Manchester Arena - Terrorist Incident

[dorlomin]

12 minutes ago, BradHorse said:

 

Why would the government intentionally try to 'shite' people up?

Because they have an incredible urge to make sure everyone can see how thoroughly they are locking the door after the horse has bolted. 

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

24 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

This is why it was incredibly irresponsible of the Americans to release information before the UK allowed it. Anyone connected, if there is anyone, will be trying to disappear or planning another attack. Sounds like they were leaking to CBS as soon as they received it. It wouldn't surprise me if someone on Trump's staff has a friendly contact with CBS.

This is an important point. I can understand foreign media reporting these things, but this is people from the intelligence agencies of our main ally undermining an anti-terror investigation here.

[EdgarusQPFC]

42 minutes ago, TheGoon said:

That's what I was thinking. I think it was raised after the Glasgow attack because of the London car bomb link the day previously.

I think you are correct, the other was the london riots? 

[peasy23]

I think you are correct, the other was the london riots? 

No, it was at the time when the ban on liquids on planes came in.

[Sooky]

Surely it's in their best interest to assume that another attack could be imminent off the back of one. I don't buy into any sort of semi-tinfoil hat bullshit here.

Also infuriating seeing people tweet about how May has only done this to help her with the election. She has no control over the terror threat level, does she? She needs to act accordingly to the advice of the security services, surely.

[Tony Ferrino]

1 hour ago, Zen Archer said:

What, like Rangers games?

If an attack is imminent, it's unlikely to come from them.

[Pearbuyerbell]

3 minutes ago, Tony Ferrino said:

If an attack is imminent, it's unlikely to come from them.

They'll  be happy they no longer hold the honour of the biggest single attack on Manchester city centre. 

[welshbairn]

Just now, Sooky said:

 

Also infuriating seeing people tweet about how May has only done this to help her with the election. She has no control over the terror threat level, does she? She needs to act accordingly to the advice of the security services, surely.

 

A rare agreement with you. Announcing an increased threat level is partly to mitigate people being panicked by seeing more armed police and possibly soldiers at railway stations, events etc. Hopefully it will be brought back down to normal soon.

[Glenconner]

21 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

A rare agreement with you. Announcing an increased threat level is partly to mitigate people being panicked by seeing more armed police and possibly soldiers at railway stations, events etc. Hopefully it will be brought back down to normal soon.

After the election?

[welshbairn]

25 minutes ago, Glenconner said:

After the election?

A day or so more likely when nothing happens, hopefully. I really don't think May would play around with this stuff. Fully expect them to pull the Corbyn terrorist sympathiser shit if her polls don't recover though.

[sparky88]

The terror threat warning level is a load of shite, its just there to make it look like stuff is being done after a terrorist attack.

More police on the streets won't do anything either. All more police around a nail bomber will result in is more dead/injured police officers.

[Dindeleux]

The easy answer to all of this is that there is no easy answer. It's a well known cliche but the security services have to get it right all of the time whereas a group or individual only needs to get it right once.

Sadly this is just a part of life now, it shouldn't be but it is.

[Tight minge]

Why must someone close "of" been aware?

What about all the mass murderers, paedos, rapists, etc, throughout history... by your logic noone would ever be able to commit a crime because they would always have stupidly told someone or given a hint about it beforehand.

There is always this bizarre assertion that "the Muslim community" (whatever the f**k that is supposed to mean) should do more, without ever specifying what it is.

It's funny how "the Christian community" were never blamed for any IRA or UVF atrocity.

The Muslim community should do much more and can do much more. Islamic faith and life centres round the mosque, the clerics and the imam. The vast majority are disgusted by these events, but that amounts to nothing if they chose to do nothing. If what has been reported about the bomber in this case is true (link to the guardian, I believe, a few pages back), then there was a clear opportunity to avoid what happened, but only with the local communities help. Heresay of course in this case.

Islam is not destroying Christianity or the west, its destroying itself, something these extremists are fine with as they believe their faith is the true faith and they can unite all muslims under their banner with the help of right wing nut jobs and knee jerk reactions by the west.

Any knee jerk reaction that blames/attacks all muslims only ensures that the above will never happen and that is where the far right help their enemy.

The good/normal muslims have to drive this out of their communities rather than turning a blind eye.

However, we see outrage and condemnation at this in our media as its on our doorstep. But like an incident in a foreign land, in the prodominately Muslim countries this news story will not be top news. It will of course get a lot of coverage, but the reaction will be not much more than we give to an incident in Afghanistan, Iran, Indonesia. 'Thays not good, what a shame, etc'.

So, the muslim community can do more, but it is also piece of a very complex jigsaw, but an important one.

[Alan Stubbs]

4 hours ago, anotherchance said:

 

This is true.

