Explosions reported in Manchester?

[p1stonhead]

rscott said:

bhstewie said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Corbyns comments regarding the bombing in Manchester, show two things. 1. He is an apologist for terrorists, carrying out attacks against the UK, trying to find ways of blaming the UK for what happened on Monday, and in previous attacks, like the one at Westminster only a few weeks ago.

Something I said on another thread.

After Monday how many comments have we seen along the lines of "Just fkking nuke the middle east" or "We should bomb the st out of Libya"?

Some people take the view "They killed our kids so let's kill them" and whilst it's only a tiny minority who think that way if they had the chance do you think they'd press the button and do it?

See any parallels?

It doesn't excuse it in any way shape or form but it seems a bit simplistic to say our actions overseas have absolutely nothing to do with it.

If you're ISIS and want to trigger one of your people to carry out an act like Manchester, then incidents like this http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/u... are perfect fuel for extremist rhetoric.

fk me Trump said ISIS wouldnt exist if the US took the oil from Iraq.

“To the victor belong the spoils,” Mr Trump told members of the intelligence community, saying he first argued this case for “economic reasons.” He said it made sense as a counterterrorism approach to defeating Isis “because that's where they made their money in the first place.”

“So we should have kept the oil,” he said. “[to the CIA] But, OK, maybe you'll have another chance.”

[durbster]

Stickyfinger said:

CrutyRammers said:

Short memories are part of the problem. No doubt the post 9/11 foreign adventures haven't helped, but there was plenty of Islamic terrorism going on in lots of countries before that. It's not just because the nasty west invaded Afghanistan.

Agree, there is some MASSIVE memory shortfall going on here.....

Are you suggesting western involvement in the middle east began in 2001?

[Cobnapint]

Stickyfinger said:

CrutyRammers said:

Short memories are part of the problem. No doubt the post 9/11 foreign adventures haven't helped, but there was plenty of Islamic terrorism going on in lots of countries before that. It's not just because the nasty west invaded Afghanistan.

Agree, there is some MASSIVE memory shortfall going on here.....

+1

[Pan Pan Pan]

bhstewie said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Corbyns comments regarding the bombing in Manchester, show two things. 1. He is an apologist for terrorists, carrying out attacks against the UK, trying to find ways of blaming the UK for what happened on Monday, and in previous attacks, like the one at Westminster only a few weeks ago.

Something I said on another thread.

After Monday how many comments have we seen along the lines of "Just fkking nuke the middle east" or "We should bomb the st out of Libya"?

Some people take the view "They killed our kids so let's kill them" and whilst it's only a tiny minority who think that way if they had the chance do you think they'd press the button and do it?

See any parallels?



It doesn't excuse it in any way shape or form but it seems a bit simplistic to say our actions overseas have absolutely nothing to do with it.

I have said several times before that the West should keep out of the religious conflicts of the Middle East, because even where the Wests interventions were done with the best intentions (Remember the West trying to stop people like Saddam Hussein gassing thousands of his own people) both sides invariably just see it as infidels interfering in their affairs, and act (in their eyes) accordingly.
Bad though it might seem, it may have been best for the West to just stand back, and let these warring countries just get on with killing eachother, and then just deal with the winning side.
Do not forget these countries (not forgetting places like Bosnia) were killing their own people/ kids long, long before the West decided to step in and try to put a stop to it.
If the so called warriors of these countries just fought the warriors of the other countries/religious sects that they disagree with, that would be more understandable, and even then there would bound to be collateral deaths of the civilian population, but to target innocents in other countries, many of whom have virtually no knowledge of what these people are fighting about, let alone support for either side, seems to highlight the stark difference between the mind set of the majority of those in the West, and the medieval mind set of the those in the Middle East. They cannot be reasoned with, they don't have the same culture, mind set and values of those in the West, and if history is anything to go by, they never will.

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Friday 26th May 10:39

[Stickyfinger]

Mousem40 said:

Alpinestars said:

Comply? You disillusioned little man you.

Here try this. And please post reasons for your juxtaposition.

I'll make it easy for you.

