UKC

Explosions and deaths confirmed at Ariana Grande gig:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-40007886

Just awful.

In reply to richprideaux:
Sounds odd perhaps a electrical or a pressure vessel explosion, but then there's clearly power from the videos. my concern is the stampede to leave. Does not look good

edit:
unless of course they are with holding footage

now seeing reports of double digit fatalities and wider anti terror response

In reply to richprideaux:

Thoughts and condolences to all involved and their relatives.

In reply to richprideaux:

Words cannot describe how horrific this is, my thoughts are with all of those affected.

In reply to Nordie_matt:

Live and work very close to it. The thought of going to work and finding out that some one I know has been personally affected is horrible. What a f*cked up world full of f*cked up people

In reply to richprideaux:

Horrendous. Condolences to the families and friends of the casualties.

In reply to richprideaux:

Now reporting 22 dead, and a potential suicide bomber as the cause.

Kids FFS, f*cking kids going to a gig!!! There is no hell hot enough for these scum.

In reply to richprideaux:

Police report;

This has been the most horrific incident we have had to face in Greater Manchester and one that we all hoped we would never see.

Families and many young people were out to enjoy a concert at the Manchester Arena and have lost their lives. Our thoughts are with those 22 victims that we now know have died, the 59 people who have been injured and their loved ones. We continue to do all we can to support them. They are being treated at eight hospitals across Greater Manchester.

This is a fast-moving investigation and we have significant resources deployed to both the investigation and the visible patrols that people will see across Greater Manchester as they wake up to news of the events last night. This will include armed officers as people would expect. More than 400 officers have been involved in the operation during the night.

To remind you, we were called at 10.33pm to reports of an explosion at the Manchester Arena at the conclusion of an Ariana Grande concert. More than 250 calls came in and emergency services were very quickly on scene. Emergency numbers have been established for anyone who is concerned for loved ones who may not have returned home: 0161 856 9400 or 0161 856 9900.

We have been treating this as a terrorist incident and we believe that while the attack last night was conducted by one man, the priority is to establish whether he was acting alone or as part of a network.

The attacker, I can confirm, died at the arena. We believe the attacker was carrying an improvised explosive device, which he detonated, causing this atrocity.

We would ask people not to speculate on his details or to share names. There is a complex and wide-ranging investigation under way.

Our priority is to work with the national counter-terrorist policing network and UK intelligence services to establish more details about the individual who carried out this attack."

In reply to richprideaux:
The people involved are sick and at the bottom line, obviously thoughtless as they cannot put themselves in the seat of empathy of anyone who has lost a friend or relative due to injury. They are sick in that they would know that most attending the concert were youths and children with a higher number of girls. The single suicide bomber must have had a number of helpers and associates in assembling the death vest with explosive and "dockyard confetti"(shrapnel causing nuts etc). They need to be found and made to pay in the highest terms.

My thoughts are with families and friends of those who died, are injured, or in that horrible situation of not knowing what has happened to their close ones.

In reply to richprideaux:

Sickening, absolutely vile. My thoughts are with everyone affected by, and dealing with, this atrocity.

In reply to Big Ger:

Two girls who went to nursery with my daughters were there (thankfully, both ok). My wife is quite shaken.
The media needs to start highlighting what bottom feeding inadequates these people really are.

In reply to richprideaux:

Je suis Manchester, as they say up north.

T.

In reply to richprideaux:

Horrific. My heart goes out to all those affected. This feels so close to home.

In reply to richprideaux:

Not sure what kind of ideology or cause could benefit from bombing schoolgirls on a fun night out. These guys really need to take a long, hard, look at themselves and their motivations.

Thoughts with the families and victims. An appalling act.

In reply to richprideaux:

Awful news. My heart goes out to all those affected.

In reply to Shani:


It's not an ideology, it's not a cause. It's nihilistic, social inadequates, striking out at a world that, quite rightly, doesn't give a shit about them.

In reply to Shani: "Not sure what kind of ideology or cause could benefit from bombing schoolgirls on a fun night out. "

Extreme violent patriarchy is common in the Islamic world. Not surprising that a nutter that follows this religion would be offended by young girls dressing provocatively at a pop concert.

In reply to Shani:

Terrorists thrive on atrocity - it hardens the fight and creates divisions in society. Absolutely what they want out of this is fear and reaction, as extreme as possible. Preferably making life very difficult for innocent people - such as the vast majority of peaceful muslims, or Irish Catholics, or whoever - and so straining community relations as much as possible.

What they want is for people to start attacking innocents, for legislative over-reaction, for emergency powers to be extended and potentially abused. Ahead of an election, they want to engender votes for fear and retribution. They will want more 'spectaculars' before the election for sure.

We have a chance to deny them that. The French managed to deny Le Pen despite extreme provocation. The police and security services will be flat out and under much scrutiny - not all of it justified - but we need to avoid another de Menezes, as well as another MEN. Their job is an unenviable one, but I'm glad they are there and wish them all care, skill and luck. Tough times are ahead - but we must not give the terrorists what they want.

b

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Has someone claimed responsibility now?

In reply to hokkyokusei:

I guess you're questioning the assumption that this was perpetrated by an 'islamist' bomber. Sadly I'd be extremely surprised if it was anything else.

In reply to hokkyokusei: "Has someone claimed responsibility now?"

Not yet. I was just giving an example to Shani of an ideology that wouldn't like young girls enjoying themselves at pop concerts in the West and whose extreme followers have a tendency to blow themselves up in crowded places or run people over.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

The police are saying that the individual who blew himself up appears to have been working in isolation, but of course they are working flat out to establish what political affiliations he may have had.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

he will have people who helped him with this and i hope they do something to make an example of them.

time to repeal the law that prevents extradition to countries that execute

i cant even think what it must have been like for the kids who were in there. this will haunt them for life

In reply to pasbury:


No, I was asking if someone had claimed responsibility, because I couldn't find any reports about that.

In reply to mark s:


Maybe, maybe not. If there were then hopefully they'll be caught before they can act again then properly tried like any other serious criminal.


I understand your anger but no, it isn't, these laws exist for the protection of all of us.
jk

In reply to mark s:

They may well be British nationals (most recent perpetrators have been). If accessories are caught they should be tried and punished under law like any other criminal.

In reply to ben b:


I think you may be ascribing a rational strategy where none exists. We hear these explanations after every terrorist atrocity, that they seek to sow division and fear and that we must not let them win. I'm not convinced that they have any goal other than chaos and death.

In reply to richprideaux:

I had friends crewing for the concert. Apparently all safe, thank goodness.

Devastated for somewhere I called home for 11 years and weirdly wish I was there right now.

Big love to any Mancunians on here and I hope all yours are safe.

In reply to planetmarshall:


In the case of IS (who this may be nothing to do with), what ben b describes is their explicitly stated aim.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

In the absence of other information, the 'lone attacker' scenario is the most likely precisely because he succeeded. The more people involved, the more likely it is that counter terrorist intelligence can prevent an attack.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


... and so give him some credibility?

I think in all these cases, until it's proved otherwise, they should always firstly assume its just a sick depraved arsehole with a very small penis, and say that.

In reply to Fredt:
To be honest, I think that until hard facts start to emerge about something like this, we should probably resist the temptation to speculate and just try to express our sympathy and solidarity with the victims and with people who've lost loved ones.

(Edited to read less like I'm having a go at anyone.)

In reply to Ramblin dave:
I agree, but am frustrated that they the first default assumption is a religiously motivated terrorist, which as I said implies a justification. I was trying to illustrate this by suggesting an equally extreme example of an assumption.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I don't think they mean in isolation (if they said that) they mean sole attacker. They've arrested a 23 year old now and evacuated the Arndale in doing so. A bomb like this would usually need more than one person, so that would be the most unlikely explanation.

In reply to ben b:

Very well put.

In reply to winhill:


More to the point the sort of person capable of researching and making it undetected is unlikely to also be the sort of person willing to wear it.
jk

In reply to richprideaux:

It seems that, alongside many other innocent children, this great warrior has bravely managed to slay an eight year old primary school girl.

What a pitiful creature that bomber must have been, to see something such as this as a worthwhile legacy.

In reply to richprideaux:

A guy at work who works for and with me, who I had to do an appraisal with today, found out this morning that his daughter-in-law was injured in the blast.
She had taken her daughter and friend to the concert and then went to pick them up when it finished. She waited in the car initially but then decided to go into the foyer to wait. She was in the middle of the foyer and walked at the last minute towards one of the main doors in a hope of seeing her daughter when she came out.
As she was walking from the main area the blast went off, knocking her over and showering her in blood and debris too horrific to describe here.
Luckily she was one of the fortunate ones, she was able to pick herself back up, grab her daughter and friend and get out. She drove home in a daze and when in the house threw her clothes away.
She has gone to hospital this morning with minor shrapnel injuries and has since bagged up the discarded clothes for potential forensic or DNA evidence.

I asked the guy if he wanted to go home, travel up and see his son and daughter-in-law but he declined.

Absolutely horrific event. I can't imagine the hurt and despair of those who have lost loved ones and those whose loved ones have been seriously injured in this cowardly act.

In reply to hokkyokusei:


IS have claimed responsibility, but they would wouldn't they? Pure evil.

In reply to richprideaux:

This part of Manchester was once wrecked by the IRA in the Arndale bombings. Manchester successfully rebuilt the area.I remember well the devestation as I started a new job in the city centre the morning after.

It will do so again.

Those young lives cannot be rebuilt, my heart goes out and there but the grace of god as I have daughters I too have collected from that area after concerts.

In reply to richprideaux:

To the murderous b******s who commit these atrocities; how dare you besmirch and darken our fair land and murder and maim innocents in the name of your religion. Be gone and rot in hell, never to darken our portals again

In reply to PhantomDislike:

Unfortunately that won't happen, these b*st*rds are here to stay and this is going to happen again and again.

In reply to richprideaux:
Mancunians opened their doors to victims, and I heard that cabbies as far away as Liverpool came across to Manchester and offered free lifts home to concert goers. It is great to see the light of humanity break through these darkest of times.

In reply to richprideaux:

I can't think of any organisation, past or present, that would react with glee at the news that they had murdered an 8 year old. I really can't process that.

In reply to PhantomDislike:


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/manchester-suicide-attacker-was-known-to-...

Need a tougher approach on known advocates of the ISIS belief. Not sure how or what that entails, but I will vote for anyone who comes up with a good idea to deal with it and I will happily pay more taxes to fund it.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Out of respect, this might need another thread as it could get heated (I hope not).

But 40 years of selling arms to that part of the world, and bombing the ME in general, seems to have only made the problem worse. I'd also happily pay taxes for a solution, but I don't think many people are willing to look beyond a military response.

In reply to Shani:


This tw*t is probably another home grown . Can't remember us selling arms to Didsbury or bombing Chorlton. They've just murderd a load of children in Manchester and your reaction is to start repeating their bullshit justifications? Piss off.

In reply to Stichtplate:


Have another read, take a few deep breaths and have another think because that's not what he's saying. He's saying the responses we'll be offered in the days to come, the ones hurt, angry, frightened people instinctively gravitate toward in the aftermath of atrocity, the punitive, the militaristic, the hard, the responses that don't leave politicians open to angry accusations of appeasement or weakness... those solutions are not working and doubling down on them as popular as it will prove at this point in an election campaign is unlikely to improve matters.
jk

In reply to Shani:

I was thinking more about the British born no-hopers here who fall for the ISIS BS. It's extremely tough for the security services. Khalid Masood was known to the police, but only for "normal" crimes rather than terrorist/religious type crimes. There just isn't the man power or money to keep tabs on all possible threats, but there is scope to fight back . I would start by segregating radical muslim prisoners and wiping out their platform and ability to mix/convert other prisoners. This is well known hotbed of recruitment and needs to be broken up. How that is done, I have no idea, but it needs a sensible discussion which shouldn't be derailed by appeasers. It makes no sense to arrest these guys and then allow them to proliferate in prison.

In reply to Stichtplate:


This is such an incredibly immature bile-filled and disrepsectful response. You have not read what I have put, simply lashed out. Shame on you.

We need a measured approach to this problem. The bomber might well have been 'home grown' but early indications are that his knowledge of suicide belts is sophisticated and probably learned outside of the UK.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

already happening
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/31/guantanamo-uk-durham-jail-f...

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Absolutely agreed.

In reply to jkarran:

In the context of this thread stating the opinion that selling arms to and bombing the ME is making the problems worse , is drawing a direct correlation between the events in Manchester and UK foreign policy . I call bullshit on that . Not least because radical British Muslims aren't targeting countries like China and Burma, where Muslims are suffering very real persecution.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


You are quite right and I have covered this in threads before. My daughter works in a cat B prison and her tales are very worrying. Gangs exist in prisons and the toughest and most feared gang in her unit is the radical Islamic one. Not only does it offer protection for the weak they also offer retaliation for their own kind. If I were unfortunate enough to be sent there, the first place I would go would be to the Islamist recruitment officer.

With nothing else going for them and a charismatic and strong leadership the young criminals seem to gravitate to these nutjobs. Very concerning indeed.

As a father of three girls who each like A.Grande I cant imagine the pain some people woke up to this morning. These creatures are the worst kind of animals.

Lets also spare a thought for Ariana too as someone who just wanted to play to her adoring fans, many of which were blown to pieces at her gig.

I still cant take it in. Kids, young kids and their chaperones?!? What on earth is the world coming to?

In reply to jkarran:

Well indeed. Just read this on Twitter from Johnathan Kay, seemed to sum up my thoughts -

"Most sensible response to mass murder is often the least emotionally satisfying"

In reply to Shani:

See response to jkarran

In reply to Shani:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-23/cbs-reports-suspected-manchester-a...

In reply to richprideaux:

the phrase 'British born' means absolutely nothing if they are brought up in family setting that adheres to a strict religious belief system that despises the host nation, attend a madrassa or school that is exclusively of that religious/cultural leaning, and attend a mosque with imams that preach hatred. They might as well have been brought up in the middle east.

In reply to richprideaux:

“A soldier of the Caliphate managed to place explosive devises in the midst of gatherings of the Crusaders in the British City of Manchester,”

soldier - presumably mentally unstable young man commiting suicide
Crusaders - teenage (and younger) children

Someone believes this, I feel terrible but I actually laughed at this.. is laughter an appropriate response to something so pathetic? I'm referring to the claim of responsibility not the event.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Good to see something is being tried.

In reply to cragtaff:

Possibly but often that is not the case. They can have quite normal backgrounds and then just go off.

Look at the Boston Marathon Bombers? Smoked pot, listened to hip hop, described as "normal" by friends.

In reply to Stichtplate:


I take your point. You've also suggested that it is a problem of "nihilistic, social inadequates" - which is something we should look in to, because historically Britain's "nihilistic, social inadequates" have never done anything like this - and it is only a particular subset of the "nihilistic, social inadequate" demographic that do this.

So the question is, what is making the "nihilistic, social inadequates" from the Islamic community do this?

In reply to Shani:
the internet and global travel/communications available to all for radicalisation with fuel provided for many decades of historical examples of Islamic victims

Internet provides research facilities for the lonely individual which can be exploited by badly motivated i-demagogues

and I missed out the amount of technical information for radicalised "chemical" hobbyists

In reply to Shani:


Because they are following a fundamental religion, just like Christianity was 500years ago.
I think it will just run its course. We have a 100years+ of this ahead of us. Education and the West abandoning it's religions will fix things slowly.

In reply to Shani:

I did go off on one and I apologise to you for that
....but I am sick and tired of intelligent, liberal minded people immediately reaching for justification and understanding in the face of what I see as pure evil.
How about a bit less justifying and understanding, and a whole lot more condemning and ridiculing.

In reply to Stichtplate:
that's fine, but the level of wickedness of the manipulators who mould their victim material into "martyrs" needs to be seen as far higher, the same kind of wickedness as Hitler perhaps

In reply to wercat:


Sorry wercat, but that is exactly what I'm talking about. The victims were the 22 concert goers ,not the tw*t with a bomb.

In reply to Roadrunner5:
described as "normal" by friends.

I would ask what is normal amongst those friends?

In reply to Stichtplate:
No, sorry, I think you are wrong. The German people remember 1945 not as a defeat but as a liberation from the Nazis. The Nazis, I do not have to tell you, I'm sure, manipulated an entire civilised nation into WWII and the Holocaust. In that sense the nation was a victim, as well as the non-responsible victims.

You need to be less emotive and more analytical or you are condemned not to understand the nature of the problem. Then you won't be able to be part of the solution.

In reply to Stichtplate:

No problem. It is somewhat understandable.


I am open to investigating all possibilities. I don't find terms like 'evil' that useful as a diagnostic in this situation - and contrary to you I do think we need to understand the problem to tackle it. Please don't take this as a 'justification' of these horrific actions.

With particular reference to our involvement in the ME, we have gone from Al Qaeda to ISIS over the past decade or two. Things are getting worse. And, it is these organisations that are targetting and influencing 'home grown' terrorists - training them and supplying them. It is eminently sensible to target this source.

We might not agree on the cause, but please do not think that because we don't agree on the cause that I am somehow on the side of the terrorists or that I am any less horrified than you by it. I totally condemn this atrocity.

In reply to Stichtplate:


There is no such thing, at least not in the simple minded 'comic book' sense of people who do evil for the sake of evil, and I think it is dangerous to think so. There is always a reason behind everything, and understanding it is the key to stopping it.

That said, I am not of the 'all beliefs should be respected' school, some things are worthy only of contempt.

In reply to Stichtplate:

btw, the kind of rage you are feeling, quite understandably, is one of the things the people behind the atrocities are trying to foster.

In reply to cragtaff:


You do realise not a single UK terrorist, ever, fits that description, don't you?

In reply to Stichtplate:

>"I am sick and tired of intelligent, liberal minded people immediately reaching for justification and understanding in the face of what I see as pure evil."

It's not "pure evil". If it were pure evil it could quickly be corralled and exterminated. Instead it's a complex mix of real & perceived injustice, warmed by an often external flame of evil, perhaps seasoned with mental illness. The dish is not to my taste but it is important to understand the current constituents and cooking process if you wish to change the recipe such that it turns out differently in the future.

In reply to wercat:

Talking of being analytical and less emotive, don't forget the Nazis were elected to power and were pretty popular until the way turned against Germany so let's not get carried away and make out that Germany was the victim in a world war and the holocaust which cost tens of millions of lives.

In reply to JLS:

In reply to a whole lot of people

I'm using the word evil not in a theocratic sense, but as shorthand for a whole lot of bad stuff from ignorance and stupidity, right through to sadism and cruelty.
In that sense , as a culture, I think nazi Germany was evil (not its whole population, a lot were sheep and a lot of dissenters ended up in concentration camps). By the same token , I think Isis are evil.
Western liberal values are a wonderful thing, but while they have no problem recognising good ideas, good people, just good in general. They seem to have a total blind spot for evil.

In reply to Stichtplate:


That's one response. Unlikely to work tbh. But certainly understandable.

Look at France? Further alienation or employment programs, improved justice system, outreach, working with the communities will be far more successful.

The UK hasn't got the issues France has, like Belgium, is just a breeding ground for radicalization. Trump picks his 7 countries but Belgium provide more fighters per capita than any other country in Europe for ISIS.

