justified. He deliberately attacks children, that's murder and cannot be justified. I don't care how many of his family have died or in what circumstances.

[Dynamics]

Adria, Also how do you draw a link between Libya and salman abedi. His father was associated to a militant organisation to overthrown gadaffi in the 1990s which is said to have disbanded in 2011, the father lives there, but according to the sister salman abedi was annoyed by US bombing of Syria and obviously IS.

So there is no way to link US involvement in Syria to remove IS to stop their rampage and killing innocent Shia muslims, as an apology for this British man killing British citizens. Can you possibly make the explanation for me per my last point about how you reckoned air strikes on Syria by the US against IS could be cause for a British based man to bomb Manchester. I think you said you may not have understood British terrorism, but i wonder how can it be anyone else's fault but abedis.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/25/salman-abedi-wanted-revenge-us-air-strikes-syriamanchester-bombers/

[Joe]

Joe - re Gadaffi and Saddam I do not think the intention was to bring them democracy by intervening. Nothing so high-minded. It is postulated that both leaders were threatening to start selling oil in Euros instead of dollars, thus threatening the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency. Perhaps that is untrue, I don't know but it certainly seems more likely than the 'bringing democracy' argument. Plenty of other nations are not democracies and we are not invading them.


Libya/Syria were seen to be part of the so-called 'Arab Spring'.

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

Whatever the real motive for intervention, some high-minded Westerners believed that, with Assad and Gadaffi gone, liberal democratic structures would emerge. Wishful thinking, of course. I recall one poster on A N Other forum getting excited about the prospect of Syria being free from a brutal dictator. I quoted the words of Robert Walpole to the effect that 'Today they are ringing the bells, tomorrow they will be wringing their hands', and was accused of being cynical.

[Dynamics]

Martin, IS saw it as a political opportunity to take challenge against the Shia muslims and run riot and kill and pillage. The present situation is around Syria and the infiltration of Isis and this terrorist went to Syria before returning to Manchester. This is a concerted effort by is to form an Islamic Sunni state. That's the point. People like abedi is a symphathiser to an Islamic state with sharia law, by being indoctrinated and the use of a political cause - that of the killings by the US against IS and this agenda and a purer form of Islam in sink with original strict scriptures. That's what's going on.

[Pieoftheday]

I agree. IMO it is all part of the 'capitalist' indoctrination of the media. More viewers, more airtime, more sales, more profit. Saddening.

Saddening indeed Alan, I suppose this sort of thing has been going on not long after 24/7 news came along,these people must yurn for dreadful events, shameful

[Macca]

Libya/Syria were seen to be part of the so-called 'Arab Spring'.

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

Whatever the real motive for intervention, some high-minded Westerners believed that, with Assad and Gadaffi gone, liberal democratic structures would emerge. Wishful thinking, of course. I recall one poster on A N Other forum getting excited about the prospect of Syria being free from a brutal dictator. I quoted the words of Robert Walpole to the effect that 'Today they are ringing the bells, tomorrow they will be wringing their hands', and was accused of being cynical.

LOL - why don't people learn some history? Everything happens just the same as it always does. When the Iraq invasion began I suggested to some friends who were still big Blair fans that if the 'Allies' wanted to find some weapons of mass destruction then they had better take some in with them. Yes, I was accused of being cynical...

[struth]

LOL - why don't people learn some history? Everything happens just the same as it always does. When the Iraq invasion began I suggested to some friends who were still big Blair fans that if the 'Allies' wanted to find some weapons of mass destruction then they had better take some in with them. Yes, I was accused of being cynical...

surprised they didnt, but that may be the point, or one of them;)

[struth]

PS folks, please remember not to call each other names or be insulting. There have been instances already, and that has to stop

[Dynamics]

But it was about regime change and removing a murdering killing despot. And bloody right too. It was nothing to do with wmd for me, then and now. That was the liberal politics of the uk trying to cook up legitimacy for war with the US. Most people who were a bit gullible then didn't realise it was about regime change. That was what the yanks wanted i.e. Regime change, and without them nobody was going into Iraq.

[Macca]

But it was about regime change and removing a murdering killing despot. And bloody right too. It was nothing to do with wmd for me, then and now. That was the liberal politics of the uk trying to cook up legitimacy for war with the US. Most people who were a bit gullible then didn't realise it was about regime change. That was what the yanks wanted i.e. Regime change, and without them nobody was going into Iraq.

But why did they want regime change? Saddam came to power in '79 IIRC, he was always a murdering, killing despot, that's how he got the job! 2003 they finally decide they'd better do something about it.

Fact is 'he was a sunovabitch but he was 'our sunovabitch' - until he decided to change the terms of the deal. Then he's a murdering despot who can hit the UK with an anthrax loaded missile in 10 minutes.

Whatever the specific reason it was the oil. It's always the oil. That's the only truly simple thing about the whole subject.

[Macca]

surprised they didnt, but that may be the point, or one of them;)

Yep no-one thought it might be an idea to fake some WMD. Or they did but decided not to risk it. Bet if Blair had the chance again he be on the blower telling them 'Just do it! Get some paint and a stencil and write 'Anthrax' on some oil drums!'

Hindsight eh? ;)

[Pieoftheday]

But it was about regime change and removing a murdering killing despot. And bloody right too. It was nothing to do with wmd for me, then and now. That was the liberal politics of the uk trying to cook up legitimacy for war with the US. Most people who were a bit gullible then didn't realise it was about regime change. That was what the yanks wanted i.e. Regime change, and without them nobody was going into Iraq.

To be fair Simon wmd was the lie that took us there, lies rarely make things ok

[montesquieu]

Useful discussion here on the topic.

https://audioboom.com/posts/5952576-the-islamist-worldview-why-the-manchester-bomber-did-it

[Dynamics]

But why did they want regime change? Saddam came to power in '79 IIRC, he was always a murdering, killing despot, that's how he got the job! 2003 they finally decide they'd better do something about it.

Fact is 'he was a sunovabitch but he was 'our sunovabitch' - until he decided to change the terms of the deal. Then he's a murdering despot who can hit the UK with an anthrax loaded missile in 10 minutes.

Whatever the specific reason it was the oil. It's always the oil. That's the only truly simple thing about the whole subject.