Bin Laden's letter. Apologies the paper doesn't swing the same way as you do.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theo...

Rigby's killer, an eye for and eye, a tooth for a tooth. I'm not going to post a direct link to the video, but that's what he said after killing Rigby. Click the video if you want.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/19/le...

Jihadi John - States the reason for beheading a U.S. citizen is because of the U.S.' foreign policy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-111716...

Research on why people join ISIS

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/...


Max Abraham's paper

https://fsi.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Abrah...

Lots of other sources are available via Google.

Edited to add, that for the avoidance of doubt, these are not my views as to why terrorists commit atrocities. They are reasons cited by terrorists themselves.

Edited by Alpinestars on Thursday 25th May 22:45

Excellent post, especially the Max Abrahms paper. Thanks

Apologists and false reason/blame transfer

and the reality is
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/35632786/manches...

[heebeegeetee]

The only way religious extremism will be stopped is when the religion itself takes action against those who purport to carry out these acts of terror on its behalf, but since their stated aim is to dominate the world, just like it has been since well before the Crusades,

[/quote]

Hmm, some irony there. "Their stated aim has been to dominate the world, just like it has been since well before we invaded them".

I wonder who wanted to dominate who?

[quote=Raygun]
If we knew what would happen once Gaddafi was got rid of I dare say our approach would have been different,

[/quote]

Well we should have known, and if we didn't we should have stayed out. War is serious so their can be no excuses.

Ultimately I still think that deep-rooted colonial arrogance is at the root of so many of these foreign ventures.

[Oakey]

heebeegeetee said:

I wonder who wanted to dominate who?

You could look it up, I guess?

[bitchstewie]

Pan Pan Pan said:

I have said several times before that the West should keep out of the religious conflicts of the Middle East, because even where the Wests interventions were done with the best intentions (Remember the West trying to stop people like Saddam Hussein gassing thousands of his own people) both sides invariably just see it as infidels interfering in their affairs, and act (in their eyes) accordingly.
Bad though it might seem, it may have been best for the West to just stand back, and let these warring countries just get on with killing eachother, and then just deal with the winning side.
Do not forget these countries (not forgetting places like Bosnia) were killing their own people/ kids long, long before the West decided to step in and try to put a stop to it.
If the so called warriors of these countries just fought the warriors of the other countries/religious sects that they disagree with, that would be more understandable, and even then there would bound to be collateral deaths of the civilian population, but to target innocents in other countries, many of whom have virtually no knowledge of what these people are fighting about, let alone support for either side, seems to highlight the stark difference between the mind set of the majority of those in the West, and the medieval mind set of the those in the Middle East. They cannot be reasoned with, they don't have the same culture, mind set and values of those in the West, and if history is anything to go by, they never will.

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Friday 26th May 10:39

And that might be fair.

My point was simply that whilst I'm no fan of Corbyn on most things, I think it's a bit simplistic calling him an apologist for suggesting foreign policy may just have some influence on some of the people who do these things.

[Alpinestars]

The Spruce goose said:

Bibbs said:

Australian Muslim take on it ..
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/35632786/manches...

if we had more iman's like the one with the white hat on this type of extremist more be reduced. Sensible stuff, and as they say he is spat on by his own people for saying it.

His own people? Don't you mean people who don't agree with him? This and last night's QT should highlight that Muslims are not one homogenous thinking mass. Like in all walks of life, they have hugely differing views. Zealots at one end, Mystics who are much closer to Buddhists and Hindus, and those who don't place any emphasis on the religion at the other end. Ie, just people.

[Digga]

Pan Pan Pan said:

I have said several times before that the West should keep out of the religious conflicts of the Middle East, because even where the Wests interventions were done with the best intentions (Remember the West trying to stop people like Saddam Hussein gassing thousands of his own people) both sides invariably just see it as infidels interfering in their affairs, and act (in their eyes) accordingly.
Bad though it might seem, it may have been best for the West to just stand back, and let these warring countries just get on with killing eachother, and then just deal with the winning side.
Do not forget these countries (not forgetting places like Bosnia) were killing their own people/ kids long, long before the West decided to step in and try to put a stop to it.
If the so called warriors of these countries just fought the warriors of the other countries/religious sects that they disagree with, that would be more understandable, and even then there would bound to be collateral deaths of the civilian population, but to target innocents in other countries, many of whom have virtually no knowledge of what these people are fighting about, let alone support for either side, seems to highlight the stark difference between the mind set of the majority of those in the West, and the medieval mind set of the those in the Middle East. They cannot be reasoned with, they don't have the same culture, mind set and values of those in the West, and if history is anything to go by, they never will.

