Manchester Arena explosion.

digitalscream

Ravenous said:

digitalscream said:

Ravenous said:

Dresden, Hiroshima, the crusades, who knows what else....

Some of the people here and elsewhere, blaming someone else's culture, clawing for figures and arguments to support the view, and forgetting the past of our own.... well somehow it strikes me as highly questionable.

That's my position, but only in the sense that we're supposed to learn from it.

Consider this: it took the Western world's religions centuries to get away from the our-way-or-die approach. What on earth makes people think that the extreme ends of Islam are going to get there in a decade or two?

True. Maybe we should be helping them, not pushing them back.

(Not aimed at you directly. I'm just genuinely wondering if there's anything the better people here can do now to make a difference.)

Didn't take it personally; in fact, you have an excellent point. What if we changed the conversation from, "Muslims! Fix this problem!" to "Hey, we're not going to convert to Islam, but what do you reckon we could do - together - to make the world more harmonious for all of us?".

Yeah, it's a happy-clappy naive leftie ideal, but to my knowledge it hasn't actually been tried. Obviously, the current mostly-military approach to it isn't really working - and, realistically, it's never going to.

ToneControl

Lewy said:

ToneControl said:

the question they were asked was 

whether suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified

how many would sanction bombing civilians to "defend Christianity"? 

If there was a perceived existential threat to Christianity?Are you kidding.... f***ing LOADS!!

how would you threaten Christianity?

assassinate the pope?
destroy St Peter's?

so then it would be OK to mass-murder some civilians? How many Christians would agree with that?
I'm not really understanding you fully I think

10% to 20% of Muslims support IS / Daesh, which is not a moderate Islamic organisation
This is a fact. People are pretending that only a tiny tiny minority of Muslims feel an affiliation with this kind of murderer, but the evidence is that it's a quite large minority, or perhaps more. Where's your evidence?

ToneControl

Islamic State’s claim of responsibility was posted in Arabic and English on channels that the group uses on the encrypted Telegram instant messaging service.
The English version read: “A solider of the Khilafah managed to place explosive devices in the midst of the gatherings of the Crusaders in the British city of Manchester, in revenge for Allah’s religion, in an endeavour to terrorize the [infidels], and in response to their transgressions against the lands of the Muslims.
“The explosive devices were detonated in the shameless concert arena, resulting in 30 Crusaders being killed [sic] and 70 others being wounded. And what comes next will be more severe on the worshippers of the Cross and their allies.”

please can we stop pretending that this is unrelated to Islam?

it's caused by the attitudes of a minority of Muslims, but not a small minority, 10% or 20%, we don't know. that is a lot of people

Lewy

ToneControl said:

Lewy said:

ToneControl said:

the question they were asked was 

whether suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified

how many would sanction bombing civilians to "defend Christianity"? 

If there was a perceived existential threat to Christianity?Are you kidding.... f***ing LOADS!!

how would you threaten Christianity?

assassinate the pope?
destroy St Peter's?

so then it would be OK to mass-murder some civilians? How many Christians would agree with that?
I'm not really understanding you fully I think

I think maybe my point wasn't clear. What I'm saying is that I think if you asked a global sample of Christians - and I say global because your stats about muslim support for Daesh are from all over -  whether killing civilians to "defend Christianity" would be justified, you'd get more responses in the affirmative than you seem to be assuming.

ourmaninthenorth

This is what we're about...

Break this? Yeah right...

https://youtu.be/UWMOl2_viYo

richardhomer

One thing I tire of is people trying to 'understand' these things. Guy Garvey was on the World At One (presumably the first Northerner an average Radio 4 person would think of - and he's not doing much now Car Share has finished) and gave a beautifully worded eulogy to the City. And then added the inevitable 'we need to understand what made him do this'.

Why? The simple fact is, almost 100% of people faced with some form of (what they perceive) as an injustice would not decide to commit an act of this nature. 'Most' men were not Ian Brady - so what value is there in trying 'understand' how he came to commit the acts he did? I'm pretty sure that having gained an appreciation of his motivations, he still couldn't have been stopped.

Dont like the idea that if I need care in later life, that my son will have to sell the family home and only be able to keep £100,000 of what's left - but I moan about it - and have a choice as to whether I vote against it on June 8th.

Whatever the cause does not justify the action. It is pure, unalloyed evil - nothing more - nothing less. We really should stop trying to 'understand'....

NelsonP

"Imagine"

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today... Aha-ah...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace... You...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world... You...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

StormshadowGuitars

ToneControl said:

Teetonetal said:

Reporting is fine. Sensationalizing is not. Do you really need to see a video of the bomb going off' Really?
did you really need to see a video of the car driving down Westminster bridge and the woman falling off.

We've stopped reporting - we actually get the moment, virtually live. 