The oil issue is a conspiracy theory idea for me. Has no credibility and anyway do the Americans actually own oil installations there and would the billions in defence spent of public money outweigh the cost to set up installations there. Probably no. They went in to get rid of him due to regime change and it was fairly obvious why. Something unprecedented happened at the time - that was 9/11, and with the Iraqi failure to comply with weapons inspectors, the Americans lost patience, and with the continued detriment to Iraq and world peace, I think it was action that was inevitable.

And if I was a Kurd and all the people he tortured, the children he imprisoned, the torturing and murders, the gassing and lives lost in wars with Iran, I think it was welcome and the Iraqi people wanted it. The fall out was clearly very bad indeed, but I supported intervention because I think the people of the country deserved a chance. More than under hussein.

But the issue and going back to the thread is, as appears from the news, an IS terrorist going to Syria. And IS came about after the Iraq invasion.

[Dynamics]

To be fair Simon wmd was the lie that took us there, lies rarely make things ok

No we were going in no matter what. That decision was taken when bush decided it after 9/11 and Blair was effectively a passenger to stand against terrorism and world peacse and removal of threats like Sadaam, as being an ally of the US. Whatever the rights or wrongs. The wmd question was a rouse and lie that Blair had to present to the electorate to get the uk on board with us involvement, because the liberals of the uk wouldn't support our intervention in a foreign matter and without a un resolution.

But this question and the one Martin posed to me is of no consequence really to what happened in this bombing. A British man influenced by IS in Syria it seems from the sister and news today. IS didn't even exist at the time of the Iraq invasion.

[Macca]

The oil issue is a conspiracy theory idea for me.

.

See I don't understand that. Oil is the fundamental that underpins the economy and everything we take for granted in our lives. Iraq has the largest known and easily accessible oil reserve on the planet.

How can that not be a factor? Who owns the oil and gets the revenue is not so important. The guaranteed and continuous supply of oil is what is important. If that stops, or even stutters, economy falls over.

[Pieoftheday]

No we were going in no matter what. That decision was taken when bush decided it after 9/11 and Blair was effectively a passenger to stand against terrorism and world peacse and removal of threats like Sadaam, as being an ally of the US. Whatever the rights or wrongs. The wmd question was a rouse and lie that Blair had to present to the electorate to get the uk on board with us involvement, because the liberals of the uk wouldn't support our intervention in a foreign matter and without a un resolution.

But this question and the one Martin posed to me is of no consequence really to what happened in this bombing. A British man influenced by IS in Syria it seems from the sister and news today. IS didn't even exist at the time of the Iraq invasion.

Never the less wmd was a lie fed to us. Who started this? I couldn't give a shit anymore.killing kids anywhere in the world is the work of cowards

[Joe]

The regime change thing went well, didn't it? I expect the vast majority of Iraqis would prefer to have Saddam back in charge rather than the chaos left behind after he was toppled.

[Pieoftheday]

No we were going in no matter what. That decision was taken when bush decided it after 9/11 and Blair was effectively a passenger to stand against terrorism and world peacse and removal of threats like Sadaam, as being an ally of the US. Whatever the rights or wrongs. The wmd question was a rouse and lie that Blair had to present to the electorate to get the uk on board with us involvement, because the liberals of the uk wouldn't support our intervention in a foreign matter and without a un resolution.

But this question and the one Martin posed to me is of no consequence really to what happened in this bombing. A British man influenced by IS in Syria it seems from the sister and news today. IS didn't even exist at the time of the Iraq invasion.

With respect of Iraq war,we were lied to.isis have released a press release, they hate us, westerners, because of of our beliefs, no mention of why they kill other Muslims, bunch fookwits

[Dynamics]

I don't look at it as being lied to. Clearly we were, but that's politics. But the issue of being lied to was moot as far as a uk involvement in Iraq as we were always going to stand by the side of the Americans and the Americans were going in. I knew this at the time and it was clear Blair was making up or falsifying a legitimate reason when he couldn't join the Americans on a regime change reason, for reasons I mentioned. Politicians were arguing at the time whether there were wmd or not before going in, and it was clearly a politicised premise to hold up an invasion too.

[LC1979]

The interventions in Libya and Syria were aimed at promoting democracy and 'freedom'. It's worth bearing in mind what the road to Hell is paved with.

I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but this last part is classic conditioning. This was the fig leaf cover story, sure, and no doubt many MPs and people in power were able to get on board with this idea if they resisted the cognitive dissonance with the fact that such interventions have never before in modern history succeeded in bringing democracy and 'freedom' (what does that mean anyway?!). Those wars were fought for cold hard strategic reasons, nothing more or less. The sooner people realise this the easier it becomes to have meaningful conversations about the situation in the ME.

[LC1979]

No I can confidently say that a decision of a British man, who was basically little more than a kid, being indoctrinated to kill fellow British citizens has nothing to do with anyone else except him. We all have responsibility for our actions, and to start blaming foreign policy decisions on causing suicide bombers is in poor taste. You think the west caused him to press the button and blow himself up, not a far stretched political and religious ideal he aspired too.

Why so black and white, this or that?

Yes, individual responsibility, sure. Yes, radicalisation through religion. Yes, the kid was a gullible idiot. Yes, our foreign policy is perfect recruitment fodder for ISIS.

I don't understand how anyone could disagree with any of the above statements. I would also add: yes, obvious support and collusion with extremist factions by secret services of UK, US, Saudi, Quatar, Israel et al.

[Joe]

I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but this last part is classic conditioning. This was the fig leaf cover story, sure, and no doubt many MPs and people in power were able to get on board with this idea if they resisted the cognitive dissonance with the fact that such interventions have never before in modern history succeeded in bringing democracy and 'freedom' (what does that mean anyway?!). Those wars were fought for cold hard strategic reasons, nothing more or less. The sooner people realise this the easier it becomes to have meaningful conversations about the situation in the ME.

The 'freedom and democracy' bit was for the idealistic young, the Facebook/Twitter/whatever demographic who could feel part of the process of change by 'liking' something on Facebook or 'following' it on Twitter. Older people (essentially the Daily Mail/Express/Sun readership) got the 'these nasty foreigners are out to kill us, it's us or them' message.
The people in the know would as you say be aware that all of this was just window-dressing.

I guess part of the reason that some people fell for the idealistic message was that Soviet bloc countries managed the transition from dictatorship to democracy without much bloodshed, so in theory it should have been possible in the Middle East too. Of course, a huge factor in the case of the Soviet bloc was that the USSR simply let its empire fall apart. Had someone like Putin been in charge back then, I doubt it'd have been so (relatively) trouble-free.