^This. It was apparent even before the turn of the last century and little that the West has done and experienced either within these regions or, as a result, from their supporters within the West, has served to prove the idea that our intervention was wise. We need to learn.

[otolith]

heebeegeetee said:

Hmm, some irony there. "Their stated aim has been to dominate the world, just like it has been since well before we invaded them".

I have not fact checked this, and the guy clearly has an agenda, however even those who dislike him seem to accept that his approach is generally objective.


https://youtu.be/eAn_I64mloU

[Alpinestars]

Stickyfinger said:

Mousem40 said:

Alpinestars said:

Comply? You disillusioned little man you.

Here try this. And please post reasons for your juxtaposition.

I'll make it easy for you.

Bin Laden's letter. Apologies the paper doesn't swing the same way as you do.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theo...

Rigby's killer, an eye for and eye, a tooth for a tooth. I'm not going to post a direct link to the video, but that's what he said after killing Rigby. Click the video if you want.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/19/le...

Jihadi John - States the reason for beheading a U.S. citizen is because of the U.S.' foreign policy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-111716...

Research on why people join ISIS

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/...


Max Abraham's paper

https://fsi.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Abrah...

Lots of other sources are available via Google.

Edited to add, that for the avoidance of doubt, these are not my views as to why terrorists commit atrocities. They are reasons cited by terrorists themselves.

Edited by Alpinestars on Thursday 25th May 22:45

Excellent post, especially the Max Abrahms paper. Thanks

Apologists and false reason/blame transfer

and the reality is
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/35632786/manches...

You really have no capacity to learn do you. Even when it comes from the horses mouth.

[Burwood]

Alpinestars said:

The Spruce goose said:

Bibbs said:

Australian Muslim take on it ..
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/35632786/manches...

if we had more iman's like the one with the white hat on this type of extremist more be reduced. Sensible stuff, and as they say he is spat on by his own people for saying it.

His own people? Don't you mean people who don't agree with him? This and last night's QT should highlight that Muslims are not one homogenous thinking mass. Like in all walks of life, they have hugely differing views. Zealots at one end, Mystics who are much closer to Buddhists and Hindus, and those who don't place any emphasis on the religion at the other end. Ie, just people.

very true. Jews are no different. In fact many Orthodox Jews I've met dislike progressive/liberal Jews more than non Jews.

[rscott]

otolith said:

heebeegeetee said:

Hmm, some irony there. "Their stated aim has been to dominate the world, just like it has been since well before we invaded them".

I have not fact checked this, and the guy clearly has an agenda, however even those who dislike him seem to accept that his approach is generally objective.


https://youtu.be/eAn_I64mloU

Interesting opinion on this chap and his work here - https://www.quora.com/How-accurate-is-Bill-Warner-... .

He also declared Obama to be the face of Islam in America http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/president-obama... , so might just be pushing a slight agenda...

[Alpinestars]

Burwood said:

Alpinestars said:

The Spruce goose said:

Bibbs said:

Australian Muslim take on it ..
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/35632786/manches...

if we had more iman's like the one with the white hat on this type of extremist more be reduced. Sensible stuff, and as they say he is spat on by his own people for saying it.

His own people? Don't you mean people who don't agree with him? This and last night's QT should highlight that Muslims are not one homogenous thinking mass. Like in all walks of life, they have hugely differing views. Zealots at one end, Mystics who are much closer to Buddhists and Hindus, and those who don't place any emphasis on the religion at the other end. Ie, just people.

very true. Jews are no different. In fact many Orthodox Jews I've met dislike progressive/liberal Jews more than non Jews.