That doesn't mean our security services shouldn't be smashing down the doors of anyone involved and rounding up those planning harm but I think a more proactive response as well will help in the future.

They went for kids, such a soft target to get angry responses, to split communities.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


I live 14 miles from the arena, I have 2 daughters, the eldest wanted to go (not on a school night).
It feels personal in a way 11:7 and Westminster bridge didn't. You're probably right , I probably need to step back. But at the moment I just want to step in and chin someone. Shameful.

In reply to Stichtplate:

It's funny how different people react. I just feel physically sick that anyone, whatever their reasoning, would bring kids into it.

Bombings are bad to start with. Bombings deliberately or knowingly targeted at kids are beneath contempt.

In reply to Stichtplate:

The collateral damege of ME bombing seems evil to me when Intelligence knows civilians will be killed. Selling arms to Saudi Arabia when we know they're going to be used on civilians in Yemen seems evil to me. Refusing asylum and a watery death to people we know are displaced and traumatised by wars we're involved in, is evil.

But like you say, some people "seem to have a total blind spot for evil".

Lets tackle the perpetrators with some joined up thinking and stand united against them.

In reply to atrendall:

what, you mean the evil was intrinsic to being German? So being British would protect us in some way from going the same way, given the same circumstances?

In reply to Shani:

I don't think for a minute that your original post was anything like "justifying" or "excusing". But you're really not helping matters here. What's happened is devastating. This just doesn't seem like the right place for this argument.

In reply to wercat:

Why would I mean either of those things. But..... Moseley and his blackshirts weren't voted into a position of power in Britain unlike Germany where Hitler was voted into power and extremely popular until the tide of the war turned against Germany.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Of course it is sickening - but being sickened isn't part of trying to analyse it which is the context here. Committing atrocities, which necessarily includes innocent victims is unfortunately a tool used by terrorist groups because of the unreasoned response it evokes. It remains true however upsetting the news is at the emotional level.

In reply to Shani:

I do find it very difficult to go from "actions are bad" to "people are bad". I do rather like to try to understand why some what we might term "evil" people act as they do. Understand, not justify - I am rather a pacifist much of the time and generally prefer people not to be killing people whoever they are, least of all innocent kids.

Liberalism can be a bit of a paradox sometimes, as well, along the lines of "I would defend to my death your right to hold a view that I should be dead", or somesuch.

A very difficult one.

In reply to atrendall:

Germany experienced more extreme economic and social disruption after WWII, whereas the interwar period in Britain has been referred to, despite the fact it was far from trouble free, as "The Long Summer". There was a degree of desperation not so widely experienced in Britain (my grandfather came from mining stock so I do know about the Jarrow Hunger march as my grandparents were young parents during that time, bringing up a family on a very tiny income - I'm not ignoring problems here)

Machine gun units were deployed on German city streets so extreme was the social unrest in the run up to the Nazis assuming power. Society became far more fragmented than it ever did in Britain

In reply to richprideaux:

I heard how the people of Manchester took in those affected last night, offering food and accommodation and taxi drivers from as far afield as Liverpool converged on Manchester to convey people home free of charge.
I thought to myself that these murderers can do their worst but thankfully this world remains blessed with many more good, decent people who are prepared to help others less fortunate.

In reply to richprideaux:

As an ex manc, I've had a knot in my stomach all day. Hoping no one I know was there, either in the audience or part of the stage crew. My phone hasn't rung, which is a good thing, but there are still people missing.

I think all these talks of recriminations, historical motives etc are misplaced, at this time. All of of us are disgusted, and no reasoned arguments can be expressed rationally.

I think at this time, we hug our loved ones and spare a thought for those who cant.

In reply to richprideaux:

For once I agree with Donald Trump. The people who are responsible for attacks like this are quite simply "losers"

In reply to PhantomDislike:

I agree - I think 95% or more of people are good, it's just that the actions of the rest have a disproportionate effect.

In reply to JLS:

NO, I think they nearly all do.

In reply to richprideaux:

Seems like the bomber has been identified and was known to the police. Born in Manchester to Libyan refugees. Maybe it is time to consider tagging/interning suspects. I am aware of the civil liberty dangers but in the face of an existential threat that we haven't faced since the nazis maybe this should be considered. If it had been in place before this atrocity maybe all those kids would be alive and safe now.

In reply to dread-i:


All stage crew are unharmed. Either not in when it happened or evacuated safely afterwards.

In reply to Pekkie:

I don't think it's at all realistic to control everyone who might possibly be a terrorist. I know it's instinctive to think that there must be a solution to the madness, but I really don't see one. I heard some guy who'd spent his whole career on counter-terrorism saying pretty much this on the radio today (sorry I can't be more accurate!), and I think his opinion is probably better educated than either of ours. We've got to take sensible, proportionate measures, gather intelligence and do everything that we realistically can to foil terrorist plots. The people that do this probably do a very good job. I don't think a change of policy is ever going to stop people who want to cause death and suffering from doing so - anyone can, if they want, drive a truck into a crowd or whatever. That is the world, we can't control everything.

In reply to Stichtplate:


I don't think your rage is unreasonable or in any way histrionic. This is sickening. Yesterday, at the end of the day, a lovely girl in my class told me she was having the evening off from revising as she had no exams today; she was really excited about the concert she was going to in Manchester. This morning my wife woke me and told me about the bombing. I remembered the conversation and felt sick. When I arrived at school I found she was absent.

I didn't spend much of the morning considering the political or social factors that have culminated in this atrocity - I spent it feeling sick to my stomach. I felt much of it wanting to chin someone.

Eventually, after a long morning, I found out she was unharmed but very upset. I still want to chin someone.

I know that this is the point of terrorism, but it doesn't make it any easier to process emotionally.

In reply to Morty:

Thanks for that, I was starting to feel a bit of a freak amongst all these reasonable posters. It's not just anger, since they identified the first dead child I've kept filling up. This just isn't me I'm normally very much on an even keel.
No external factors, no really close personal connection to justify it, just something about this one seems to have struck home hard.

In reply to Pekkie:


Interesting.

So we take in this family, and provide them with all the benefits and comforts that the UK offers, which, presumably, are better than life in Libya, and all we ask is integration and respect for our norms and laws.

We get this event in return.

In reply to Big Ger:

I take it you haven't lived in South Manchester?
It's tough you know, real tough!

In reply to Stichtplate:
I've been very much not myself all day - I know how you feel.

In reply to Big Ger:
We did, with assistance from the Americans, basically turn Libya into a failed state, so there's that.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Are you saying that this in some way explains or justifies the Manchester bombing?

In reply to Big Ger:


If only he'd turned out like Mo Farrah. I guess we need to ask why this keeps happening.

In reply to Shani:


Exactly.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Can you tell me what your understanding of US and UK involvement in Libya is?

In reply to Big Ger:


Just offering a reason why the son of Libyan refugees might hold a grudge and not just be super grateful.

"Justify the Manchester bombing"? I'm struggling to respond without getting banned.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

So someone offered his family refuge and comfort from the situation in Libya.



Well what did you mean by;


Isn't that offering some justification for his actions? If not WTF is it supposed to mean?

Can you tell me what your understanding of US and UK involvement in Libya is?

In reply to Big Ger:
Identifying possible motive isn't the same as justifying the crime, is it? Unless you think the police's job involves justifying rapes and murders - do you?

You can Google the rest. Done with you.

"UK foreign policy, US foreign policy, horrible white racists - it's us, it's us, it's us. We're partly or even completely to blame". This has become a very common and powerful meme, and every time an Islamist does something horrific the naive leap up and tie themselves and us to the whipping post, eager to be lashed, because the Islamists always strike in response to our foreign policy.

The problem with this idea, is that they don't. They strike in the name of Islam. We know this because they explicitly say so again, and again, and again. They call for western adherence to Islamic blasphemy laws, they demand a 'respect' for their religion that borders on subservience, they call for the destruction of Israel and the annihilation of the Jewish people, and they call for a worldwide caliphate.

It has often occurred to me that westerners who ignore the Islamists plainly expressed religious motivations and replace them with self blame are exercising a particularly ugly blend of narcissism and mildly sophisticated racism: "Those poor little brown souls, they don't even know why they do what they're doing - but I do".

I'd be interested to hear in what ways the mighty geopolitical colossus of Belgium has so punished the countries of the middle east that they deserved their recent terrorist attacks.

In reply to Big Ger:


Are you saying he was indoctrinated by his parents?

In reply to Thrudge:

You misunderstand/misrepresent the point. Go over to the other thread and have a read.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Nope, which I why I wanted you to clarify your reasons for adding that.


So you have no real clue as to US and UK involvement in Libya. Funny how you do not mention French, or EU, or Russian involvement.

Do you think we should have stood back and let it all run it's own course?

Do you not agree with President Obama when he said; "In Libya, we were right to launch an air campaign to prevent [Moammar] Gadhafi from massacring innocent civilians," Obama said. "But we didn't do enough to plan for the day after, when deep-rooted tribalism plunged Libya into disorder.""England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident thought.”George Orwell

In reply to FreshSlate:


No, I was saying he rejected all that was given to him, and instead turned into a mass murderer of innocent kids.

In reply to Pekkie:

For a fuller response to your post, with a somewhat different reception than here, maybe read your spin-off thread:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=664542

In reply to Big Ger:


Many are brainwashed by folk they meet in their local mosques.

The Muslim communities are quick to run out and do their thing after a tragedy, free drinks, food, taxis etc... but the work needs to be done by them, in their community before it happens. Just like we might know the person down the pub whose views are a little more hard line etc.. nearer bnp, they'll know the mosque attendees who potentially harbour hatred.

