Explosions reported in Manchester?
Discussion
Pan Pan Pan said:
Mothersruin said:
Smiler. said:
Young muslim lad speaking on R4 (PM programme), apparently knew the accused.
I heard this guy in the car - sounded to me like he was blaming every man and his dog for not pandering to their culture and belief system and as such it's not surprising that some would want blow stuff up. Everyone else's fault.Edited by Mothersruin on Thursday 25th May 00:13
The problem is that many hold the misguided belief, that those that carry out these acts of violence, and those who tacitly support such acts, or do nothing when such acts are carried out in the name of their `religion' are really just like us. When they are absolutely not.
It seems to odd to see `some' welcoming a religion, which is essentially medieval, to these shores which believes women are second class citizens, who are not allowed to show themselves in public, not allowed into the circles of power in that culture, and which practices. FMG, and where it is the women who is punished (stoned to death) if `they' have been raped , they are not even allowed to drive a car. Or where gays can be thrown off tall buildings, or beheaded. and where it is seen as acceptable to carry placards saying Islam will dominate the world, and all unbelievers will be beheaded.
The fact that many, even those in high places, are not able to see, that they are not like us, is why so many forays into Islamic countries have ended in failure. Such people go into these regions thinking they are helping (at least one side) to deal with the problems that religious extremism causes. only to find that both sides then turn on their `would be' saviors, because those trying to help (at least one side) are not of the faith.
the West will never solve the issue, and even centuries of trying to has ended without success.
It is for Islam to deal with these problem without what it sees as interference (no matter how well intentioned) from the West, the question is, especially when its stated aim is to dominate the world, does it really want to?
As for the West, if another culture appears to want to make itself look like a venomous snake, think like a venomous snake, act like a venomous snake, and kill like a venomous snake, then on balance best for the West, to leave that culture well alone, until such time as that culture, has done enough to prove to the world that really it is not a venomous snake. If such cultures want to kill themselves in religious wars, then so be it, it that is what `they' want to do. All the West should do is concentrate on is stopping such cultures, from infiltrating `its' territories.
Not all football team supporters were violent, moronic thugs. But the ones that counted (from a trouble perspective) on the day were.
Measures were taken, counteractive programmes bought into effect. These days, such violence seems to have melted away.
However I don't think that it's totally gone away, scratch the surface & the same tribal mentality is there. Furthermore, the following of football teams could be classed as religious.
No one ever suggested that football be banned.
I agree that Islam & the communities of foreign descent which follow it (in the UK at least) have some serious problems to address. But demonising all those people without engaging with them will never resolve the problems.
What I think is missing is proper leadership.
Leadership from within the communities (on the face of it) seems non-existent - well not leadership which puts the sort of civil liberty the UK has traditionally stood for.
Leadership from government, who will call a spade a spade & act appropriately, without fear of being labelled by the petty PC brigade.
There's right, there's wrong & there's concession. Proper leadership has to acknowledge the former & apply the latter in the correct measure.
Islam is here to stay.
One major issue with Islam in the UK (or the perception of it) is the suspicion of those outside that followers put the various foreign born cultures that are symbiotic with Islam before anything else & strive to maintain an insular nature. Until this is tackled constructively by both sides, the perpetual vociferous interactions on the public arena will go on - without resolution.
TL;DR - Islam has issues but it takes both sides to resolve them.
p1stonhead said:
Lordbenny said:
48 hours and we've done what? We've rightly cried, we've expressed regret, we've held hands and we've lit candles.
Theresa May - that motherf
ker murderer has just returned from Libya. You have the intel to know where that was trained, you can see the camp by satellite. Even if you get it a bit wrong, send in the RAF and bomb the fk out of them or resign. We claim we have a defence, well defend! Show the world that we aren't French, that you can't fk with us, that we WILL NOT STAND for enemies operating within us. I've said it before but it if our Govt won't then let the people sort it. Those poor kids, their unimaginably distressed parents. It's war - take the war to them and show them you can't fk with us. Furious but we are so weak! How would Churchill react? You owe it to those poor kids!
Genius.Theresa May - that motherf
ker murderer has just returned from Libya. You have the intel to know where that was trained, you can see the camp by satellite. Even if you get it a bit wrong, send in the RAF and bomb the fk out of them or resign. We claim we have a defence, well defend! Show the world that we aren't French, that you can't fk with us, that we WILL NOT STAND for enemies operating within us. I've said it before but it if our Govt won't then let the people sort it. Those poor kids, their unimaginably distressed parents. It's war - take the war to them and show them you can't fk with us. Furious but we are so weak! How would Churchill react? You owe it to those poor kids!The obvious thing here is for May to have a word with the Donald, he'll happily send in a few tomahawks to look tough, you could hear him "We did it for the Brits, took out those bad guys, sad losers, Team America!", same result but US get the blame and attention.