[Dynamics]

Why so black and white, this or that?

Yes, individual responsibility, sure. Yes, radicalisation through religion. Yes, the kid was a gullible idiot. Yes, our foreign policy is perfect recruitment fodder for ISIS.

I don't understand how anyone could disagree with any of the above statements. I would also add: yes, obvious support and collusion with extremist factions by secret services of UK, US, Saudi, Quatar, Israel et al.

black or white on what. I don't believe conspiracy theories for the very reason they are far fetched and I'm not stupid.

[Joe]

black or white on what. I don't believe conspiracy theories for the very reason they are far fetched and I'm not stupid.

This isn't about conspiracy theories, though, it's about actions having (unintended) consequences, and about motives, of both governments and individuals, being mixed or unclear. Do you really believe a bloke from Libya would have set off a bomb in Manchester had there been no UK involvement in his country?

[LC1979]

No I can confidently say that a decision of a British man, who was basically little more than a kid, being indoctrinated to kill fellow British citizens has nothing to do with anyone else except him. We all have responsibility for our actions, and to start blaming foreign policy decisions on causing suicide bombers is in poor taste. You think the west caused him to press the button and blow himself up, not a far stretched political and religious ideal he aspired too.


black or white on what

You were denying a link between US/UK foreign policy and the actions of this Mancunian kid, who you see as wholly and individually responsible. I was saying it's not that simple. No need to bring conspiracy theories into it.

PS - I hate that derogatory ad hom term. It's already a conspiracy by definition as he clearly​ wasn't acting entirely alone, so I'm simply suggesting that the conspirators may not be who you think they are, or might possibly include unaccountable agents in the field who have an agenda that we may never completely understand.

If you find that impossible to contemplate, that's fine, but throwing around that term as if it proves something is not helpful, in my opinion.

[LC1979]

I don't believe conspiracy theories for the very reason they are far fetched and I'm not stupid.

Well, that's me put back in my box then! :lol:

[Dynamics]

This isn't about conspiracy theories, though, it's about actions having (unintended) consequences, and about motives, of both governments and individuals, being mixed or unclear. Do you really believe a bloke from Libya would have set off a bomb in Manchester had there been no UK involvement in his country?

I believe terrorism is caused by a mix of indoctrination, a political agenda which terrorists latch onto for their own ends and encourage people into the ideal, often people of a different social economic standing and often in developing and less civilised countries which makes it easy to encourage, and very strongly the influence of highly religious Islam which is practised in countries in the region to extremes which are not tolerated by westerners and are often very contrary to our own laws. E.g. Sharia law

We can't as a civilised society put a simple reason as interfearance in another country for our reasons to have consequences in terrorism which we should somehow foresee with the complex melting pot of issues (as above) which cause these people to blow people up. Also where is personal responsibility in this and the rule of law, which terrorism doesn't have any concept for.

In any event he wasn't a bloke from Libya. Sure his father lived there but he was a 23 year old British citizen living in Manchester all his life. It wasn't his country. His country was the UK, and he lived in the family home we saw being raided on the tv.

So when I hear people simplify it and say that it's our western fault for intervention in these countries to overthrow tyrants and despots which is taken for reasons in a democratic society, I really Dispair. Also this argument fails to realise that terrorism by islamists has happened for many many years, before Iraq and Afghanistan, and this gives credence to my argument this terrorism is politicised.

[Dynamics]

You were denying a link between US/UK foreign policy and the actions of this Mancunian kid, who you see as wholly and individually responsible. I was saying it's not that simple. No need to bring conspiracy theories into it.

PS - I hate that derogatory ad hom term. It's already a conspiracy by definition as he clearly​ wasn't acting entirely alone, so I'm simply suggesting that the conspirators may not be who you think they are, or might possibly include unaccountable agents in the field who have an agenda that we may never completely understand.

If you find that impossible to contemplate, that's fine, but throwing around that term as if it proves something is not helpful, in my opinion.

I don't think this is a very intelligent thing to say. I'm not saying you aren't intelligent.

We know very well the distorted reasons why the people blow people up, by strict interpretation of Islam and indoctrination by scholars and political organisations. Not because it hasn't happened before, but because it has happened again and again. Not just here but around the world. It's not then credible to start believing a conspiracy idea we don't understand. We do.

I do deny a link between foreign policy and this kid, because he has responsibility and so do we to other citizens in our society. To say there is a link is to somehow give legitimacy to a cause of terrorism. Now I'm clearly not saying you agree with terrorism, but if you say our policies caused him to be a terrorist, this basically amounts to this legitimacy and is what IS want in starting an Islamic state or what other organisation want credence for. Or what this bomber wants by the very reason he does what he does in the first place. (He believes he is doing good to a political religious ideal and is a martyr by killing himself and others). That democtraically elected decisions of our government have caused him to be a terrorist, which is quite far flung. Do you not see this.

We are blowing up IS in Syria to remove IS who are killing thousands of Shia muslims. Now how can this guy go over to Syria, maybe get indoctrinated there if the British jihadis and fanatics haven't done a job on him in the uk already, possibly fight against the Americans and us in bombing IS to stop their killing of these Shia muslims (one supposes he did go over there to fight as reported by the media he was in Syria recently) and then it's our foreign policy decision to stop him wanting to kill Shias and setting up of a barbaric Islamic state, that has somehow been instrumental in causing him to blow people up. This is so far removed from reality. Don't you think it could be all the previous things I mentioned in indoctrination, radical Islam, political agendas, his own gullible personality. Also add into the mix which I did not mention - his own mental health and probably lack of any relations or father figures to watch over him in the uk. His father lives in Libya. Who the hell can he blow someone up and not be mentally ill too.

We have states like Syria and Assad encouraging terrorism for his own political ends against the west.

[LC1979]

I do deny a link between foreign policy and this kid... To say there is a link is to somehow give legitimacy to a cause of terrorism.

No, it really isn't. To suggest that it is implies that you think people live in a vacuum and aren't influenced by a whole range of factors.