In reply to summo:


There's a big difference between harbouring hatred and actually planning and following through with an attack. These incidents are horrific, but rare. As Jon says above, the reality maybe that there isn't anything more we can do to prevent such atrocities than gather intelligence and act where appropriate and unfortunately some will always slip through the cracks. While it's true that many are quick to defend the Muslim community, it's equally true that many are quick to cry 'something must be done', but are short on the details. Clearly a more right wing and authoritarian approach has not prevented mass shootings in the US, an altogether more common phenomenon with similarly tragic results.

In reply to Thrudge:

The reasons people may be pushed towards extremism in general are not necessarily the same motives for a specific attack.

In reply to Pekkie:

Being known to the police is a massive stride away from being a terrorist. Half the population of the UK will be "known to the police" for one thing or another.

What you are suggesting is that anyone who ever got on a flight to the Middle East or North Africa needs interring because you can bet thats the first people the intelligence services will be keeping tabs on.

In reply to Big Ger:

Trying to understand motivations for attacks is the key to combatting them - stopping them before they even get conceived. It is not the same as justifying an attack. You seem to have the words "justified" and "explained" somewhat confused.

In reply to summo:


Well that's a neat little strawman you've got there. And its rubbish of course. Why do people assume that there is some homogenised Muslim community anymore than there is a homogenised Christian Community or Climbing Community or Football Community or Women's Community ? Other than it suits some peoples narratives of course.

Muslims only have one thing in common - their faith (and they, like other religions, can't always agree about that). The rest of their lives they are in other communies, business communities, sports communities etc.

In reply to GrahamD:


Interesting, but hardly plausible when dealing with the sort of extremism that caused the Manchester bombing.


I never claimed it was.


You seem to missing part of my asking "monkey puzzle" what s/he meant by adding;


when it bore no relation to my prior statement.

Here is the question I asked of monkey puzzle;


The confusion is all yours.

In reply to Stichtplate:

No one as far as I know criticised you for your gut reactions which are quite natural. When I woke up to the news I felt sickened and terribly bleak at the news, as it is yet another atrocity to add to decades of such reports that have done the same to me. It seems to be the pattern of life over and over again that evilly motivated people manage to get others to do horrible things for them.

The point I was making was not that getting emotional is wrong but gut reactions don't help with analysing what happened. No more than that. (Look at the reaction to get something done after the 1974 pub bombings and the rush to get someone convicted).

In reply to Big Ger:



Don't be disingenuous. You are clearly implying that Monkey Puzzle is trying to justify the attack by conflating the terms 'explains' and 'justifies'. You must surely know that no one on this thread is trying to justify the attack.

In reply to GrahamD:

The muslim community is a frequently used term by the media and politicians alike.
It was used in the days when a multi cultural society was all the rage although I have no idea when it came into gemeral use.
It suited the authorities and some sections of the 'muslim community' to use it to push their agenda and it's no surprise if it returns to bite them in the bum.

In reply to Big Ger:


Why do you say that? Do you have some knowledge to suggest that understanding the motivation for such an attack would not be helpful in combating it?

In reply to planetmarshall:


I'm not


I was clearly asking him/her why they had interjected;


If not offered in mitigation, what the hell other reason could there be for posting it?

In reply to planetmarshall:


Nope I believe quite the opposite, however;


Is a bit of a long punt.

In reply to atrendall:

further to my 17:47 last - social fragmentation is our worst enemy and the one that plays into the hands of people who are pursuing their own ends and who seek to bring about great changes in our country for their own purposes.

In reply to GrahamD:


Yes; but Christians are not strapping bombs to themselves and running into gatherings of people that the bible preachings doesn't necessarily agree with. You can be all fluffy, but these actions are related to Islam and many bombers are radicalized through other mosque members they see everyday of the week in their own community.

Unless the guy was so bright and astute that he managed to live in a clean bubble, like some long term mi6 sleeper agent... then he will have friends, family, neighbours, colleagues who will of had an idea what made him tick etc.

As the information comes out, it looks like he was hardly a clean slate lone wolf. His actions have obviously opened up a known trail of links already, otherwise many places wouldn't have gone into lock down.

In reply to baron:

Let's be clear. There are quaint English villages full of church going grannies. There are also suburbs of several cities, where every house is owned by a mosque attending Muslim. If you are a young male living there, then most people will know you and your business.

In reply to summo:


What's your basis for this? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but if true there must be evidence for it?

In reply to summo:

You seem to be possessed of a lot of information concerning Mulsim property ownership, and what goes on inside mosques. Where are you getting this information from? Is it personal experience?

In reply to planetmarshall:


The information that has been released on previous bombers, z went to mosque y, attended meeting with the radical preacher X etc..

Have you ever driven through suburbs of some of the UK cities. I used to get glass for renovations from a small business in the outskirts of Bradford for example. I sure there are similar areas around the UK.

In reply to Big Ger:


See my post of 23.05 last night, to which you responded and are now conveniently ignoring.

Sad troll.

In reply to planetmarshall:


You don't have to look very far before you find a deep vein of 'send them all back*' 'lock them all up**' or 'I don't care how much it costs, if it saves one life it's worth it' comments. Coming thick and fast on a social media platform near you.

* some wiser counsel did point out that, in this case, 'sending them back' was a bit tricky, since the perpetrator was born in the UK.

** 'all' being anyone with even the merest whiff of suspicion against them.

In reply to Big Ger:

He was born and raised in Manchester, he's not a immigrant or refugee. It's strange when any UK citizen does this, I'm not sure what his parents who can't seem to believe he has done such a thing have to do with it.

In reply to FreshSlate:

He was brought up in a devout muslim family where his father was a leading light in the local mosque, so presumably the principles of islam have been shoved down his throat all of his childhood, probably reinforced by attendance at a madrassa after mainstream school finished.

Of the 20,000 young teenage girls at the concert in Manchester I am confident you could count the young girls from muslim families in attendance on one hand. That concert and its audience would represent much that is considered ungodly, evil and sinful to even the most 'moderate' muslim family. It should be no surprise that a young man brought up in that sort of ethos should behave in the way that he did.

In reply to cragtaff:

He was not working alone, and probably did not choose the target. The target appears to be chosen for maximum effect rather than what the bomber himself considered godly or not.

I'm absolutely certain his faith has increased the likeliness of radicalisation. But this idea that the root cause is his refugee family not getting enough housing benefit is a leap.

His father is protesting his innocence, not on the grounds that killing people is a innocent thing to do either.

In reply to cragtaff:

Like no kid has ever rebelled against their parents ?

In reply to cragtaff:

"Presumably". "I am confident". Translation: "I've made this up".

In reply to cragtaff:

From the BBC website:
"Salman Abedi is understood to be a 22-year-old born in Manchester to parents of Libyan descent, and a former University of Salford student.
He attended Burnage Academy for Boys in Manchester between 2009-11.

Hamid El-Said, who worked for the UN on tackling radicalisation and now works at Manchester Metropolitan University, said Abedi had a "really bad relationship" with his family and his parents had tried but failed to keep him on the "right path".
"Eventually he was doing very bad at his university, at his education, and he didn't complete, and they tried to take him back to Libya several times. He had difficulties adjusting to European lifestyle," he added.

A former classmate of Abedi's told the BBC that he was a "very jokey lad" but also "very short tempered" and would get angry at "the littlest thing".
The man, who did not want to be identified, said Abedi was "away at random times throughout the year" but he did not know if he was abroad or playing truant because he hung around "the wrong crowd and was very, very gullible".
"You could tell him anything and he would pretty much fall for it."
He said that, before leaving the school in 2011, Abedi became "more and more religious" and that this might explain why he cut ties with former classmates.

A Muslim community worker, who did not want to be identified, has told the BBC that two people who knew Abedi at college had made separate calls to a hotline to warn the police about his extremist views.
He said they had been worried that Abedi was "supporting terrorism" and had expressed the view that "being a suicide bomber was ok".
The friends had argued with him, telling him he was wrong but had become so concerned they contacted the police, the community worker said.
The calls are thought to have been made five years ago, he added."

In reply to planetmarshall:

'Dispatches' did a program on this:

youtube.com/watch?v=hlORwoaFYSU&

It's 48 minutes, so not a quick view. Here's something similar, 8 minutes:

youtube.com/watch?v=g-_rBZh8DgI&

Summary: hidden cameras in mosques and an Islamic faith school. Poor kids don't stand a chance.

In reply to cragtaff:


There are quite a lot of devoutly Muslim families in the UK, and very very few of their children go on to commit mass murder. So on balance I'd say it was pretty surprising.

In reply to GrahamD:


Of course they do, but they don't all have islam as the common denominator.

In reply to richprideaux:

Very sad , a religion or God that thinks this is ok ?¿
Condolences to all affected

In reply to cragtaff:


Oh come on. I put Islam, moderate or otherwise, firmly in the box labelled 'delusional nonsense' but what you're saying here is patently absurd. You have absolutely no idea how he was brought up, beyond what is reported in the press, which far from a young man conforming to his upbringing, suggests someone strongly rebelling against it.

In reply to descender8:


Religions say a lot of things, in the end human beings will interpret them in a way that suits their own ends.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Dave, I am musing on the thread and using your post as a jumping off point, not replying to you in particular.


It is very surprising that a British person of Islamic faith or family background would be an indescriminate mass murderer.

Conversely it is not at all surprising that yet another indiscrinate mass murderer in Britain has Islam in their faith or family background.

This isn't a very subtle distinction, but it's one that regularly seems to fly over quite a few posters on here.

In reply to cragtaff:




Do they? Lets look at this decade's terrorist attacks, shall we? (list from wikipedia)

Manchester - Raised Muslim by Muslim family.
Westmisnter - Raised Christian by Christian family.
Cox - Raised Christian by Christian family.
Leytonstone - Raised Muslim by Muslim family.
Rigby - Raised Christian by Christian families.
Lapshyn - F*ck knows, but certainly not Muslim.

Seems you are wrong then.

There is a common denominator in all of those during their upbringings, and religion is not it.

In reply to wintertree:


That in itself is fairly unsurprising. The misunderstanding of conditional probability is fairly common, even in courts where it has its own term.

http://theintercept.com/2017/05/24/reactions-to-manchester-bombing-show-how...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/05/23/the-manchester-attack-and-...

In reply to Shani:

The comments btl of that piece should start to worry. It seems people aren't buying this type of response anymore. They have heard it all before as it gets trotted out after every mass murder on Western soil . In fact the btl comments across the main stream media are definitely getting more fed up with this type of stuff and a hardening of opinion. It's becoming a much tougher sell.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Agree with some of that. As we've seen earlier in this thread, emotions are high and people are understandably sensitive. I'm trying to read a broad range of articles to challenge my own position, and simply to try to make sense if it all.

It is complex, but we've got to try and resolve it. Sadly it will happen again. There must be some way to tackle it.

The whole thing is just unbelievably awful.

In reply to Shani:

there definitely appears to be a hardening of opinion that people were more afraid to express up until recently. I think it's also reflected in a lot of news stories on this subject now not allowing comments because the mods can't control the more "enthusiastic" commenters.

I think there could be a much bigger problem brewing here than the actual news story.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Such as?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
I'm sorry but you'll have to quote yourself, my timestamps are in Australian EST time.


Here's our first exchange here

Big Ger - on 22:21 Tue
In reply to Pekkie:
Interesting. So we take in this family, and provide them with all the benefits and comforts that the UK offers, which, presumably, are better than life in Libya, and all we ask is integration and respect for our norms and laws.

We get this event in return.

To which you replied;


MonkeyPuzzle - on 22:31 Tue
In reply to Big Ger:
We did, with assistance from the Americans, basically turn Libya into a failed state, so there's that.

So can you tell me the relevance of your reply to my post?

In reply to wintertree:

No one seems to comment on the fact that all these people are men, and as far as Manchester is concerned we've had a lot of trouble with those Christians too!

In reply to richprideaux:

Prayer obvs aint working...

https://scontent.fyto1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18700267_1218290611631501_8...

In reply to richprideaux:
Ariana Grande has reportedly offered to cover the funeral costs of the victims of Monday's terror attack in Manchester, according to reports.


ETA: may be untrue

http://www.snopes.com/ariana-grande-pay-manchester-bombing-funerals/

In reply to Big Ger:

Your point was that a Libyan refugee could only feel grateful for the life this country gave them and mine was that they may consider instead that we took their old life off them.

In reply to FreshSlate:


Disagree. Suicide bombers are often referred to by their gender, and their gender is implicitly involved in discussions about the reason (angry young men, etc).

But, no one ever *objects* to any mention of gender, yet some people jump up and down a lot the moment Islam is mentioned. Equally, some other people try and blame everything Islamic which is not much better than blaming all men.


Yes but of limited relevance, one is a declining local threat and the other a rising global threat.

There are two equally misinformed sides and it makes any open discussion of the interaction of Islamic beliefs, organisations and communities with terrorism very fraught. Before anyone jumps on me it's clear that interaction is often positive, for example reporting of disaffected and radicalised people by members of their own community.

In reply to Shani:


A wedge being slowly driven between two communities in this country that the authorities might not be able to control? The "nothing to do with Islam" brigade being more ignored or mocked than before , the standard template trotted out after these atrocities is starting to become tired and less credible (the "bullshit/buzzword Bingo" games doing the rounds is a symptom of this, and are surprisingly accurate). Basically cracks in the veneer of solidarity. I don't think it's critical at all and I could be wrong, but the impression I get is it's getting worse.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


How so? Animals bite the hand that feeds them, not human beings. I knew a jewish fellow whose family had escaped from the nazis to england and who was eternally grateful that we provided a refuge from persecution - when many other countries were turning jews away. He had encompassed all things english, including being an avid cricket fan, yet quietly followed his religion. What a contrast. Maybe a psychiatrist could throw some light on this?

In reply to Shani:


I think the bigger picture he's hinting at are the developing conditions for an openly racist fascist government to come to power. I don't quite buy it myself, since the religious turmoil of the 17th century we've never really had much appetite for it when push comes to shove but we shouldn't be complacent, our technology has after all very rapidly changed our world in ways we don't really understand yet, perhaps in much the same way the printing press revolutionised medieval Europe.
jk

In reply to Pekkie:

1) Those aren't directly comparable, because England didn't have a perceived hand in making conditions in Germany unlivable for the family in your example and so the possible motivation I suggested is not really relevant here; and 2) Different people are different and have different outside influences.

A former friend of the bomber states that he was incredibly gullible, so a prime target for radicalisation, especially if harbouring not 100% favourable thoughts of this country. Was anyone trying to radicalise your Jewish friend? Not comparable.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

So how did we have a hand in making conditions unlivable for the family of the bomber?

In reply to Pekkie:

Human beings are animals, and they commonly bite the hands that feed them (e.g. ungrateful children).

From reading the family history we invited in an Islamic radical, and his son turned out to be an Islamic radical.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/renegade-libyan-faction-accuses-...

In reply to thomasadixon:


Did we invite him in or provide asylum at his request?

In reply to Pekkie:
Change the wording if you like - let, allowed, accepted, whatever.

The point was that just because you're nice to someone you can't expect them to be nice to you.

In reply to Pekkie:


The key word you've missed is 'perceived'. The US and European involvemen in Libya has been cited in places as lacking in post-conflict planning, as well as naively funding Islamist rebel groups, which have in part led to the destabilisation of Libya. Have you *not* seen anything relating to that?

I'm offering potential motive here, not saying we had it coming.

In reply to Pekkie:


At whose request? Did he not just have to move here with his parents?

In reply to thomasadixon:


True, you can't expect them to get down on their knees and kiss your feet while loudly expressing their thanks. But you would hope that they wouldn't try and blow your legs off.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


The perception is wrong then. We muddle along trying to pick the right side in a messy civil war, while trying to protect civilians from Gadaffi's wrath. We didn't deliberately aim to destabilise Libya, quite the opposite.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Most likely. Imagine having to put up with our welfare and educational system, all funded by taxpayers such as you and me. The horror!

In reply to Pekkie:

And nor did we aim to destabilise Iraq, but the coalition fluffed the post-conflict planning and as a result there are plenty of Iraqis who resent our involvement. I don't even think what I'm writing is controversial, unless people want to think the reasons people become radicalised consist of merely "Because Islam".

In reply to Pekkie:

Again, not everyone sees things in the same terms. Also, I believe Libya was a pretty well-developed country prior to Gadaffi's downfall, just not a politically free one.

In reply to Stichtplate:

"How about a bit less justifying and understanding, and a whole lot more condemning and ridiculing"


Do you really want "less understanding"?

Understanding can work as an effective net to catch perpetrators - and long-term as a peacemaker.

In reply to AllanMac:


The dislikes to your and my posts would suggest they're not the only ones.

In reply to richprideaux:

for all those saying "they could do better"

https://mic.com/articles/151681/over-30-000-muslims-in-the-uk-marched-again...


Why don't we hear about this?

In reply to krikoman:

Well it was reported in the Sun and Independent as your report says. At the end of the day it isn't that significant.

I live in south Manchester and have been witness to a couple of heated discussions between Muslims of moderate views and those of extreme views. Those with extreme views hate western lifestyles......drinking, uncovered women ect, and they seem to find justification in the book. They don't seem to care much what moderate Muslims think.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


But that's the case everywhere isn't it, I don't think many in the BNP would seem to care what any moderate, Muslim or not, would think.

I posted this on another thread, but it's just as relevant here https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10158654465215364&set=gm.135000...

In reply to krikoman:


Because that's a bollocks story: just because it comes from a left/progressive point of view doesn't make it any less 'fake news' that when the Mail half report some fact in order to twist it to their use.

That was a UK conference of the Ahmadiyya sect. The Glasgow shopkeeper murdered last year by the the taxi driver who drove up from Bradford to kill him, was Ahmadi. Although Ahmadis see themselves firmly as Muslims, many Sunnis do not and the group have faced horrendous violence due to being deemed heretics, particularly in Pakistan. Many Ahmadis have found refuge in the UK as a result. They Ahmadis of course oppose jihadi strains of Islam because they are so often the first victims, but allying themselves with the the western counter terrorism narrative is only something that has happened in the last few years. But they are very far from being representative of the majority of Muslims in the UK.

I have heard lots of criticism of this attack from various British Muslims - it often seems the people who go on about Muslims not condemning terrorism put their blinkers on very tightly in order not to see/hear that criticism, but nevertheless, the sooner non-Muslims start seeing British Muslims as a heterogeneous 'non-community' and often quite riven over issues of race, class and theology, the less these rather fruitless debates will take about.

In reply to wintertree:


That's because no one ever extrapolates from the fact that he is a man into casting a shadow on the gender, obvioualy the reverse is true for being a muslim. Either way we are talking about a small sample of millions upon millions of people.

We'd better hope that there's a way to practice Islam without being a deranged terrorist of we have a massive problem on our hands.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


So to use you example, why are there not scores of radicalised Jews taking up arms in Germany and blowing up transport hubs and pop concerts? You could argue that they have been the most persecuted group of people in history.

In reply to TobyA:

>the sooner non-Muslims start seeing British Muslims as a heterogeneous 'non-community' and often quite riven over >issues of race, class and theology, the less these rather fruitless debates will take about.

I dont take issue with your point, but its hardly the 'host' nations created problem if groups of alleged disparate identity seek to identify themselves very often as muslims first and foremost and in the case of the OP its muslim terrorist(s) we are discussing.

D

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

You're asking where all the radicalised Jews pushing a hardline religious agenda are? Is that a trick question?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

No. Read my post again.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I couldn't miss the chance to be facetious, sorry.

The Jews *have* Israel, which is their religious goal, so no need to radicalise disaffected, angry or gullible youth to attack people to that end. IS haven't yet achieved their wacky doomsday scenario and so are recruiting whoever they can to help bring that about. The attacks themselves are a means to an end. Tapping into resentment is the recruitment strategy.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


Well this might be one reason why things are different.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/25/us-mosul-airstrikes-deadliest...

We ( the west) seem to have scant regard for peoples lives unless they are white European or American.

It's not an excuse for what happened, but if you can't see a possible reason / link then it's because you'd rather blame something else instead.

In reply to TobyA:


But then so are the terrorists who carry out these atrocities, If you can so easily disassociate the Ahmadis, from the vast majority of Muslims, why is it so hard to disassociate the terrorists from the vast majority of Muslims.

Take your point about the sort of fake news, though there was a meeting and they did condemn ISIS, and I didn't hear about it at the time.

A bloke on the radio was saying about these "mosques" we keep hearing about that a hot beds of radicalisation and while he didn't deny they exist, he reckoned they might only have 10 or 12 people and aren't the large elaborate places of worship we picture in our minds when we hear the world mosque, at least that's the picture I had. Which is probably why it's so hard to get info on them.

In reply to krikoman:


If you read the article carefully it seems that the air strike set off an IS explosives store. IS chose to make a stand in the old city of Mosul which by definition means that civilians suffer. It's a tragedy and not pretty but don't put all the blame on one side.

http://markcurtis.info/2017/05/24/the-british-establishment-is-putting-our-...

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

So you were trying to justify his actions by giving him the mitigation of "we bombed Libya", thanks for admitting that.

BTW: How does our bombing of Libya take away the "old life" of a kid born and brought up in the UK?

"Born and raised in Manchester in 1994, Abedi, the second youngest of four children, grew up in a Muslim household but matured into a university dropout with an appetite for bloodshed. His parents, mother Samia Tabbal and father Ramadan Abedi, a security officer, are Libyan-born refugees who fled to the UK to escape Gaddafi. It is thought they returned in 2011 following Gaddafi’s overthrow.

A family friend, who asked not to be named, said the family were known to the Libyan community in the city and described Abedi as "normal". He told the Press Association: "He was always friendly, nothing to suggest (he was violent). He was normal, to be honest."

Abedi is believed to have attended the Manchester Islamic Centre, also known as the Didsbury Mosque. Sheikh Mohammad Saeed said he believed Abedi had displayed a "face of hate" after the imam gave a sermon denouncing terrorism.

Abedi went to Burnage Academy for Boys between 2009 and 2011, and then on to Salford University in 2014 where he studied business management before dropping out, according to a source. The source said Abedi began his course in 2014 and attended lectures for two years but then stopped going. He would have graduated this summer.

He did not live in university accommodation, had not been in any trouble at the university and was not on any radar for pastoral or social care.

So, born and brought up in Manchester, given British education up to starting a degree level studies, what again did we "deprive" him of?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


He was born here, he's always lived here. Well, until recently.

In reply to richprideaux:

This is interesting and the actual words of the speech could have a massive impact on voting in the General Election: -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40053427

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Before you start on how he was so upset by his parents being "deprived:" of their old life by the evil UK;

His parents, mother Samia Tabbal and father Ramadan Abedi, a security officer, are Libyan-born refugees who fled to the UK to escape Gaddafi. It is thought they returned in 2011 following Gaddafi’s overthrow.

In reply to FactorXXX:


May work to his advantage.

Many in the UK would like to see us pull out of the middle-east, and let them get on with killing each other at their own expense..

In reply to wintertree:
"Yes but of limited relevance, one is a declining local threat and the other a rising global threat."

Not in the US, Christian white supremacists kill far more than islamic extremists, Not that Trump will ever tweet about race crimes.

In reply to Big Ger:


and then complain when fuel is more..

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Undoubtedly. There's no pleasing some.

We should crack on with that fracking lark, just in case.

In reply to Big Ger:


The fact that you would try and push buttons on this of all topics, by suggesting that I or anyone is trying to justify an attack which killed 22 people, mainly children, is beyond belief, unless of course one was aware of your general posting history on this site. I had friends in the building, I have friends who lost someone they knew. You odious, unflushable turd.

In reply to FactorXXX:


The words won't matter by the time it's filtered through the Sun and the Mail he'll be a vest wearing black flag waving traitor.
jk

In reply to FactorXXX:

Removing the UK from any future involvement in foreign countries won't stop the sort of terrorism that took place in Manchester.

In reply to baron:

Luckily that's not what has been suggested.

In reply to jkarran:

Before we adorn him in a burka and stick him on the front page, lets discuss the words he said. Do we think targeting young girls at a pop concert is a message of the way they hate the way we live, or of our foreign policy in the Middle East? Bit of both? more of one than the other?

In reply to Pekkie:


I wasn't putting the blame on one side, I was pointing out POSSIBLE reasons why SOME people MIGHT be angry at the west, it's not very difficult to turn angry young me into angrier young men when this sort of thing is happening, it's not the first time is it? And remember they'll be getting this in there news bubble ALL the time!

youtube.com/watch?v=MqDczyHmxgc&

Add these to the fact of Muslim deaths hardly ever being reported, where were the vigils for the victims of the bus killings in Syria?

As for it being a munitions store, we've had that trope trotted out too many times for it to have any meaning, true or false. Isreal us it all the time for blowing up hospitals, power plants and schools, only for there to be no evidence of any such weapons.

The baby milk factory in Iraq, only helps to prove the obfuscation that can go on by governments to prove they are right.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Really!
So what is Mr Corbyn's suggestion?
And yes I've read but obviously not understood the link.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


I'm quite happy to hear what he has to say, my point was only that most people won't, they'll read a bile rich digest of it tomorrow morning.

I suspect it's the action of an angry, disconnected young man who's likely been preyed upon by others. How they get to be that angry, how they stoke that anger in others, it's probably a rich mix of grievances real and imagined with the focus shifted to to appeal to the particular vulnerabilities of the person being recruited. I suspect it works equally well for those recruiting themselves through published propaganda, we all find the meaning we want to find in the things we see and read, happy to gloss over the bits we don't care about or agree with, that's human nature. Why a concert, why children... probably just because they can, soft target, maximum outrage, possibly just a horrible coincidence of what's on on the day the plan comes to fruition. I suspect the only point they seek to make if they have one at all is be afraid, it could be anywhere next.
jk

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


*If* it's ISIS who did this, then it is a bit of both, but ultimately everything is aimed at encouraging an all-out war with the West (specifically the US) in Syria.

In reply to baron:


I'm sure you're a good reader really. The suggestion is to reassess the links between terrorism here and our foreign policy abroad. Again, not very controversial really, unless you think assessing things is bad.

In reply to jkarran:


Quite, which is why I see the fixation on the identity (edit: as in background etc) of the bomber himself so unhelpful. There will always be willing puppets out there. The bigger questions to me are about the identity and motivation of the people pulling their strings. Take the puppets away and they'll switch to car bombs or other bombs.

Other people, likely British, are just as culpable for this murder of randomly chosen people. Unlike the bomber, they planing to live with this culpability.

In reply to wintertree:

I absolutely agree with the rest, but understanding the background of the bombers themselves can only help things like the Prevent programme and for educating families and schools to look out for the warning signs, Unfortunately it turns out this guy was spotted and reported some years back, so there'll be more to come on that no doubt.

In reply to jkarran:

"Why a concert, why children... probably just because they can, soft target, maximum outrage, possibly just a horrible coincidence of what's on on the day the plan comes to fruition."


OK, so you think that it is tenuous to improbable that there was any link between the target and Islam ideology?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I agree - we need to understand the background of everyone involved, but it is not I think good to fixate on just one individual, especially when they're perhaps a puppet. More a comment on the way the discussion is going here than anything else.

In reply to jkarran:
Terrorists have chosen soft targets for many years. Terrorist campaigns attack "harder" targets (members of the security services, officials, intitutions) for the damage they perceive they can achieve against the protested foe.

This usually goes hand in hand with soft targets with a high "atrocity" value - airports, shoppers, children, old people, doctors. The killers are brainwashed and deluded into thinking they are soldiers hitting a "military" objective as above. The people behind it have the real objective of escalating conflict by shocking "the enemy". It gives them the initiative, making the "enemy" act responsively, possibly in haste and generally stirring up the shit.

The cooler and horrific evil strategists behind the campaign know escalation will recruit them more followers, give them more importance and that history has shown that conventional mass force has a hard job to prevail against a terror network.

[imho]

In reply to krikoman:

You are quite right. If someone lives in a news bubble filled with fake news then they will get angry. Getting to the truth is difficult though. IS and Hamas do place their military assets close to hospitals and schools and the Israelis & US use this as an excuse when innocents suffer.

In reply to jkarran:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/manchester-attack-salman-abedi-salafi-j...

Surprised to read this opinion piece in the Independent! ( I had to double check I wasn't on Brietbart makes the point that the targets were relevant and that it is to do with Islam.

In reply to Pekkie:


Even when MSF are on the phone telling them it's a hospital that's getting bombed and yet they still carry on.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Steady on there! Someone recently told Big Ger to 'not be a dick, dickhead', which I thought was good career advice, but this is getting just a little too heated.