Boring_Chris said:
Puggit said:
I know there was discussion about this man previously, I can't be bothered to find the posts to quote them, but the Daily Mail has printed a handy cut-out-and-keep guide on his equipment:
16 year old boys everywhere will be thrilled at that.Christ that article stretches it...'clothing'...he is wearing clothing! this can be natural or man-made! Thanks Daily Mail.
Smiler. said:
OK, possibly about to jump the snark; back in the 70s & 80s, football violence was endemic at weekends.
Not all football team supporters were violent, moronic thugs. But the ones that counted (from a trouble perspective) on the day were.
Measures were taken, counteractive programmes bought into effect. These days, such violence seems to have melted away.
However I don't think that it's totally gone away, scratch the surface & the same tribal mentality is there. Furthermore, the following of football teams could be classed as religious.
No one ever suggested that football be banned.
To be fair, trouble inside stadiums was solved by a number of things. Firstly, the influx of Sky money in the 90's enabling clubs to build new grounds (including installation of CCTV) more suitable for hosting large crowds and secondly - recreational drugs! The 'rave scene' and use of recreational drugs in the 90's meant a whole movement away from trouble at grounds, people found a new way of releasing themselves at weekends.Not all football team supporters were violent, moronic thugs. But the ones that counted (from a trouble perspective) on the day were.
Measures were taken, counteractive programmes bought into effect. These days, such violence seems to have melted away.
However I don't think that it's totally gone away, scratch the surface & the same tribal mentality is there. Furthermore, the following of football teams could be classed as religious.
No one ever suggested that football be banned.
Football violence is still around, rarely inside grounds anymore but still pockets of it on back streets and pubs.
I also think after the Luton v Millwall game there were murmurs from Thatcher about banning football indefinitely until it could prove it had cleaned up it's act.
Anyway, back to the topic in hand...
Digga said:
To be fair, the present arrangement for 'monitoring' (i.e. it just is not happening, clearly) suspects is demonstrably falling short of what is required. We need to revise the powers available to the law and, if necessary, divert defence spending into enforcing them.
Why give them further powers when it's pretty evident they aren't using the ones they have?desolate said:
Digga said:
To be fair, the present arrangement for 'monitoring' (i.e. it just is not happening, clearly) suspects is demonstrably falling short of what is required. We need to revise the powers available to the law and, if necessary, divert defence spending into enforcing them.
Why give them further powers when it's pretty evident they aren't using the ones they have?
its exactly what terrorism aims to do and is very unlikely to stop anything from what we have seen."Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Edited by p1stonhead on Thursday 25th May 09:06
Halb said:
Boring_Chris said:
Puggit said:
I know there was discussion about this man previously, I can't be bothered to find the posts to quote them, but the Daily Mail has printed a handy cut-out-and-keep guide on his equipment:
16 year old boys everywhere will be thrilled at that.Christ that article stretches it...'clothing'...he is wearing clothing! this can be natural or man-made! Thanks Daily Mail.
s posting here today.I wonder, do the 'Right' of Pistonheads (or anywhere) sit and watch Starship Troopers nodding along in agreement from start to finish?
Puggit said:
I know there was discussion about this man previously, I can't be bothered to find the posts to quote them, but the Daily Mail has printed a handy cut-out-and-keep guide on his equipment:
I suspect he's not SAS though
I notice they've removed his tattoos from that drawing.I suspect he's not SAS though
p1stonhead said:
desolate said:
Digga said:
To be fair, the present arrangement for 'monitoring' (i.e. it just is not happening, clearly) suspects is demonstrably falling short of what is required. We need to revise the powers available to the law and, if necessary, divert defence spending into enforcing them.
Why give them further powers when it's pretty evident they aren't using the ones they have? its exactly what terrorism aims to do and is very unlikely to stop anything from what we have seen."Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Edited by p1stonhead on Thursday 25th May 09:06
Burwood said:
p1stonhead said:
desolate said:
Digga said:
To be fair, the present arrangement for 'monitoring' (i.e. it just is not happening, clearly) suspects is demonstrably falling short of what is required. We need to revise the powers available to the law and, if necessary, divert defence spending into enforcing them.
Why give them further powers when it's pretty evident they aren't using the ones they have? its exactly what terrorism aims to do and is very unlikely to stop anything from what we have seen."Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Edited by p1stonhead on Thursday 25th May 09:06
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff