Manchester Arena

nickice

Airborne Warrior wrote:

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.

Creating a power vacuum as the West did in Iraq is not the same as creating the problem. The problem was always there (you just have to look across the Iraqi border to Saudi Arabia to see that). And you've missed out the countries I talked about that have no recent Western interference. This is forgetting the fact that almost all terrorists in the West have been citizens of the countries they''re attacking (or other Western countriies)

Beatmaker

Airborne Warrior wrote:

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.

So you didn't mean

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.

then? You need to be more clear.

Anyway, I'm out of this conversation, some poor families are dealing with the fallout of losing loved ones today, and this thread, including my contribution adds nothing.

airborne_warrior

Okay I'll be clear. The Iranian Embassy Siege wasn't an atrocity against the general public of Great Britain. It was a show of defiance against Iran, hence taking over their embassy.

nickice

Airborne Warrior wrote:

Okay I'll be clear. The Iranian Embassy Siege wasn't an atrocity against the general public of Great Britain. It was a show of defiance against Iran, hence taking over their embassy.

Did you even look at the link?

airborne_warrior

nickice wrote:

Did you even look at the link?

Just seen. Jews and Arabs having a go at each other in the UK. The intent wasn't to cause widespread carnage to the British public in the name of Islam such as what the current theme seems to be.

I freely admit though that I didn't take this into consideration. It's hardly Islamic fundamentalism against the UK though.

nickice

Airborne Warrior wrote:

nickice wrote:

Did you even look at the link?

Just seen. Jews and Arabs having a go at each other in the UK. The intent wasn't to cause widespread carnage to the British public in the name of Islam such as what the current theme seems to be.

I freely admit though that I didn't take this into consideration. It's hardly Islamic fundamentalism against the UK though.

And the attempted murder of Salman Rushdie?

airborne_warrior

Wouldn't class it as an atrocity against the British public to be honest.

nickice

Airborne Warrior wrote:

Wouldn't class it as an atrocity against the British public to be honest.

You wouldn't class it as an attempt (just like the Charlie Hebdo attacks) to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws?

airborne_warrior

nickice wrote:

You wouldn't class it as an attempt (just like the Charlie Hebdo attacks) to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws?

I'd say it was Iran trying to do their dirty work in the UK or any other place they could target him. It had nothing to do with targeting the British general public which is what current Islamic fundamentalists are set on doing in present times.

davesnothere

Keyboard Warrior wrote:

Wouldn't class it as an atrocity against the British public to be honest.

nickice

Airborne Warrior wrote:

nickice wrote:

You wouldn't class it as an attempt (just like the Charlie Hebdo attacks) to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws?

I'd say it was Iran trying to do their dirty work in the UK or any other place they could target him. It had nothing to do with targeting the British general public which is what current Islamic fundamentalists are set on doing in present times.

There were British Muslims openly calling for his death in public and Cat Stevens did it live on television. Yet, according to you, it's all Iran. Any attempt to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws is an attack on the British public.

airborne_warrior

DavesNotHere wrote:

Keyboard Warrior wrote:

Wouldn't class it as an atrocity against the British public to be honest.

Haha keyboard warrior. The usual comeback from someone who is clueless. In fact I was a warrior for 24 years in The Parachute Regiment. What have you done lol?

ben@31

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.

You're forgetting that most of the fighting in the Middle East is actually Muslim versus Muslim. The UK forces are doing very little at the moment, its the Iraqi Government Army who are currently destroying ISIS on the ground in Mosul. Its our rules of engagement, to prevent any civilian casualties, that has stopped airstikes in Mosul. As the last remaining ISIS territory is too densely populated.
Islamic extremist attacks also occur in their own countries, not just against "the west".
I think UK foreign policy has nothing to do with this, it's just an apologist excuse used by The Guardian. All of this is caused by their sick death cult who have no morals or rules of engagement. These sick b*****ds also execute their own civilians who dont/wont live under their interpretation of Islam.

crispybug2

Don't know if anyone saw the Manchester poet Tony Walsh's poem for the city in the wake of the bombings?

I'm not from Manchester, I've only ever been there twice in my life, but the spirit of Tony Wilson and Ian Curtis coursed through that poem!

Pross

This has really shaken my 13 year old daughter. Not only was she at the Birmingham concert last week, her friend who lives a couple of doors from us has found out her cousin is among the dead. These things are always a shock but this is first time I've ever felt it to be so close to home.

earth

ben@31 wrote:

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.

You're forgetting that most of the fighting in the Middle East is actually Muslim versus Muslim. The UK forces are doing very little at the moment, its the Iraqi Government Army who are currently destroying ISIS on the ground in Mosul. Its our rules of engagement, to prevent any civilian casualties, that has stopped airstikes in Mosul. As the last remaining ISIS territory is too densely populated.
Islamic extremist attacks also occur in their own countries, not just against "the west".
I think UK foreign policy has nothing to do with this, it's just an apologist excuse used by The Guardian. All of this is caused by their sick death cult who have no morals or rules of engagement. These sick b*****ds also execute their own civilians who dont/wont live under their interpretation of Islam.

