Manchester Arena

245678

Comments

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Yes.

    Should look at how the meedja covers Northern Ireland incidents of terrorism.

    Very different.
    _
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    JoeNobody wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    ...suggesting a news blackout?
    Doesn't need a news blackout, but neither does it need the crazy level of reporting that covers far more than we ever need to know. The BBC have an audio recording of the bomb going off. How is that in any way useful/relevant to anyone?

    Agreed, there is a balance needed between reporting what happened, and not wheeling anyone/everyone into the studio who happened to be in Manc that night.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,334
    Basically it's what I was saying... obviously you can't ignore the fact or censor media, but there has to be less snesationalism.

    London's one is a classic case. Had that not been terrorism, so for instance someone losing control of the car on Waterloo Bridge and killing a couple of pedestrians, it would have been covered in the local news, but because it was terrorism, it went on a loop for hours on end. It was totally blown out of proportion.

    I think the way forward is to "normalise" terrorism in the news, while investing more in prevention... doesn't look good the Tories are starving police of funds
    left the forum March 2023
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Imposter wrote:
    JoeNobody wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    ...suggesting a news blackout?
    Doesn't need a news blackout, but neither does it need the crazy level of reporting that covers far more than we ever need to know. The BBC have an audio recording of the bomb going off. How is that in any way useful/relevant to anyone?

    Agreed, there is a balance needed between reporting what happened, and not wheeling anyone/everyone into the studio who happened to be in Manc that night.

    Totally agree - the problem is though, everyone wants their say ... a bit like this thread ... and I'm as bad as the rest of you.

    IMHO, the national media should set an example in restrained reporting.
  • airborne_warrior
    airborne_warrior Posts: 199
    This is the inevitable fallout from sending UK Forces into Muslim countries and having pretty much unchecked immigration. You can't stir up a hornets nest and not expect to be stung.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Thanks for that insight.

    As an immigrant, could I tell you to f*ck the f*ck off?

    Nothing to do with being an immigrant. Everything to do with being a f*cking nutjob.

    Remember - the vast majority of terrorism that occurs in the UK done by UK born citizens.
    _
  • airborne_warrior
    airborne_warrior Posts: 199
    Dry your eyes sweetheart.

    Many terrorists (or would be) have been brainwashed by Islamic fundamentalists that have recently entered the UK.
  • earth
    earth Posts: 934
    Fenix wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    nickice wrote:


    How can you not point the finger at terrorists? If somebody is prepared to die in the process of killing people it's very difficult to stop them.

    I can, but it's a waste of time... it's worse, in fact, it's just playuing their game... the more you talk about them, the more it makes sense for them to blow up. As a paradox, if they never made the headlines, they would not bother... it's probably worth considering whether covering these events is something that should be stopped altogether

    I can kind of see the point here - in the US they go loopy over coverage of their Lone Shooters. That's what the Shooter wants. Infamy. They should put a guideline that you can only mention their name once and not give them the attention that they crave.

    I don't think the terroist want infamy. Ultimately I think they are trying to change the way we live. The tactic is to make people afraid of doing things that the terrorist sees as wrong or make the activity so awkward that it disuades people from doing it.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,334
    earth wrote:

    I don't think the terroist want infamy. Ultimately I think they are trying to change the way we live. The tactic is to make people afraid of doing things that the terrorist sees as wrong or make the activity so awkward that it disuades people from doing it.

    Of course, that's exactly the point... and the bigger the news the more afraid you are going to be... basically media are advertising danger, until you buy into it
    left the forum March 2023
  • airborne_warrior
    airborne_warrior Posts: 199
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    Of course, that's exactly the point... and the bigger the news the more afraid you are going to be... basically media are advertising danger, until you buy into it

    The media thrive off atrocities like this. Bad news catches peoples attention much more than good news.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Airborne Warrior wrote:
    Dry your eyes sweetheart.

    Many terrorists (or would be) have been brainwashed by Islamic fundamentalists that have recently entered the UK.

    What, like the northern Irish terrorists who blew up Manchester City centre?

    It's the divisive attitude you show that encourages guys to blow themselves up.

    They want to feel the hate and the discrimination - it justifies the actions in their minds.

    But I guess when you say immigrants you're not picturing people like me, are you?
    _
  • earth
    earth Posts: 934
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    earth wrote:

    I don't think the terroist want infamy. Ultimately I think they are trying to change the way we live. The tactic is to make people afraid of doing things that the terrorist sees as wrong or make the activity so awkward that it disuades people from doing it.

    Of course, that's exactly the point... and the bigger the news the more afraid you are going to be... basically media are advertising danger, until you buy into it

    I agree that the media are basically helping their campaign and they should be following the same protocols they did regarding IRA terrorism. If they cannot be made to change their coverage then you can always ignore it. I don't have a TV and therefore do not require a TV liscence. Without a money supply they will have to change or disappear.
  • airborne_warrior
    airborne_warrior Posts: 199
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Airborne Warrior wrote:
    Dry your eyes sweetheart.

    Many terrorists (or would be) have been brainwashed by Islamic fundamentalists that have recently entered the UK.

    What, like the northern Irish terrorists who blew up Manchester City centre?

    It's the divisive attitude you show that encourages guys to blow themselves up.

    They want to feel the hate and the discrimination - it justifies the actions in their minds.

    But I guess when you say immigrants you're not picturing people like me, are you?

    I wasn't aware PIRA have committed atrocities in the UK lately. You know full well I am referring to Islamic terrorism.

    If you're an immigrant from a Middle Eastern country than I'd say you're more likely to become involved in Islamic fundamentalism. After all Christians as far as I know don't commit Islamic atrocities. Though I am well aware most immigrants from those countries are well behaved citizens. I live ans work in a Muslim country and find it much better than living in the UK. Also find the people here much nicer on the whole.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    Basically it's what I was saying... obviously you can't ignore the fact or censor media, but there has to be less snesationalism.

    London's one is a classic case. Had that not been terrorism, so for instance someone losing control of the car on Waterloo Bridge and killing a couple of pedestrians, it would have been covered in the local news, but because it was terrorism, it went on a loop for hours on end. It was totally blown out of proportion.

    I think the way forward is to "normalise" terrorism in the news, while investing more in prevention... doesn't look good the Tories are starving police of funds

    i doubt you ve this sort of wall to wall news coverage in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, yet it still doesnt stop suicide bombings on a far greater scale - dont rationalise their actions, they dont appear to give any thought to any subsequent news coverage, its about taking human life & attacking the West and its supporters is what its all about, our culture and our way of life.
  • mr_goo
    mr_goo Posts: 3,770
    Firstly thoughts go to those that have lost or have injured loved ones. I cannot imagine the gut wrenching pain they are going through. Secondly their are some that cannot make contact with their children or partners that were at the event. This must be equally distressing, the not knowing.

    Onto the terrorist. Whoever is a victim of suicide bombers, whether in a Baghdad market or a Manchester concert hall. It is a simply sickening, barbaric thing to do. But what makes this attrocity have an edge on its vileness is that the bomber must have been aware of the demographic he was targeting. Young children, predominantly young teenage girls who were most likely to have been accompanied by their mothers and fathers. How sick in the mind can one get.

    I normally hate anything that Trump utters. But he got it spot on this morning. He called the terrorists losers not monsters. He's right. Monsters is a title they would revel in. Losers they won't like that label at all. But something in back of my mind thinks that his remark may just inspire these sick f***'s to do more.
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    earth wrote:

    I don't think the terroist want infamy. Ultimately I think they are trying to change the way we live. The tactic is to make people afraid of doing things that the terrorist sees as wrong or make the activity so awkward that it disuades people from doing it.

    Its not even as complex as that. IS is simply intent on killing 'non-believers' wherever they happen to be.
  • cougie
    cougie Posts: 22,512
    Not even sure they're arsed about who they kill. Anyone could have been passing. It's just gonna be some walter mitty sad sack loner loser probably wanting his 5 mins of fame. Such a waste for humanity.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Airborne Warrior wrote:
    This is the inevitable fallout from sending UK Forces into Muslim countries

    Islamic extremism was around long before UK forces were going into Muslim countries. If it were only about foreign policy, ISIS would say so (they've explicitly stated that it's because the West refuses to accept Islam) and there wouldn't be Islamic extremist attacks in countries that don't have a history (or at least a recent history) of sending forces into Muslim-majority countries.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    nickice wrote:
    Airborne Warrior wrote:
    This is the inevitable fallout from sending UK Forces into Muslim countries

    Islamic extremism was around long before UK forces were going into Muslim countries. If it were only about foreign policy, ISIS would say so (they've explicitly stated that it's because the West refuses to accept Islam) and there wouldn't be Islamic extremist attacks in countries that don't have a history (or at least a recent history) of sending forces into Muslim-majority countries.


    to save me Googling could you say which countries these are.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    So reports seem to be saying the bomber was born in Britain.
    _
  • airborne_warrior
    airborne_warrior Posts: 199
    nickice wrote:
    Airborne Warrior wrote:
    This is the inevitable fallout from sending UK Forces into Muslim countries

    Islamic extremism was around long before UK forces were going into Muslim countries. If it were only about foreign policy, ISIS would say so (they've explicitly stated that it's because the West refuses to accept Islam) and there wouldn't be Islamic extremist attacks in countries that don't have a history (or at least a recent history) of sending forces into Muslim-majority countries.