[Joe]

I believe terrorism is caused by a mix of indoctrination, a political agenda which terrorists latch onto for their own ends and encourage people into the ideal, often people of a different social economic standing and often in developing and less civilised countries which makes it easy to encourage, and very strongly the influence of highly religious Islam which is practised in countries in the region to extremes which are not tolerated by westerners and are often very contrary to our own laws. E.g. Sharia law
[...]
So when I hear people simplify it and say that it's our western fault for intervention in these countries to overthrow tyrants and despots which is taken for reasons in a democratic society, I really Dispair. Also this argument fails to realise that terrorism by islamists has happened for many many years, before Iraq and Afghanistan, and this gives credence to my argument this terrorism is politicised.

Would you accept that the cause, or at least a cause of IRA terrorism was British involvement in Ireland over several centuries?

[Macca]

Would you accept that the cause, or at least a cause of IRA terrorism was British involvement in Ireland over several centuries?

It was the excuse, not sure you could call it the cause. The freedom fighting was just a cover for more pedestrian gangster activity. Handy for recruiting gullible youths to the firm, though.

[Dynamics]

It was the excuse, not sure you could call it the cause. The freedom fighting was just a cover for more pedestrian gangster activity. Handy for recruiting gullible youths to the firm, though.

Absolutely because you can't ever excuse terrorism.

[Dynamics]

No, it really isn't. To suggest that it is implies that you think people live in a vacuum and aren't influenced by a whole range of factors.

So how would foreign policy cause him to bomb people given what I mentioned in previous posts. What do you propose for this point?

[montesquieu]

It was the excuse, not sure you could call it the cause. The freedom fighting was just a cover for more pedestrian gangster activity. Handy for recruiting gullible youths to the firm, though.

100% right ... I say that as a Catholic brought up in the west of Scotland in the 70s and seeing much of the crap at first hand - it was perfectly possible to see the social injustices a short stretch of water away (or actually, sometimes close to home), to watch on TV the B Specials beat unarmed people up, to watch the Bloody Sunday footage, to feel the fear as the flute bands made streets (Scottish streets) a drunken, sweary no-go area for a large minority of people, to broadly support the political aspirations of constitutional nationalists in the North, and at the same time to utterly reject violence in all its forms and feel empathy for anyone in any community caught up in it. All it takes is a smidgeon of moral sensibility - nearly all Catholics condemned the shootings and bombings and beatings, even as their own people were taken off the streets and murdered (by both sides). Most people know absolutely the difference between right and wrong.

For that reason, all the conspiracy theory bolllocks, all the blaming of outright murder on foreign policy, on 'alienation' and victim narratives, makes me sick. What about personal responsibility? What about the very real actions of evil people motivated by religious extremism? How about listening to the terrorists' own words:

https://capx.co/want-to-know-why-the-terrorists-hate-us-jeremy-just-ask-them/

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/jeremy-corbyn-politicising-islamist-murder/

Not sure if the latter link 'Jeremy Corbyn politicising Islamist murder' is paywall or not (people should have access to three articles before it kicks in) but just in case, let me extract a snippet:


H
Corbyn called for honesty about the ‘connections’ between ‘wars our government has supported or fought in other countries and terrorism here at home’. He didn’t deny that the terrorist who plants a bomb in Britain bears ultimate responsible for his murderous behaviour — this is not about ‘reduc[ing] the guilt of those who attack our children’, he said — but he did say that our foreign policy motivates them. It ‘fuels’ their terror. The ‘responsibility of government’ is to pursue a foreign policy that ‘reduces rather than increases’ terrorism. So Britain’s policies have increased terrorism. We’re at least partly to blame for what happened in Manchester. There’s another way of saying that: we brought this upon ourselves.

This is a kind of victim-blaming, to use Corbynista parlance. And victim-blaming always involves, by extension, a watering down of the perpetrator’s guilt, and sometimes even a normalisation of his motives. Corbyn is implicitly dragging Abedi’s barbarous actions into the moral universe of anger about war or frustration with foreign policy. He is taking this attack from the sphere of religious nihilism and placing it in the realm of normal or at least understandable politics. To those who say Abedi’s actions were senseless, people like Corbyn effectively say: ‘Actually they made sense. This was a kind of fury with foreign policy.’

This weird instinct to politicise Islamist murder, to locate it on the spectrum of what we all recognise as politics, doesn’t even make sense in its own terms. If terrorists are fuelled by an anger or despair over what our foreign policy has wrought, then why do they blow up girls at a pop concert rather than, say, the Ministry of Defence? (Which they shouldn’t do, by the way.) More to the point, why do they insist that their attacks will continue even if we were to stop intervening in their countries? Last year, Dabiq, the horrific glossy in-house journal of Isis, said: ‘[E]ven if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam.’

There you have it, in blood-stained black and white: Isis murderers might well play the foreign-policy card, but the true reason they attack us is because we refuse to bow before their extreme religious writ. We now have the very strange situation where Corbyn is basically saying ‘If we change our foreign policy there will be fewer attacks’, and Isis is saying, ‘No there won’t be, because we’ll still loathe you for your nasty, heathen ways’. I’m sorry, but when it comes to the question of why Isis attacks us, I’m more inclined to believe Isis than Corbyn.

In the days since the Manchester attack I’ve encountered loads of people saying our foreign policy is to blame or that Blair is at the root of this current chaos. If only he hadn’t invaded Iraq. There is curiously prejudiced bent to this argument. The suggestion seems to be that Iraqis or Libyans or Syrians do not bear true responsibility for the movements they create or the policies they pursue. I agree that Blair’s invasion of Iraq was a colossal error and that it created a post-Saddam vacuum into which all sorts of forces could move and grow. But these forces, including Isis, are made up of sentient adults. They have free will. They are consciously choosing to be evil. To blame Blair, or Cameron or May, for what Isis does in Fallujah, never mind in Manchester, is to suggest these people lack moral capacity and autonomy. It is an ironically colonialist take on allegedly child-like foreigners; it’s tinged with racism.

Corbyn and others don’t only run the risk of elevating the likes of Abedi when they say his terror is a response to foreign policy — they also demean the very noble enterprise of opposing war overseas. They use the politics of fear to try to drum up concern about British foreign policy. They effectively say, ‘If we continue with these policies, there will be more terror in our towns and cities’. They prey on people’s insecurities rather than appealing to us with a principled argument against intervening in other states. Make your case, Corbyn — don’t rely on Abedi to make it for you.


Personal choices. Right and wrong. It's not rocket science. Stop being apologists for evil.

[Dynamics]

Hi Tom
I read your post fully and the first article in full and couldn't agree more. You are spot on and know your stuff. Corbyn does try and ride on prejudice and his weakness and political will to try and win at all costs, is shining through. He does also try and play on the ignorant, who don't have an opinion, haven't thought it through properly and aren't willing to educate themselves of all the facts which is an important consideration of our time and will to route out terrorism. It does after all come from a collective will - to stamp this out. Corbyn is maybe able to pray on his argument due to prejudice and ignorance.
What's clear is the people like Adam Deen, Douglas Murray and others in Quilliam tell it how it is and have been doing so since the Manchester bombing, and your comments about how fanatics don't care about what we propose or wish to do, that they wish to see through the agenda of their convictions, no matter what, is clearly very obvious. It's been obvious for a very long time.
Corbyn is an inept man who I hope by these comments is stamped out. I think he will be and with more pressure on him to leave, when the conservatives inevitably win, at least we may have the opportunity of some 'brains' for a sensible and intelligent discussion about terrorism from the opposition.
Bw Simon

[Marco]

It's been obvious for a very long time. Corbyn is an inept man who I hope by these comments is stamped out. I think he will be and with more pressure on him to leave, when the conservatives inevitably win, at least we may have the opportunity of some 'brains' for a sensible and intelligent discussion about terrorism from the opposition.
Bw Simon

Lol... Shows you how it's all about opinions! I completely disagree, not necessarily on the "inept" bit, as to an extent he may be.

However, for me, he's the best of the bad bunch with any chance of winning - and most importantly, aside from whatever faults he has, I believe that his heart's in the right place, and fundamentally a humanitarian - and as such someone who will always put the needs of the people/common man ahead of those of the establishment, which badly needs to happen in our country, as it's been the opposite for WAY too long...!!

And *that* is what we need more of (decent, caring human beings in politics), especially in the troubled times we now live in. Therefore, I'd take a little 'ineptitude' every time over arrogant warmongering greed, and further lining the pockets of fat cats. In that respect, I'd no sooner vote Tory, and for that May witch, in the forthcoming election, than the NF!!

Marco.

[Dynamics]

Lol... Shows you how it's all about opinions! I completely disagree, not on the "inept" bit. To an extent he may be.

However, for me, he's the best of the bad bunch with any chance of winning - and most importantly, aside from whatever faults he has, I believe that his heart's in the right place, and fundamentally a humanitarian - and as such someone who will always put the needs of the people/common man ahead of those of the establishment, which badly needs to happen in our country, as it's been the opposite for WAY too long...!!

And *that* is what we need more of (decent, caring human beings in politics), especially in the troubled times we now live in. Therefore, I'd take a little 'ineptitude' every time over arrogant warmongering greed, and further lining the pockets of fat cats. In that respect, I'd no sooner vote Tory, and for that May witch, in the forthcoming election, than the NF!!

Marco.

I think you may be right Marco but this is a different question to the terrorist issue. But I don't think corbyn will win and he probably has a snowball in hells chance of doing so. But I'm not making a political statement above but confining to the terrorist question. I've decided not to vote, as I don't believe in either. It will be the first time I've never voted.

[Marco]

Fair enough mate, and that's your decision, which I respect.

I usually vote Welsh Nationalist (if I still lived in Scotland I'd vote SNP), but for the first time in my life am considering voting Labour, purely for reasons expressed above, and because I have a pathological hatred for the establishment and all it stands for, so in that respect, want my vote to be put to its best use, even if ultimately it's a losing one. At the very least, it'll act as a small protest.

The thing is though, in terms of the terrorism angle, and it's been touched upon before on this thread, you can't deny (no matter how justified it is in a human and caring way), how the media (in particular the BBC news) has bombarded us with images of everything you could possibly imagine in relation to the recent attack and its aftermath, and I'm afraid it is pure unadulterated propaganda, purposefully designed to deflect attention away from the fact that the Tory election campaign, and the unconvincing interviews May has conducted on TV, in that respect, [especially BEFORE the bombing] has been as woefully inept as your claiming of the same of Corbyn.

Now of course that's not said to demean or undermine how deplorable the recent atrocity was, and it's only natural that we should be told about how it has affected people since, and will continue to do so forever, *but* only a blind man couldn't see that it's been carried out *to the extent that it has* purely and simply to facilitate the best interests of the elite losing popularity[/I] [B]before the Manchester bombing], to whom Tory policy will always pander to - and it is that type of blatant propaganda/psychological conditioning that boils my piss to a level you wouldn't believe!!

In that respect, although extremely unlikely (as the current Tory brainwash runs too deep), few will be celebrating more than me if they should lose this election. Not because I'm a Labour supporter, per se, but because a Labour win would be a major poke in the eye for the interests of the establishment - and so anything that 'GETS IT RIGHT UP THEM', and puts a spanner in their works, would put a HUGE grin on my fizz! :):)

Marco.

[walpurgis]

I am also considering a Labour vote Marco. The thought of continuing oppression of ordinary people by the Tories is a horror. I don't like Corbyn, but he is undoubtedly the better of two evils (if you can accept a limp wristed, far too leftist, ageing hippie :rolleyes:). Maybe after a Labour victory (fat chance), they'll depose him and find a leader with a broader appeal.

[Marco]

I am also considering a Labour vote Marco. The thought of continuing oppression of ordinary people by the Tories is a horror.

Yup, mate. That's it in a nutshell - and trust me, the long-term implications of such, if it happens (which seems likely) will be even more HORRIFIC, for the ordinary people of Britain and world safety, than anything a lone terrorist anywhere could ever do!!

Marco.

[Dynamics]

Fair enough mate, and that's your decision, which I respect.

I usually vote Welsh Nationalist (if I still lived in Scotland I'd vote SNP), but for the first time in my life am considering voting Labour, purely for reasons expressed above, and because I have a pathological hatred for the establishment and all it stands for, so in that respect, want my vote to be put to its best use, even if ultimately it's a losing one. At the very least, it'll act as a small protest.

The thing is though, in terms of the terrorism angle, and it's been touched upon before on this thread, you can't deny (no matter how justified it is in a human and caring way), how the media (in particular the BBC news) has bombarded us with images of everything you could possibly imagine in relation to the recent attack and its aftermath, and I'm afraid it is pure unadulterated propaganda, purposefully designed to deflect attention away from the fact that the Tory election campaign, and the unconvincing interviews May has conducted on TV, in that respect, [especially BEFORE the bombing] has been as woefully inept as your claiming of the same of Corbyn.

Now of course that's not said to demean or undermine how deplorable the recent atrocity was, and it's only natural that we should be told about how it has affected people since, and will continue to do so forever, *but* only a blind man couldn't see that it's been carried out to the extent that it has purely and simply to facilitate the best interests of the elite losing popularity[/I] [B]before the Manchester bombing], to whom Tory policy will always pander to - and it is that type of blatant propaganda/psychological conditioning that boils my piss to a level you wouldn't believe!!

In that respect, although extremely unlikely (as the current Tory brainwash runs too deep), few will be celebrating more than me if they should lose this election. Not because I'm a Labour supporter, per se, but because a Labour win would be a major poke in the eye for the interests of the establishment - and so anything that 'GETS IT RIGHT UP THEM', and puts a spanner in their works, would put a HUGE grin on my fizz! :):)

Marco.


No I don't think so. How would reporting of the atrocity deflect away from the election campaign. The campaign was suspended for a short time anyway, and the BBC have in this time reported on the facts of the attack as known, mainly. I agree the BBC aren't impartial and never have been, and won't ask tough questions of Islamic terrorism. You are talking to the converted on this with the BBC. If you watched question time last night with Amber Rudd not challenging the causes of Islamic terrorism, nor dimbleby taking to task, you'd maybe know what I mean on not taking these tough questions on terrorism to task.

But people understandably want to know about terrorism. Who was it. Am I safe. What is being done. Can I go to Manchester or gatherings. Is it the same cause before. These questions are the subject of considerable debate in workplaces and are legitimate and the BBC have the coverage on this time or coverage balanced I'd give them that.

I'm not sure what the BBC could talk about politically if the parties both suspended the election campaign for a few days. They certainly seem to have got back on the campaign today.

How is it propaganda as you say. I think there is an argument to be had, people should tastefully see more in the media from photos, of the manchester scene, redacted as graphically necessary, to show people more what terrorism is really about.

[Marco]

No I don't think so. How would reporting of the atrocity deflect away from the election campaign.

I think that's very obvious. I explained it on post #210. Scroll back and re-read it.

However, we'll just 'agree to disagree', as I've made my point, crystal clear, and don't wish to become embroiled in a pointless and (likely circular) argument, as we clearly have quite different views on this matter :)

Marco.

[Dynamics]

I'm very interested in understanding others views. I don't think it's obvious. A good debate or argument is great. It's what these politicians don't do.

[Dynamics]

Argument in constructive and debating terms.

[Marco]

I'm very interested in understanding others views. I don't think it's obvious. A good debate or argument is great.

Yes, but I get bored with this kind of stuff, and prefer talking about (or rather doing) things that interest me far more than politics! ;)

Anyway, time for bo-bos... Catch you later :goodnight:

Marco.

[Macca]

I am also considering a Labour vote Marco. The thought of continuing oppression of ordinary people by the Tories is a horror. I don't like Corbyn, but he is undoubtedly the better of two evils (if you can accept a limp wristed, far too leftist, ageing hippie :rolleyes:). Maybe after a Labour victory (fat chance), they'll depose him and find a leader with a broader appeal.

If Labour win surely that would mean he does have a broad appeal? Unless Labour change the way they elect the leader they will always have a a limp wristed, far too leftist one, win or lose. Those Labour supporters who think that once they have lost this election Corbyn will go and be replaced by someone closer to the middle ground are deluded. The party members will just re-elect him or someone similar.

[Marco]

I don't follow politics closely enough to the extent of knowing who's in the various parties, so is there anyone currently in the Labour party, closer to the middle ground, but still shares Corbyn's anti-war humanitarian qualities, who could potentially be a good leader?

Marco.

[Macca]

It doesn't matter whether there is or isn't because the leader is elected by the party members, the vast majority of whom are not political moderates.

[Marco]

Fair enough. I was just curious to know if such a person existed. Personally, I'd draft in John Prescott... ;)

I love his no-nonsense approach and values, and especially how successfully he 'connects' with the electorate! :D

Him and Ann Widdecome (from the opposite side) are my type of politicians. To coin a good Scottish word, they would soon 'tober' some of the assholes around who badly need 'tobering'!!

Marco.

[struth]

I better say nowt :eyebrows:

[Marco]

Lol - go on, let's hear it! You'll know what 'tober' means.... ;)

Marco.

[struth]

was going to say the only good politician is a dead politician;) Labour are set up to lose alas, and the Tories know it. TBH the labour party know it too thus the sucker offering of Corbyn. They need an Atlee in charge, or a Blair to have a chance. Today their best chance is Sadiq Khan although the bigots would probably have a field day.
The Country is screwed:doh:

Current leader has no tober;) in him

[walpurgis]

If Labour win surely that would mean he does have a broad appeal?

No. Folk may vote Labour out of desperation and frustration regardless of Corbyn being in charge, rather than put up with further Tory piss-taking. That's the way I feel.

[Marco]

Ah I see, fair points., including the last one...

Just been slowly going through the discussion of this topic on pfm, which as usual is interesting, particularly how Tony has chosen to moderate it, and found someone there agreeing with me (not just Merlin):


It's like a gift from god for May's election campaign, how sick does that sound, yet so true.

22 families, children, grand children, great grand children, all gone

May will grab it & run.

Strong stable government, they won't win, try telling that to the bereaved families.
Every time this happens they win FFS.


Indeed.

Marco.

[Marco]

No. Folk may vote Labour out of desperation and frustration regardless of Corbyn being in charge, rather than put up with further Tory piss-taking. That's the way I feel.

Me too. I'm not particularly a fan of Corbyn, and like others fully recognise his limitations, but for me his overriding asset right now, is his anti-war humanitarian traits, and desire to tackle terrorism, not by using more bombs against the enemy, but with peaceful negotiation (however that may successfully be achieved), which would act as a badly needed antidote to the current warmongering polices that (as he says) clearly aren't working!!

And right now, I'd forgive Corbyn for his faults, simply for our government to fundamentally change its outlook, in that respect, and for us to try, however hard it may be, to MEND some bridges, instead of tearing them down.

Marco.

[Macca]

Me too. I'm not particularly a fan of Corbyn, and like others fully recognise his limitations, but for me his overriding asset right now, is his anti-war humanitarian traits, and desire to tackle terrorism, not by using more bombs against the enemy, but with peaceful negotiation (.