In reply to Pekkie:

He's accused me of trying to justify the murder of 22, mainly young, people at a concert in a town I still consider home. I'd say my response was pretty restrained.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


I think the person or people that planned this could have twisted their ideology to justify pretty much any target, I'm sure plenty of people can and will explain why this one was 'valid' but I'd bet a fiver they would do the same for any venue/event.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

Still avoiding answering the question

Put it another way. Do you think that anyone suggesting the target was picked due to the bombers religion and beliefs have an opinion based on sound logic and fact (or were the quotation marks around valid important?) ?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I don't think I'm dodging the question, certainly not deliberately. The quotation marks were to indicate that while I don't agree about the validity of killing innocent people I'm sure the bomber/planner had managed to form some warped religious justification for bombing a pop concert. Equally I believe they could and frequently do do the same for a market, a bus, a school or a mosque.

I don't believe you'll find many British muslims who would agree even in complete privacy that bombing a pop concert is a valid course of action under any circumstances so is this an Islamic problem? Yes and no, it's clearly a warped version of Islam abstracted from a common, decent core that is used to justify this kind of attack but it is sufficiently abstracted that I tend much more toward no than yes. I can't do better than that, I don't have a binary answer to your question (among many other questions), my life would probably be simpler if I did.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

"Yes and no, it's clearly a warped version of Islam abstracted from a common, decent core...but sufficiently abstracted that I tend towards a no.."

It's interesting that you think it's abstract to make the link. Compare a promo pic of Arianda Grande to the school gates at home time at Park View School in Birmingham. We know one is an attractive woman with a great figure who is sexually attractive to the opposite sex. The others? God only knows! and that is just how they (the mums) or their husbands-fathers demand it Admittedly these two examples are two ends of the spectrum. But as we are dealing with extremes, then I think the link between his religion and the target of young girls is plausible leading to probable. Although I admit it is speculation.

Also, what are you referring to when you mention "a common decent core" as this is vague? Do you think Islam in it's pure form is common and decent? Do you see that in Sharia Law? in the way different denominations of Islam treat each other? In the tolerance of other religions? (i'm not trying to be provocative, genuinely interested and I don't need a binary answer...or any answer if your fed up with the debate

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

That isn't what I said or meant, I meant the twisted version of Islam used to justify violent jihad is so significantly abstracted from the core teachings of Islam common to all major versions of it that I consider it more a thing in and of itself than I consider it Islam.


I'll have to take your word for it, I'm not familiar with either group, I'd never even heard of AG before this week. Taking your descriptions at face value I'm not really sure I see much relevance though. Conservative thought and dress and disdain for an overtly sexualised popular culture is not unique to Muslims.


Quite possibly. I just don't know what exactly the individuals involved took for their specific motivation and justification nor do I see much value in understanding it given the warped ideology apparently behind attacks like this can easily be used to justify attacking a wide variety of targets including pious Muslims.


I mean the writings and teachings that are common to all major versions of Islam.


I believe a billion or so decent people practice peaceful decent versions of Islam across a massively varying cultural landscape, by and large they treat each other within their groups and without fairly, with decency and generosity (that's certainly been my limited experience in the Saudi, Turkey, Morocco and Uganda). I'm well aware one can find examples of Muslims behaving despicably, scholars and preachers preaching hate and division, violent intolerance and injustice in the writings and teachings. It's a medieval religion, show me one that that can't be willfully interpreted in this way. Yes I believe interpreted as the vast majority do it is basically a peaceful and benign delusion like all the other mainstream religions but then I'm a bit of a godless pinko snowflake
jk

In reply to baron:


This is NOT what was said. What he DID say was:

"[Troops] will only be deployed abroad when there is a clear need and only when there is a plan and you have the resources to do your job to secure an outcome that delivers lasting peace.

That is my commitment to our armed services."

In reply to Shani:

'Removing the U.K......' was a statement by me not a quote from Mr Corbyn and was intended to point out that even being totally isolated from world events wouldn't, in my opinion make us any safer.

In reply to Shani:


Well that does sound very sensible and I'd go along with that. Except when there was a clear need - when the Yazidis were being butchered and raped and the need clearly and logically set out by Hilary Benn of his own party - he voted against.

In reply to baron:


Well, let's not bother then!

You really think that our involvement in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Palestine or our refusal to denounce the Saudi regime and actively support it, doesn't get someone's back up?

Or at the very least doesn't give someone ammunition to use to convince someone else that we don't care about them?

We can seem to be able to get involved to be able to bomb people but not save them when they are refuges? What message does that send?

Luckily I don't have to make these decisions, but we seem to be making the same mistakes time and time again, maybe it's time for a rethink.

In reply to krikoman:
I'm signing myself up for a writing course as I seem unable to make my point clearly.
I was trying to say that had we not intervened in various countries over the last few years we would still be a target for terrorism.
They attack our lifestyle as much as our actions.
Bombing weddings, hospitals, obviously doesn't help.

In reply to krikoman:

Eliza Manningham-Buller (M15) and Dr David Wearing (youtu.be/CcuJiRyulFA) agree with Corbyn's conclusions.

I'd trust the secret services and ME academics over politicians. Good to see Corbyn following informed analysis.

In reply to Shani:

I'm not sure the head of MI5 said anything about wider or more recent foreign policy. She did say she believed the Iraq invasion increased the threat of terrorism, and she also said the terrorism threat predated both 9/11 and the Iraq war.
So not caused by it.

I note David Wearing seems to agree with current foreign policy in Syria to an extent - fight the war on ISIS by using local ground forces who are credible. Although he appears to want to leave them to it.

I don't know if he also wants Russia to withdraw.

(Edit to add - he's not actually got a PhD yet has he? )

In reply to off-duty:
I suspect recent foreign policy is going to fan flames.

http://u.afp.com/4sZK

I can't believe we haven't been bombing hard enough over the past 20 years. I'm happy to have terrorists killed, but not if the collateral damage is creating a bigger problem than the bombing was designed to solve.

In reply to Shani:

http://u.afp.com/4sZK

Are you suggesting that the bombing was because an attack on ISIS was misdirected?


I can't believe we haven't been bombing hard enough over the past 20 years. I'm happy to have terrorists killed, but not if the collateral damage is creating a bigger problem than the bombing was designed to solve.

Islamic terrorism in one form or another has been around for decades.
If we had the advantage of seeing a parallel timeline where perhaps the US didn't support Afghanistan rebels against Russia, who knows what we might see?

But we don't.
We can beat ourselves up and blame Western foreign policy for everything but it doesn't really help.

We have to deal with where we are. Withdraw everything from Syria and let Assad, Iran and Russia crush half a country? Then watch the YKK vs Turkey vs ISIS vs Assad end game... ?

In reply to off-duty:

You cannot be so silly as to be referring to the Manchester bombing? Am i misundertanding you here?


If MI5 and ME political academics advise against our ME military excursions, whilst home grown bombers repeatedly tell us their actions are linked to our military interventions. I'd rather go with their insight than yours.

https://t.co/GculxNmhH5

We DO have to deal with where we are, but more bombing seems at best futile and to be making things worse (AQ to IS in 20 years).

In reply to Shani:

> You cannot be so silly as to be referring to the Manchester bombing?

Am i misundertanding you here?

You're the person suggesting on a thread about Manchester that bombing Mosul fanned the flames.

If MI5 and ME political academics advise against our ME military excursions, whilst home grown bombers repeatedly tell us their actions are linked to our military interventions. I'd rather go with their insight than yours.


Well the head of MI5 discussed Iraq. Unless there are other comments you are referring to about other actions?and so did a PhD student with avowedly left wing credentials. No doubt gives him a valid point of view but, no, no more valid than anyone else's. Like mine.


We DO have to deal with where we are, but more bombing seems at best futile and to be making things worse (AQ to IS in 20 years).


Stopping is an option. Not entirely convinced that many Syrians would agree.
AQ haven't gone away - ISIS are just a whole heap more vicious.
If there was a definite step that would magically make ISIS and AQ disappear I'd be all for it.
But ISIS seem fairly keen to attack lots of places for lots of fairly spurious reasons.

In reply to off-duty:

Yes, you're massively misunderstanding me to the point you seem obtuse (that Mosul bomb came after Mcr). I talk of fanning the flames in the same capacity MI5 made a connection between home grown islamic terrorism and Western military activity in the ME.


Aha. You've "had enough of experts" eh?


ISIS are vicious but as an organisation, are not spuriously violent; they have a clear written manifesto based on a theocratic and political agenda.

In reply to Shani:


MI5 refer to home grown terrorism inspired to "fight back" in the UK against the enemy they perceive is attacking them in Iraq.
You make reference to a misdirected air strike killing non-ISIS citizens of Syria as encouraging ISIS.


Aha. You've "had enough of experts" eh?

Absolutely not. But its worth considering the pedigree of those professing to be experts. Rather than just partialy quoting them as you seen keen to do.


ISIS are vicious but as an organisation, are not spuriously violent; they have a clear written manifesto based on a theocratic and political agenda.


Spurious? You say "clear written manifesto based on a theocratic and political agenda" I say throwing suspected gay people off buildings, drowning prisoners in video, decapitating them slowly, getting toddlers to shoot them in the head, blowing up children...

In reply to off-duty:

Please show me where I've misquoted?

I see you ignore my points where the home grown bombers themselves say they're responding to 'our' military actions.


All horrific. Your point is?

In reply to Shani:


Not misquoted. Partially quote. Your comment above - that's a misquote.

I see you ignore my points where the home grown bombers themselves say they're responding to 'our' military actions.

I'm not ignoring it at all. I'm just picking up on the link you decided to post.


All horrific. Your point is?

Again - you are the one that disagreed they were spuriously violent by specifically saying they were following a "clear written manifesto based on a political and theocratic agenda".

In reply to off-duty:


You'll have to point out where.


They do have a manifesto.

In reply to Shani:


My words : > But its worth considering the pedigree of those professing to be experts. Rather than just partialy quoting them as you seen keen to do.

Your words : Please show me where I've misquoted?

They do have a manifesto.

I'm sure they do. They are also spuriously vicious.

In reply to off-duty:


Please show me where I've partially quoted?


This could get tediously unproductive for both of us.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Right, let's try again then;

This was my comment;


This was your reply;


What were you trying to say, for the fourth time of asking.

Interestingly, later in this thread, you state

In reply to off-duty:

the threat may have predated the 2nd Gulf War but US, French and British sanctions on Iraq and military action (mainly bombing) caused loss of life and terrible conditions for Iraqis for years before the Second Gulf War. There were very distressing accounts from time to time on R4 "From our own correspondent" of familes being wiped out by such bombing, sometimes after RAF strikes. If we found it distressing to hear about, what was it like to experience and how much bad feeling did the interwar period stir up, given what Western Europe allowed to happen to muslims in former Yugoslavia? My simple brain thought we were losing moral authority even then, and when we went itno Afghanistan and then Iraq after the lamentable dishonesty over WMD it had gone. I predicted then we'd not be able to intervene later when it might be really needed because of what we'd done with our credibility and moral capital.

It has everything to do with our Foreign policy, going back decades

In reply to wercat:

>It has everything to do with our Foreign policy, going back decades

UK/US foriegn policy is once aspect of the bigger picture, but the root cause the current spate of Islamic terrorism in Europe is a puritanical branch of Islam. It isn't even a branch of Islam that's underground on a global scale.... capital punishment for apostasy in Saudi Arabia, for instance. There is of course a branch of Islam compatible with Western democracy, that the majority of UK Muslims follow. However when the puritanical branch is out there and actively promoted, we're going to have problems.

Not suggesting any answers, I don't have any, but it is good start is to understand the problem.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/26/delusion-terror-attac...

In reply to Mike Stretford:
Interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

I think there are two strands here.

ISIS have a political and Theocratic agenda (and the punishments Off-Duty talks of come from the 'hudud' penal code) the application of which has strong cultural drivers and takes aim at our VALUES.

But the radicalisation of home-grown terrorists might have a more nuanced cause. These guys seem to be driven by a simplistic narrative of 'Western Crusaders', and are acting in response to our POLICIES. But this is just the last step in a complex chain of ever-changing factors.

http://theconversation.com/what-science-can-reveal-about-the-psychological-...

In reply to wercat:


Way too simplistic. True our foreign policy has contributed to the problem but if foreign policy was the cause why have Belgium and Germany been targeted when they haven't got involved in any of the wars or actions - in fact their foreign policies have been more or less what Corbin would have done?

In reply to Pekkie:

Whag did the Belgium and French attackers state as their motivation? Genuine question.

In reply to Shani:


I meant Belgium and German.*

I note that Belgium is a participant in the ongoing war against ISIS. I also note that at least one of the recent attacks in Germany the terrorists were not home-grown.

In reply to Shani:


The motivation for the 2016 Berlin market attack seems to have been that it was at Christmas. The motivation for many IS attacks seems to be purely religious e.g. on Yazidis in Syria and Coptic Christians in Egypt.

In reply to Pekkie:

The German government has been hugely (some would say overly) welcoming to Muslim immigrants. This is the last thing ISIS wants.

In reply to Pekkie:

My two p.

So, it seems clear to me that the US and Uk's foreign policy has contributed a lot to the rise in terrorism. Terrorism has increased a lot since we invaded Iraq. Clearly the destabilization has given opportunity to terrorist groups, eg ISIS. Many terrorist groups give western intervention in the middle east as a reason for terrorist attacks on the west without specifying particular countries or foreign policy. Many non-terrorist muslims in the west (and elsewhere) feel strongly about this and this must make it more likely for some to become terrorist.

If it's mostly the US and the UK, then why attack other countries? While terrorist groups might link specific attacks to specific foreign policy, generally they seem to be against the west as a whole: part of their whole schtick is being against immoral infidels or whatever. The effect has been that what is mostly US and UK foreign policy has led to an increase in anti western terrorism generally. People that become part of this, tend to attack where it's easy for them to do so. And your more likely to get these people in places with certain social conditions. The place in belgium for example. The US has less of this, so gets proportionally less attacks. The UK too probably and I understand we've also better security - partly more competent and partly being an island, so less accessible than, say, Paris.

In reply to wercat:


So... the people carrying out the attacks, and the organisations to which they belong or claim allegiance to, say time after time that they perpetrate the attacks in the name of Islam and with the intent of attacking our values and imposing theirs. But you and many others know differently. Regardless of what they say, you know it's actually something else.

It's hard not see this as an interpretation based on racism: "My mighty white mind knows better than their poor simple brown one. I am sophisticated and insightful, whereas they are but children".

ISIS and their followers may be vile, murderous, and intolerant - but they are not dumb brutes. They are (on the whole) intelligent, determined, and have a powerful commitment to their religion and their culture. Barbaric is not the same as stupid. And, "It's all our fault" is neither insightful nor virtuous.

In reply to Thrudge: you're assuming, deliberately simplistically , that the effects of foreign policy are religion neutral. If your foreign policy has, for a long time included meddling in Arabic countries then muslims will be disproportionately affected, even if the policy. Doesn't specify that

In reply to wbo:


The key thing to understand with IS is that foreign policy doesn't make much difference. They are against our whole lifestyle and approach to the world which we are hardly going to change. So it is a fight to the finish. One thing in our favour is that much of the Muslim world, including Iran, is also against them.

In reply to wbo:
I respectfully submit that you've made an error, in that you've assumed that I've assumed that. That assumption is incorrect. UK policy in the Middle East has affected Muslims because they are Muslim majority counties. I make no attempt to dispute the obvious.

At the risk of boring people by repeating myself, I refer you to my main point, which is that jihadis themselves give religious - not foreign policy - reasons for their attacks. And so do the organisations to which they claim allegiance.

If foreign policy were the main issue, as so many in the west are keen to claim, I think they'd have a hard time explaining the attacks in Kuwait, Indonesia, Pakistan, Denmark, Spain, Belgium, Germany, Argentina, Greece, China and others. There's a big list here:

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

The Kuwaiti-Pakistani-Walloon Army of Greco-China have had remarkably little involvement with, let alone a history of intervention in, the affairs of the Middle East. And no amount of thrilling self-flagellation can alter that.

In reply to Thrudge:

I'm inclined to agree. But i think things are different when it comes to home-grown terrorists.

In reply to Shani:

I'm intrigued. May I ask you to expand on that?

In reply to Pekkie:
You think they just appeared in a vacuum? IS are a particular case even among jihadis as they formed in an environment created accidentally by the US controlled Iraqi government. Foreign policy created that environment

In reply to Thrudge: I see your point, but beg to differ. They of course give a religious justification but I don't think the causes of radicalization are religious, rather that religion exploits division, poverty and generL unhappiness. Foreign policy by the 'west' is a part of that story.

In reply to wbo:


Good heavens, no. They appeared out of a 1000 year old religion and culture that formed a vast violent, slave-trading empire which conquered widely and ruled by the sword, until it fizzled somewhat under Ataturk's secularism in the early 20th century. Fizzled, but by no means disappeared.

Hands up, I have failed to directly address the points you make re UK and US foreign policy. Allow me to put that right: it is indisputable that UK and US foreign policy has had an effect in the Middle East, and highly plausible that those policies and actions have had *some* effect on Islamic terrorism, although the nature and the extent of that effect is highly debatable.

What is not debatable, is that individual jihadis and jihadi organisations repeatedly state religious reasons for their ideas and actions, and back them up with quotations from holy scripture. It's also very noticeable that they talk repeatedly about defeating 'the west'. Not the UK, not the US - the west. And they're as good as their word. I'm still waiting for someone to point to Belgian, Greek or Danish atrocities in the Middle East.

Whilst I'm in this equable frame of mind, I should also concede that I've tarred too many people with the same brush in describing the gleeful and the morbid self-scourgers who would lay the blame for all Islamic terrorism at our own door. It's only fair to point out that many of these people may - with impeccable justification - simply be terrified of what is happening and have reached for "it's our fault" as way of hanging on to hope that we can fix it. A "get out of the Middle East and all will be well" approach.

I think this is a futile hope. Radical Islam has declared religious war on western civilization, not just on the UK and US. This is not about foreign policy - at its very root, it is about religion.

In reply to Thrudge:


And what fostered the growth of radical Islam?

Just as what fostered radical Christian groups (the violent anti-abortion, for example)?

What they see going on around them.

In reply to wbo:


So what do the Coptic Christians in Egypt have to do with our foreign policy?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-40070612

In reply to Pekkie:

I think you and wbo are coming at this from different perspectives. You (seem to be) thinking about ISIS/terrorists/people that support them now in a kind of snap shot in time - they don't like the west and if we stop doing whatever it might not make any difference. The WBO perspective is about how this came to be, how they came to hate the west and how they might evolve: it says that historical foreign policy has contributed a lot to how they are now re the west and that current and future foreign policy may contribute a lot to how terrorism in general evolves in future. Put another way: current ISIS (or others of similar persuasion) hate us. What we do won't affect this (much), but foreign policy had a role in coming to this situation, and it won't stay exactly as is for ever. Our future foreign policy will have an effect on how it changes.

In the interests of fruitful debate: how do you think the this could be resolved beyond just two people having different views. What would it take to persuade you the wbo view is right? same question to wbo: what would it take to persuade you pekkie is right here? (Or maybe you can both end up a bit closer to each other int he middle somewhere)

(Apologies if I've misrepresented either of your views)