People generally are no different. There are universally accepted things humans do, without religion. But it never stops free thought and divergence of thought. We're all different. No matter what "clan" we belong to.

[Halb]

rscott said:

If you're ISIS and want to trigger one of your people to carry out an act like Manchester, then incidents like this http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/u... are perfect fuel for extremist rhetoric.

Quite.

As an aside, Balkans is also oil rich.

[ferrisbueller]

ferrisbueller said:

Raygun said:

Gaddafi was responsible for a bombing a disco where loads of US servicemen got killed, he was responsible for the bombing of a plane over Lockerbie, he bankrolled the IRA .
If we knew what would happen once Gaddafi was got rid of I dare say our approach would have been different, there seems to be a lot of people on here bullstting as if they knew what would happen once Gaddafi went and at a guess some of them probably weren't even born when Gaddafi was carrying out his terrorist acts.

I think most would agree that Gaddafi couldn't be allowed to continue, whenever they were born. The recurring issue is the failure to put something in place which is a sustainable demonstrable improvement.

It would appear that all that has happened is a change in the nature of the problem. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is the well known definition of insanity.

What we're looking at is a hideously complicated situation that cannot be simplified in to a simple do x, then y and the result will be z. As no-one can agree on x and y and the ideal of what z should actually be.

This is a long term issue which isn't going to be resolved quickly. However, it doesn't look like bombs are going to get it done, for anyone.

I think this overall discussion should be on a different thread as it has evolved rapidly from the original subject.

Having spent some more time researching I have to come back and correct some of this.

Raygun said:

Gaddafi was responsible for a bombing a disco where loads of US servicemen got killed, he was responsible for the bombing of a plane over Lockerbie, he bankrolled the IRA .
If we knew what would happen once Gaddafi was got rid of I dare say our approach would have been different, there seems to be a lot of people on here bullstting as if they knew what would happen once Gaddafi went and at a guess some of them probably weren't even born when Gaddafi was carrying out his terrorist acts.

One serviceman was killed in the disco. And it was believed to be a Syrian bomb.

Was Libya responsible for Lockerbie? My understanding is that Syria was the prime suspect but this was an inconvenient outcome.

It would appear Libya was a scapegoat, a pawn in the game. Gaddaffi was too much of a narcissist to address the situation. And Assad was the originator of many middle eastern issues.

However, it is difficult to establish the actual facts in a world where the truth seems to be so closely managed - or manipulated.

There is a recurring theme through this stuff. That would appear to be that our American bedfellows are the common enemy.

[Oakey]

ferrisbueller said:

One serviceman was killed in the disco. And it was believed to be a Syrian bomb.

Was Libya responsible for Lockerbie? My understanding is that Syria was the prime suspect but this was an inconvenient outcome.

It would appear Libya was a scapegoat, a pawn in the game. Gaddaffi was too much of a narcissist to address the situation. And Assad was the originator of many middle eastern issues.

However, it is difficult to establish the actual facts in a world where the truth seems to be so closely managed - or manipulated.

There is a recurring theme through this stuff. That would appear to be that our American bedfellows are the common enemy.

If you look hard enough you can find newspaper articles from the time that puts Syria in the frame

[dudleybloke]

Oakey said:

ferrisbueller said:

One serviceman was killed in the disco. And it was believed to be a Syrian bomb.

Was Libya responsible for Lockerbie? My understanding is that Syria was the prime suspect but this was an inconvenient outcome.

It would appear Libya was a scapegoat, a pawn in the game. Gaddaffi was too much of a narcissist to address the situation. And Assad was the originator of many middle eastern issues.

However, it is difficult to establish the actual facts in a world where the truth seems to be so closely managed - or manipulated.

There is a recurring theme through this stuff. That would appear to be that our American bedfellows are the common enemy.

If you look hard enough you can find newspaper articles from the time that puts Syria in the frame

Most people find this hard to believe because the government told us it was Gaddafi and kept pushing the fact since the bombing.
Now they expect people to believe it was Assad but won't admit lying about Gaddaffi.

[Alpinestars]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That's not quite what you said.