Appeasement, you mean.

This is fundamental to Corbyn's problem. He is so naïve he thinks you can talk to these nutters and reach some common ground. That isn't possible.

[struth]

Appeasement, you mean.

This is fundamental to Corbyn's problem. He is so naïve he thinks you can talk to these nutters and reach some common ground. That isn't possible.

you can say that about anyone or group who thinks they are right. They, unfortunately dont want to live in peace and harmony with anyone... what to do? well what we are currently doing isnt really working and history shows it wont work

[Marco]

Appeasement, you mean.

This is fundamental to Corbyn's problem. He is so naïve he thinks you can talk to these nutters and reach some common ground. That isn't possible.

I don't think his approach would be as simplistic as that. He may be 'inept' (I don't necessarily consider him as naïve), but he's not stupid. There are subtler ways of going down the negotiation route, which could be tried, and may ultimately be rather more effective than the current 'plan of action', which is clearly failing miserably.

All I'm saying is that, with Corbyn and May, and their respective approaches to terrorism (along with those of the US) it's a case of yin/yang. We've had the yin for long enough now, which has failed and significantly contributed to the current mess we're in, so now let's try some yang!

Marco.

[Dynamics]

I don't think it's a discussion id ever get bored about, the one about what causes terrorism and what can be done, but lots of things are being talked about in this thread going over into politics. It's not boring because I think we have to think about these things in depth, to get a proper public mood so that powers that be do something about it. I bet the people who have lost loved ones don't e.g. Jim Swire, Lockerbie bombing.But one of the biggest issues with these types of debates is that most don't really have a view. I think this is a problem.

[Marco]

But one of the biggest issues with these types of debates is that most don't really have a view. I think this is a problem.

Indeed, and ALL views in that respect here are welcome, as long as during a debate they're both politely expressed and don't (directly or indirectly) demean the contrary views of one's 'opponent', or make unqualified judgements on their apparent level of 'ignorance', as that constitutes as a personal remark, and won't be permitted.

In terms of boredom, well that's subjective. You can't *make* someone be interested in something that they're not, no matter how different you feel to the contrary, so if they're bored they're bored.

I don't study politics in any serious way (or get geeky about it), as it doesn't sufficiently interest me to do so, therefore when discussions become too 'deep' and involve examining the minutiae of political or religious history, etc, and stuff I know nothing about, my eyes glaze over, in a similar way to when hi-fi discussions revolve around science and measurements. Just not my bag.

I'm the type who simply comments on *my experiences* and what I see happening around me in everyday life, or in the world in general, and form my opinions (rightly or wrongly) on that basis, but of course at the same time am always willing to learn from people who know much more about politics than me, especially those with diametrically opposing views, as the only way you truly learn in these matters is to know how the 'enemy' thinks.... ;)

In truth though, opposing views from your own, no matter how unpalatable (as long as they're not racially offensive or threatening), should *always* be examined and considered, as it forces you out of your comfort zone to think differently, and with anything in life, that's often how one gets to the truth!

As someone said during the discussion on pfm, in reference to the Manchester bombing:

"Let's be frank here. It's 98% certain that one of the positions that you will not hear voiced has an element of truth and should be open for discussion - 2% likely that it's a mentally ill loner with a drug problem."

That [the bit in bold] is bang on, and why such will be allowed to be discussed here, regardless of how 'difficult' some may find it. We're not interested in being 'politically correct', simply in allowing everyone to have their fair say, on an unquestionably emotive issue, within the guidelines set.

Marco.

[walpurgis]

The politics of greed will scupper any good intentions and there will never be peace in the middle east until the oil runs out (and probably not afterwards either)!

[Dynamics]

In truth though, opposing views from your own, no matter how unpalatable (as long as they're not racially offensive or threatening), should *always* be examined and considered, as it forces you out of your comfort zone to think differently, and with anything in life, that's often how one gets to the truth!

Marco.

Well I think you've made my point for me (as above) and I agree with you above totally, because if one isn't willing to have a proper discussion on the matter and gets bored it's clear one can't have the discussion to force people into thinking or out of their comfort zone, and I'd rather get to that than other matters if that's what the thread is about, as it is. But if I say I think someone is ignorant on the issue, then that's a view and it is not a personal insult. It means I think they are ignorant on that issue, they may not be so in eyes of others. Especially if I qualify what I've said.

The thing is I think British people get upset if they are challenged, as being personal. It's different in other cultures. I actually have no problems with my views challenged or debated or critisised, otherwise I wouldn't challenge others. But when you do so, people seem to make it personal. I think that's probably what the guy on the message is doing, and to be honest, having it highlighted. So if that's the case, and Ive got that right, it's not an opinion but a personal insult. And that's very different and someone should take offence at it. And I just have if I'm right on these aforementioned comments in the message. But I'm not going to use mental health against him in a derogatory sense.

[Dynamics]

The politics of greed will scupper any good intentions and there will never be peace in the middle east until the oil runs out (and probably not afterwards either)!

But how has that got to do with Manchester Geoff, and a British born person bombing his own citizens.

[Marco]

But if I say I think someone is ignorant on the issue, then that's a view and it is not a personal insult. It means I think they are ignorant on that issue, they may not be so in eyes of others. Especially if I qualify what I've said.


Sorry, Simon, no. It's effectively a personal insult because no-one likes to be judged in that way by someone who is to all intents and purposes a complete stranger, and so in reality knows virtually nothing about them or their apparent knowledge or experience.

Although i understand where you're coming from, that's not how we conduct ourselves here, simply from the point of view that neither you nor I are qualified to judge someone else's 'level of ignorance', because said 'ignorance' could simply be wrongly perceived, as a result of the person concerned not expressing themselves properly (maybe they're not the most eloquent of writers), or perhaps simply from not having enough time to sit and type out exactly what they mean, and so for the sake of quickness, merely post some immediate thoughts.

That and the fact that not everyone is into 'immersing themselves' in a debate, and spending the time needed to do so, which is why no-one here is judged on their level of ignorance or otherwise, especially when they may *actually* know more than you (although initially it might not seem that way)...

Furthermore, and most importantly, you can put your point across just as well without judging folk like that, so there is simply no need for it. At the end of the day, it only gets peoples backs up, then they respond in a similar vein, and the whole thing gets out of hand, thus is completely counterproductive to having a friendly debate, which is what happened here yesterday.