Also though, there's also plenty who appear to be equally self righteous when it turns out the assailant wasn't a refugee and who'll spend more time condemning folk on social media.

Does jumping the gun a bit and assuming it was Muslim extremists automatically make someone racist and xenophobic? No.

If you're angry about this and start looking for answers as to how we stop it happening (see Piers Morgan this morning) - does it automatically make you "driven by hate"? No.

I abhor racism, but if you question the good the self righteous element are doing then the debate is almost always shut down by "you sound like a right wing racist" or similar.

Polarised politics and morals. Extremes on both sides, and loads of disillusionment in between.


 

 

 

3 hours ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

 

Yes it does.

 

Don't think that's fair. Once it became clear that this wasn't an accident, I assumed it was a Muslim. Without getting into "listen mate, not all Muslims are terrorists, but" territory - which anyone who isn't a slavering mouthbreather knows is total bollocks - it was the most likely scenario on Monday night.

What's more telling is the people who can't even wait an hour or two for their suspicions to be confirmed before cracking a stauner about it. The folk who are willing to potentially look like a tit - which often turns out to be the case like NY recently - because the thought of innocent people being slaughtered is so exciting to them.

[Alan Stubbs]

15 minutes ago, Tight John McVeigh is a tit said:

 

The Muslim community should do much more and can do much more. Islamic faith and life centres round the mosque, the clerics and the imam. The vast majority are disgusted by these events, but that amounts to nothing if they chose to do nothing. If what has been reported about the bomber in this case is true (link to the guardian, I believe, a few pages back), then there was a clear opportunity to avoid what happened, but only with the local communities help. Heresay of course in this case.

Islam is not destroying Christianity or the west, its destroying itself, something these extremists are fine with as they believe their faith is the true faith and they can unite all muslims under their banner with the help of right wing nut jobs and knee jerk reactions by the west.

Any knee jerk reaction that blames/attacks all muslims only ensures that the above will never happen and that is where the far right help their enemy.

The good/normal muslims have to drive this out of their communities rather than turning a blind eye.

However, we see outrage and condemnation at this in our media as its on our doorstep. But like an incident in a foreign land, in the prodominately Muslim countries this news story will not be top news. It will of course get a lot of coverage, but the reaction will be not much more than we give to an incident in Afghanistan, Iran, Indonesia. 'Thays not good, what a shame, etc'.

So, the muslim community can do more, but it is also piece of a very complex jigsaw, but an important one.

 

We're going to need a more detailed level of insight into people "choosing to do nothing" to take this vague pish remotely seriously.

I know zero about this guy but the typical profile of those who have carried out similar attacks does not even remotely involve a life centred around the mosque. More often that not these have been young men living remarkably unreligious lifestyles.

Commonalaties between previous attackers have included petty crime, drug abuse, poor social engagement etc. I get the impression that some people think these guys are turning up to prayers five times a day with AK47s on them and nobody is batting an eyelid. It's utter nonsense. If this one turns out to be an active part of "The Muslim community", he's the exception rather than the rule.

[Tight minge]

Don't think that's fair. Once it became clear that this wasn't an accident, I assumed it was a Muslim. Without getting into "listen mate, not all Muslims are terrorists, but" territory - which anyone who isn't a slavering mouthbreather knows is total bollocks - it was the most likely scenario on Monday night.
What's more telling is the people who can't even wait an hour or two for their suspicions to be confirmed before cracking a stauner about it. The folk who are willing to potentially look like a tit - which often turns out to be the case like NY recently - because the thought of innocent people being slaughtered is so exciting to them.

Its not really something you can immediately accuse someone of being a racist for without jumping to as many conclusions as the person you are accusing.

Clearly people who immediately make accusations without any sign of evidence or proof are seriously questionable either as individuals or in motive.

There is however a logical process to go through and once a terrorist attack is ascertained, logic is going to be 99% correct that its done in the name of Islam.

I'd reckon its more questionable the persons intellect and coherent ability to absorb fact and rationalise than they are racists (kind of amount to the same thing really), just add fear and your there.

[Tight minge]

We're going to need a more detailed level of insight into people "choosing to do nothing" to take this vague pish remotely seriously.

I know zero about this guy but the typical profile of those who have carried out similar attacks does not even remotely involve a life centred around the mosque. More often that not these have been young men living remarkably unreligious lifestyles.

Commonalaties between previous attackers have included petty crime, drug abuse, poor social engagement etc. I get the impression that some people think these guys are turning up to prayers five times a day with AK47s on them and nobody is batting an eyelid. It's utter nonsense. If this one turns out to be an active part of "The Muslim community", he's the exception rather than the rule.

 

Allegedly this guy regularly attended his local mosque and after one imam preached against ISIS, this individual and others signed a petition against the said imam for his preaching. IF true that carries a lot of significance in this case.

 

I think your away in the wrong direction and my wording may play part in that.