Blaming western foreign policy is no doubt the argument of self-loathing western apologists but my view is still that we should ignore their countries and have nothing to do with them. No policing of their dictators, no refugees and no deals with them. Leave them to fight amongst themselves as we know they do. Then we have to defend ourselves on our own shores and it is easy to justify that.

I know its not as simple as that but I don't think we will find a single solution.

rjsterry

As if the world is that simple.

ugo.santalucia

This has killed more people that the London attack of last month

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40026153

I doubt we'll hear more than 3 minutes about it in the news

dinyull

Because a crazed lunatic going out of his way to maim and kill innocent people at one of the most famous landmarks in the world is comparable to a road traffic accident how exactly?

And tbf, it's one of the main headlines on the BBC and Guardian websites the day after a major terror attack....

ugo.santalucia

Dinyull wrote:

Because a crazed lunatic going out of his way to maim and kill innocent people at one of the most famous landmarks in the world is comparable to a road traffic accident how exactly?

And tbf, it's one of the main headlines on the BBC and Guardian websites the day after a major terror attack....

That's the problem... it's about time we normalise terrorism and we start treating it as a fact of life, like road accidents are... as we try to minimise road accidents with smar motorways and more severe speed restrictions, we should start minimising the effects of terrorism, instead of every bloody time coming out with strong ideological statements, as if it was something so totally unexpected which was impossible to predict.

I still don't understand how every time it turns out the person in question was on a terror list, but somehow managed to do whatever he wanted to do...

Do we need new legislation? Do we need more resources? What we don't need are more ashtags and poets and big words from states men followed by nothing

kingstongraham

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I still don't understand how every time it turns out the person in question was on a terror list, but somehow managed to do whatever he wanted to do...

Depends how long the list is whether it is feasible to keep surveillance on every name on it.

We need to learn how to react that might persuade the next one that it is a waste of their life. I'm certain that this isn't it.

bendertherobot

We should definitely be deporting these home born terrorists back to where they came from and bringing back the death penalty for suicide bombers.

ugo.santalucia

KingstonGraham wrote:

Depends how long the list is whether it is feasible to keep surveillance on every name on it.

.. basically more resources are needed.

Bear in mind that the perception of scarce resources that the tories like to propagate has no foundations... this is not a developing country... employing more police and more James Bond won't bankrupt the country

fenix

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I still don't understand how every time it turns out the person in question was on a terror list, but somehow managed to do whatever he wanted to do...

Do we need new legislation? Do we need more resources? What we don't need are more ashtags and poets and big words from states men followed by nothing

I think 3000 people are rumoured to be on the terror list. The vast majority will turn out to be harmless but they mask the more dangerous ones.

How much resource would you need to cover 24/7 thousands of suspects ? Is it practical ?

I think you're not seeing the bigger picture Ugo. How many plots have the security service prevented ? Far more than get through. The terrorists only have to get lucky once to hit a target.

rjsterry

I was struck by the clarity of thought in this Twitter thread from Lawrence Freedman.

https://twitter.com/LawDavF/status/867286420242784256

fat daddy

Fenix wrote:

I think 3000 people are rumoured to be on the terror list. The vast majority will turn out to be harmless but they mask the more dangerous ones.

How much resource would you need to cover 24/7 thousands of suspects ? Is it practical ?.

when it was rumoured that there was 2000 people on the list, it was worked out for 24/7 surveillance you would need 50,000 people

airborne_warrior

bendertherobot wrote:

We should definitely be deporting these home born terrorists back to where they came from and bringing back the death penalty for suicide bombers.

I like what you did there!

ugo.santalucia

Fenix wrote:

I think you're not seeing the bigger picture Ugo. How many plots have the security service prevented ? Far more than get through. The terrorists only have to get lucky once to hit a target.

How do you know if it's all secret?

I am not invoking a new Stasi police, but certainly there is room for improvement...

If there isn't, then fair enough, let's stop mourning and instead celebrate how few casualties we have... :roll:

I mean FFS, we used to have chancellor that wanted to run the state as a company... he had even anticipated making a profit by the end of the decade... that's not the way you run a country

ugo.santalucia

fat daddy wrote:

when it was rumoured that there was 2000 people on the list, it was worked out for 24/7 surveillance you would need 50,000 people

that's 1.5 billion pounds, give or take... how much is trident again?

mfin

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Do we need new legislation? Do we need more resources? What we don't need are more ashtags and poets and big words from states men followed by nothing

I completely agree with this. BBC News 24 has been on constant repeat it seems, it is not news that people are disgusted or upset or grieving, of course they are. We don't need poetry trying to play to the mood, it is stupid. We don't need to hear tweets from famous people. The coverage should cover the facts and release them as and when they come out, and politicians' comments are utterly predictable and interchangeable so are not worth reporting unless they have any substance.

It is awful what has happened, of course there's barely anyone who'd disagree, people don't need to immersed in rolling coverage that dwells in nothing but how terrible it was.

On another note, I would like church leaders and events to be given absolutely no air time, the news tries to represent us as a christian country when the majority of people are not religious let alone christian and think it is all bôllocks.