Therefore please bear that in mind in future, during discussions on AoS, no matter the topic in question. The very same principle also applies on hi-fi discussions. The fact is, you have little chance of realistically ascertaining someone's true knowledge [thus their level of ignorance], on any subject, simply through conversing with them briefly on a forum.


The thing is I think British people get upset if they are challenged, as being personal. It's different in other cultures. I actually have no problems with my views challenged or debated or critisised...

That's good, as free speech (within reason) is what's promoted on AoS, but it must always be carried out within the framework and guidelines we've set, in terms of how we insist that members here conduct themselves :)

Marco.

[struth]

But how has that got to do with Manchester Geoff, and a British born person bombing his own citizens.

The family were all a bit dubious as far as is told. Father was a anti Brit. Notice most fled back ti homeland before he struck suggesting they knew full well . Just because your born in a country doesnt make you truly a national. Thats in the heart.

[Joe]

But one of the biggest issues with these types of debates is that most don't really have a view. I think this is a problem.

Often it's best to start out without a view, because it enables one to keep an open mind whilst weighing up different/opposing opinions, and on some issues, the arguments are so finely balanced that, as the saying goes, a feather will go to tip the scales. The problem more often is that people have fixed viewpoints and will not only not consider alternatives, but will ascribe the worst motives to those who differ from them.

There's a risk in this, of course, of ending up in a state of indecision, forever wavering from one side to another, but that's less risky IMO than an excess of certainty.

[Dynamics]

The family were all a bit dubious as far as is told. Father was a anti Brit. Notice most fled back ti homeland before he struck suggesting they knew full well . Just because your born in a country doesnt make you truly a national. Thats in the heart.


I was talking about your previous point and how it is relevant. Oil had nothing to do with him bombing.

[Dynamics]

Often it's best to start out without a view, because it enables one to keep an open mind whilst weighing up different/opposing opinions, and on some issues, the arguments are so finely balanced that, as the saying goes, a feather will go to tip the scales. The problem more often is that people have fixed viewpoints and will not only not consider alternatives, but will ascribe the worst motives to those who differ from them.

There's a risk in this, of course, of ending up in a state of indecision, forever wavering from one side to another, but that's less risky IMO than an excess of certainty.

Ive had more than enough time now to weigh up my views on terrorism reading a lot on the subject, and I'd guess this is the same for most uk citizens who have lived here since at least 7/7. but with respect to this site and people opinions, I got my views from reading various sources and books and not believing one media outlet, and not from a forum. But balancing it up so when the article presents a man being killed by an elephant, I ask was he actually hunting an elephant, was it an accident, was he a conservationalist. When you dig deeper you find out the reality and different from the paper sound bite. More than someone taking a view he is some sort of monster trophy hunter. But I don't need to know a paper are talking bs when someone blows themselves up and I see the pictures from the New York Times or tv footage. I can see the propoganda leaflets as one man highlighted on question time if you watched it. Sadly people take these sound bites, aren't inquisitive to know if the news is true and try and find out the best they can, and form a view around the credibility of it. It is very sad of our society.

There are very limited reasons for terrorism, sadly not those our government want to tackle head on.

[Haselsh1]

It has been mentioned somewhere in the media that at the time of the explosion there was a strong smell of oil. I reckon if that is true the bastard has used ammonium nitrate and diesel with a detonator which is a hell of a powerful improvised explosive. The IRA used to use it quite a bit.

[walpurgis]

It has been mentioned somewhere in the media that at the time of the explosion there was a strong smell of oil. I reckon if that is true the bastard has used ammonium nitrate and diesel with a detonator which is a hell of a powerful improvised explosive. The IRA used to use it quite a bit.

Ammonium Nitrate & oil or diesel is a slow explosive and is unlikely to have produced the type of detonation described from the amount a backpack would hold. It is more effective in large quatities, as Timothy McVeigh demonstrated in Oklahoma City. I believe the Canary Wharf, Docklands bombing was similar too. I'd expect if H.E.'s were not at hand, gunpowder may have been used, as it is effective in smaller amounts and easily obtained unfortunately.

If you want to know how I know. Put it down to a misspent youth. I and a few others made and experimented with a variety of explosives and blew things up for entertainment, long before terrorist concerns came along I'd add. It might have been frowned upon back then (over sixty years ago), but was not taken desperately seriously.

[Dynamics]

It clearly looked professional from the leaked New York Times pics of the so called detonator or trigger. But it could have been an aftermarket one, but whatever whoever put it together knew what they were doing. But I doubt it takes a lot to put a bomb together anyway from off the shelf chemicals, nor much skill. They did say his legless torso was found outside the foyer some way away.

[Haselsh1]

gunpowder may have been used, as it is effective in smaller amounts and easily obtained unfortunately.

Gunpowder is not a high explosive as it does not produce a supersonic shockwave and does not have to be detonated. This would have been totally unsuitable for the Manchester bomb.

[Haselsh1]

If you want to know how I know then it is 33 years working as a chemist in industry getting very well paid for my sins.

[Dynamics]

I read it's the same type of tatp (acetone peroxide) bomb used in Paris and London 7/7 and people did report white smoke at Manchester, which these devices are known to give off.

[walpurgis]

Gunpowder is not a high explosive as it does not produce a supersonic shockwave and does not have to be detonated. This would have been totally unsuitable for the Manchester bomb.

I know it's not an H.E., but it would have been fast enough. It was good enough for grenades.

[Firebottle]

There are very limited reasons for terrorism, sadly not those our government want to tackle head on.

Erm, total idiocy for wanting everyone to accept and convert to islam? A totally F**ked up interpretation as well?

In my book any religion worth it's salt promotes good will to all men, and women!

[walpurgis]

A slightly happier note.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/24/homeless-hero-who-pulled-nails-out-of-childrens-faces-is-given-a-home-6657746/?google_editors_picks=true

[Dynamics]

Erm, total idiocy for wanting everyone to accept and convert to islam? A totally F**ked up interpretation as well?

In my book any religion worth it's salt promotes good will to all men, and women!

I agree, and uk Muslim people need to sit down with the Koran and take out all the violent bits or at least codify bits they deplore, like christians seem to have got over a long time ago. But there is a lot of violence in the Koran, you have to look hard in the bible, and it may not be be interpreted strictly by moderate muslims, but many British muslims agree with its content overseas where society doesn't limit its effect.