Imagine if your daughter was killed in that blast - would you really want to see it on video?

it's been getting worse for years:
if someone is murdered, we "have to see" people standing at the edge of the police tape over and over for hours, why can't we have a summary as things clarify
The media's approach is what got that poor chap in bristol dragged through hell:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/29/christopher-jefferies-tv-joanna-yeates-murder

I also think that showing too much detail could well have damaging psychological effects on many

I'm finding this whole 24hr 'News' thing a bit disturbing, its like they're all gathered outside waiting to tell you of the next child to die first, whilst filling the hours in between with waffle & speculation instead of real news.
Gather the true facts then report them properly, dignified and with professionalism.

Lewy

richardhomer said:

Whatever the causation does not justify the action. It is pure, unalloyed evil - nothing more - nothing less. We really should stop trying to 'understand'....

It's "know your enemy" stuff surely? There's a difference between understanding and being understanding. I don't hear anyone of any consequence advocating the latter. But it seems like a mistake to file it all under comic book style "evil" rather than looking to see if there are actions that can be taken upstream....

richardhomer

Lewy said:

richardhomer said:

Whatever the causation does not justify the action. It is pure, unalloyed evil - nothing more - nothing less. We really should stop trying to 'understand'....

It's "know your enemy" stuff surely? There's a difference between understanding and being understanding. I don't hear anyone of any consequence advocating the latter. But it seems like a mistake to file it all under comic book style "evil" rather than looking to see if there are actions that can be taken upstream....

Nothing 'comic book about it....

Lewy

richardhomer said:

Lewy said:

richardhomer said:

Whatever the causation does not justify the action. It is pure, unalloyed evil - nothing more - nothing less. We really should stop trying to 'understand'....

It's "know your enemy" stuff surely? There's a difference between understanding and being understanding. I don't hear anyone of any consequence advocating the latter. But it seems like a mistake to file it all under comic book style "evil" rather than looking to see if there are actions that can be taken upstream....

Nothing 'comic book about it....

Actually you're right because even in comic books, the villains usually have some sort of acknowledged back story, which doesn't justify their actions but explains it, often in a way in which the hero can exploit to defeat them.

Saying "it's just evil, stop trying to understand" is in fact sub-comic book when you think about it.

Jimbro66

dindude said:

Before this thread turns into the usual egotistical bun fight.................

Which of course it did, inevitably, so wis awarded for foresight. I guess it's just natural really when feelings run high.

It is sickening that any human being could find some perverted justification for slaughtering innocent kids. Truly sickening.

joeyowen

hmmm they have raised the terror threat to critical, I suspect they know something.

Critical means an attack is imminent.

Stay safe all!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40023488

Emp_Fab

Media reporting just now that threat level has just been raised to 'critical'.  "The threat level is set by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, which sits within MI5. Critical means an attack is expected imminently." - 2 mins ago.

ToneControl

Lewy said:

ToneControl said:

Lewy said:

ToneControl said:

the question they were asked was 

whether suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified

how many would sanction bombing civilians to "defend Christianity"? 

If there was a perceived existential threat to Christianity?Are you kidding.... f***ing LOADS!!

how would you threaten Christianity?

assassinate the pope?
destroy St Peter's?

so then it would be OK to mass-murder some civilians? How many Christians would agree with that?
I'm not really understanding you fully I think

I think maybe my point wasn't clear. What I'm saying is that I think if you asked a global sample of Christians - and I say global because your stats about muslim support for Daesh are from all over -  whether killing civilians to "defend Christianity" would be justified, you'd get more responses in the affirmative than you seem to be assuming.

maybe you're right, in which case I can state I am also concerned about Christianity, I have been for a long long time, I just think it's at least 10 times less dangerous at present

When Christian death cults start setting up quasi states based on genocide, rape and slavery in the name of God, and inciting others to commit mass murder of civilians, I'll upgrade those concerns proportionately

Drew_TNBD

So it's some little cocksucking dickhead called Salman Abedi. 22 years old.

22 fucking years old man. Didn't know shit. Barely fucking had pubes, and thought it was a good idea to blow himself up and a bunch of fucking children.

ToneControl

StormshadowGuitars said:

ToneControl said:

Teetonetal said:

Reporting is fine. Sensationalizing is not. Do you really need to see a video of the bomb going off' Really?
did you really need to see a video of the car driving down Westminster bridge and the woman falling off.

We've stopped reporting - we actually get the moment, virtually live. 

Imagine if your daughter was killed in that blast - would you really want to see it on video?

it's been getting worse for years:
if someone is murdered, we "have to see" people standing at the edge of the police tape over and over for hours, why can't we have a summary as things clarify
The media's approach is what got that poor chap in bristol dragged through hell:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/29/christopher-jefferies-tv-joanna-yeates-murder

I also think that showing too much detail could well have damaging psychological effects on many

I'm finding this whole 24hr 'News' thing a bit disturbing, its like they're all gathered outside waiting to tell you of the next child to die first, whilst filling the hours in between with waffle & speculation instead of real news.
Gather the true facts then report them properly, dignified and with professionalism.