    To my knowledge I can't think of any Islamic atrocities in the UK prior to us going into Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. I fought the insurgents in both countries on more than a few occasions.

    ISIS came about mainly through the turmoil and vacuum left from (post Saddam) Iraq which was brought about by us invading that country. So yes, it is the inevitable fallout from sending Western Forces into Muslim countries.
  • fenix
    fenix Posts: 5,437
    Plenty of sickoes born and bred in Britain. It's not exclusive to foreign shores.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    Airborne Warrior wrote:
    This is the inevitable fallout from sending UK Forces into Muslim countries

    Islamic extremism was around long before UK forces were going into Muslim countries. If it were only about foreign policy, ISIS would say so (they've explicitly stated that it's because the West refuses to accept Islam) and there wouldn't be Islamic extremist attacks in countries that don't have a history (or at least a recent history) of sending forces into Muslim-majority countries.


    to save me Googling could you say which countries these are.

    Well the easiest answer would be Muslim-majority countries- Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, for example. But countries like Germany were not involved in the Iraq war, had a small contingent in Afghanistan, have welcomed over 1 million refugees from Muslim-majority countries, yet has still been sibject to several Islamic extremist attacks. The UK had had little involvement in the years before the first Iraq war yet Salman Rushdie was still the subject of several attempted murder bids.


    Why are atheist bloggers being killed in Bangladesh? There is no Western foreign policy element to that. Why are Yazidi Christians being taken as sex slaves in Iraq? In fact, why are Christian populations being forced out of countries like Iraq and Syria if it's all abotu Western foreign policy?
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Airborne Warrior wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    Airborne Warrior wrote:
    This is the inevitable fallout from sending UK Forces into Muslim countries

    Islamic extremism was around long before UK forces were going into Muslim countries. If it were only about foreign policy, ISIS would say so (they've explicitly stated that it's because the West refuses to accept Islam) and there wouldn't be Islamic extremist attacks in countries that don't have a history (or at least a recent history) of sending forces into Muslim-majority countries.

    To my knowledge I can't think of any Islamic atrocities in the UK prior to us going into Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. I fought the insurgents in both countries on more than a few occasions.

    ISIS came about mainly through the turmoil and vacuum left from (post Saddam) Iraq which was brought about by us invading that country. So yes, it is the inevitable fallout from sending Western Forces into Muslim countries.

    Salman Rushdie was subject to several attempted murder bids. And, although it's not the UK, 9/11 pre-dated the second Iraq war. Have you read what ISIS say about why the commit attacks? Foreign policy is not high on the list.
  • dinyull
    dinyull Posts: 2,979
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    So reports seem to be saying the bomber was born in Britain.

    Have there been any reports on his (or her) creed?

    I know ISIS have claimed it as their's....but they will claim anything.
  • Beatmaker
    Beatmaker Posts: 1,092
    Airborne Warrior wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    Airborne Warrior wrote:
    This is the inevitable fallout from sending UK Forces into Muslim countries

    Islamic extremism was around long before UK forces were going into Muslim countries. If it were only about foreign policy, ISIS would say so (they've explicitly stated that it's because the West refuses to accept Islam) and there wouldn't be Islamic extremist attacks in countries that don't have a history (or at least a recent history) of sending forces into Muslim-majority countries.

    To my knowledge I can't think of any Islamic atrocities in the UK prior to us going into Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. I fought the insurgents in both countries on more than a few occasions.

    ISIS came about mainly through the turmoil and vacuum left from (post Saddam) Iraq which was brought about by us invading that country. So yes, it is the inevitable fallout from sending Western Forces into Muslim countries.

    Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_London_Israeli_Embassy_bombing
  • airborne_warrior
    airborne_warrior Posts: 199
    nickice wrote:
    Why are atheist bloggers being killed in Bangladesh? There is no Western foreign policy element to that. Why are Yazidi Christians being taken as sex slaves in Iraq? In fact, why are Christian populations being forced out of countries like Iraq and Syria if it's all abotu Western foreign policy?

    The west has helped destabilise Middle Eastern and other Islamic countires (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan etc) which has had a direct bearing on the recruitment of fundamentalists and hatred of western powers and the West in general.
  • airborne_warrior
    airborne_warrior Posts: 199
    Beatmaker wrote:
    Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_London_Israeli_Embassy_bombing

    Is that it? One seige which had more to do with what was happening in Iran rather than western policies. Whoopee doo.
  • joenobody
    joenobody Posts: 563
    On the subject of media involvement and their desperation to get a story
  • airborne_warrior
    airborne_warrior Posts: 199
    JoeNobody wrote:
    On the subject of media involvement and their desperation to get a story

    Yep, the media on a few occasions paid or egged on some of the scrotes in West Belfast to goad us (British soldiers) into a reaction so they could film it or take photos.

Categories