 

Its not the radical hiding up the back with the AK-47. As many attackers have connection to mosques as have not and that is irrelevant. The one common denominator is that they are all killing in the name of Islam. They are also radicalised 'in the name of Islam'. That is unlikely to happen of its own accord. Imams and clerics play a massive role in this.

 

Most muslims are abhorred by all this but their is too much apathy. They have to be visible and vocal in their condemnation and they have to treat these people as the enemy they are and as many Fatwas condemn them.

 

What particular insight on 'doing nothing do you want?'

 

The Fatwas have to be built on, imams have to be much more vocal and governments (where applicable), have to take more action to stamp out terror activity in their country, preferably without the support of the west.

 

 

 

 

 

[BradHorse]

Has anyone read any of Sam Harris' books? Or indeed seen some talks or writings he's done in regards to religion? He's one of the 'new atheist' crowd along with Dawkins and Hitchens and them. I've never read his books but I've seen I'd say ~10 hours or so of him speaking at various universities and such and I actually agree with him in a lot of ways. 

He's a huge critic of Islam in particular. He says the worst books ever written are the Old Testament but he's very critical of the 'conquering' nature of the Islamic doctrine. Honestly - I think for any atheist it's really hard to disagree with the things he's saying. He's not saying Muslims are bad, or Christains are bad, or Hindus are bad or any sort of broad statement like that, but he was a neuroscientist at Harvard (I believe) and he specialises in the study of belief systems and the actions they cause and makes a lot of good points on the subject.

I'm gonna pick up a couple of books and look into his theories in more depth but I think it's about time people start having grown up and modern discussions about (all) religions and the pain and suffering they cause and ask why they seem to be so untouchable in terms of mainstream criticism.

 

*I checked and it was Stanford University he was at, not Harvard.

[Glenconner]

17 minutes ago, BradHorse said:

Has anyone read any of Sam Harris' books? Or indeed seen some talks or writings he's done in regards to religion? He's one of the 'new atheist' crowd along with Dawkins and Hitchens and them. I've never read his books but I've seen I'd say ~10 hours or so of him speaking at various universities and such and I actually agree with him in a lot of ways. 

He's a huge critic of Islam in particular. He says the worst books ever written are the Old Testament but he's very critical of the 'conquering' nature of the Islamic doctrine. Honestly - I think for any atheist it's really hard to disagree with the things he's saying. He's not saying Muslims are bad, or Christains are bad, or Hindus are bad or any sort of broad statement like that, but he was a neuroscientist at Harvard (I believe) and he specialises in the study of belief systems and the actions they cause and makes a lot of good points on the subject.

I'm gonna pick up a couple of books and look into his theories in more depth but I think it's about time people start having grown up and modern discussions about (all) religions and the pain and suffering they cause and ask why they seem to be so untouchable in terms of mainstream criticism.

 

*I checked and it was Stanford University he was at, not Harvard.

Maybe i'm just imagining it but hasn't organised religion in Scotland died on its arse and maybe that's why many of us are having problems figuring out the idea of a religious suicide bomber.

[Tight minge]

Has anyone read any of Sam Harris' books? Or indeed seen some talks or writings he's done in regards to religion? He's one of the 'new atheist' crowd along with Dawkins and Hitchens and them. I've never read his books but I've seen I'd say ~10 hours or so of him speaking at various universities and such and I actually agree with him in a lot of ways. 
He's a huge critic of Islam in particular. He says the worst books ever written are the Old Testament but he's very critical of the 'conquering' nature of the Islamic doctrine. Honestly - I think for any atheist it's really hard to disagree with the things he's saying. He's not saying Muslims are bad, or Christains are bad, or Hindus are bad or any sort of broad statement like that, but he was a neuroscientist at Harvard (I believe) and he specialises in the study of belief systems and the actions they cause and makes a lot of good points on the subject.
I'm gonna pick up a couple of books and look into his theories in more depth but I think it's about time people start having grown up and modern discussions about (all) religions and the pain and suffering they cause and ask why they seem to be so untouchable in terms of mainstream criticism.
 
*I checked and it was Stanford University he was at, not Harvard.

Never heard of the guy, but what your saying above makes sense. The biggest issue with Islam is its failure to modernise and adapt unlike say Christianity. The Koran is also written in a way that makes it 'conquering', but like everything it's open to interpretation. A good example of interpretation there is on alcohol which for the vast majority of muslims is forbidden. However, although there is something like 5 references to alcohol consumption in the Koran, not one actually says you should not consume alcohol. The closest is to have a 'unclouded' and clear mind when praying or such like.

Its all down to blind faith and there is no amount of rationale can explain why people chose to believe in such nonsense regardless of which religion you chose.

The fact that we still fight wars based on religion and nutters believe blowing up children is a path to righteousness is beyond comprehension.