I've just avoided the TV all day, since I assume that's what they will show

ToneControl

Drew_TNBD said:

So it's some little cocksucking dickhead called Salman Abedi. 22 years old.

22 fucking years old man. Didn't know shit. Barely fucking had pubes, and thought it was a good idea to blow himself up and a bunch of fucking children.

Born in Manchester, a city full of different cultures and races, but thought it was right to do this.

How could this have happened in the absence of religion?

Drew_TNBD

ToneControl said:

Drew_TNBD said:

So it's some little cocksucking dickhead called Salman Abedi. 22 years old.

22 fucking years old man. Didn't know shit. Barely fucking had pubes, and thought it was a good idea to blow himself up and a bunch of fucking children.

Born in Manchester, a city full of different cultures and races, but thought it was right to do this.

How could this have happened in the absence of religion?

It couldn't.

There was an abundance of religion.

Tavernor

There are two sides to every story, but that does not mean a reasonable argument can automatically be made to justify whichever side you happen to fall on. 

I'm a liberal person and have no issue in tolerating anyone's views, but that doesn't mean I can't disagree with them. The far, far right in the western world can have racist undertones, granted. For me the bigger problem is the far left who disregard genuine issues by calling anyone who calls out a culture or religion 'racists' and 'bigots', steadfastly refusing to recognise that valid points might be being made. Somebody should be allowed to have a negative view of religion without being demonised; violence can be attributed to pretty much any religion if you trace it back far enough but the unfortunate truth is that Islam is the justification of most modern day terrorism.  Obviously by that I mean what the west considers terrorism, rather than victims of war.

I used to volunteer at a local Muslim primary school, got on super well with the kids, parents and teachers alike. I was also regularly appalled by the abuse the kids would get minding their own business just walking down the street, sadly more frequently from adults than other children. The community welcomed me into it and I was gracious to be a part of it. Having said that, there are a lot of things I couldn't condone about the culture.

Teaching kids to live by the Qur'an when it says the penalty for apostates is death isn't cricket, nor are the anti semetic/homosexual guidelines and a lot of the commonly held views on marriage. I don't like the idea of arranged marriages but that's not by business, but (and people get particularly crucified for this one) inbreeding is a genuine problem as is the fact Allah condones domestic violence. These are genuine truths which people are often vilified for bringing up, ironically most often by the far left who preach freedom of speech and equal rights more than anyone. The thing is, the majority of Muslims I was close to did consider the Qur'an to be divine and infallible which is where the problem with Islam really lies. Whichever way you slice it, the Qur'an does include preachings of violence against enemies of Islam (primarily) as well as (to a lesser but still prevalent extent) the unbeliever.

Sad truth is what has already been stated, sympathy for jihadists is much more common in the Muslim community than the left would have you believe. It's not a lack of empathy, it's a reluctance to condemn any action which goes against, even slightly, the teachings of the Qur'an. It's a tiny minority of Muslims who would ever consider an act of terror but as long as the justification of that minority is Islam itself, change of approach and attitudes needs to come primarily from within the Islamic community. I've done a quick Google for Islamic forums, and I think it's deplorable how little the Manchester attack has been talked about and/or condemned.

Again, just to reiterate, I'm not tarring everyone who considers themselves to be a Muslim with the same brush. Most are probably heartbroken about it, the same as any decent human being would be. I'm just pointing out that there is a systematic failure to address extremism in the community itself. Whoever said that your average man is more likely to be a rapist than a Muslim is to have a degree of sympathy with extremists is living in a world of their own; sticking your head in the sand to that extent is just as dangerous to western civilisation as those preaching genuinely racist views on the right. Life isn't a bed of roses and neither is the world we live in. 

I've had a ramble here, it's mainly insomnia. I think what I'm trying to say is there is going to be a lot of noise made by the left, far left, right and far right in the next few weeks about Islam and that anyone truly objective and liberal should listen to all the arguments regarding Islam if society is going to tackle terrorism in an appropriate way. Some points will be valid, some will be way off, just don't default to calling people who criticise Islam racist, it's not necessarily the case. 

At the school I volunteered at I had frequent debates with some of the teachers about Islam. They valued my opinion and welcomed the challenges to their faith, which is how it should be. I remember one explaining that justifying Islamic views to me was, to them, a form of praise as they were spreading why, in their mind, Islam was the true way forwards. It didn't strike me at the time, and I don't believe for one moment it was the case, but the Qur'an does also condone deceiving or lying to unbelievers in order to further the progression of Islam. I think you'd be talking to someone exceptionally extreme if they did that but it's food for thought non the less. It's called taqqiya (I'm probably not remembering the spelling correctly) and one of the arguments​ after 9/11 was the culprits drinking etc was exactly that - a means to justify the end by throwing authorities off their case by appearing not to be devout.


The Manchester attack was an abhorrent act, deepest thoughts are with the victims friends and families. I just hope it won't be used as a facade for people to push their own politics, from either side.