Explosion in Manchester UK

  • Thread starter Mr P
  • 356 comments
  • 16,714 views
Amazing show of support today in Manchester 25'000 people showing absolute defiance to the attackers and most of them are still there in the later hours.. the thought of the army taking to the streets sounds pretty extreme for sure! but an understandably warranted precaution in the horrible aftermath of this disgusting attack at least until some kind of normality can be felt in the city again :(

I can't stop thinking of those poor kids and their family members it's absolutely heartbreaking, I have 4 kids and 3 granddaughters and can only imagine the nightmare they are in today :(
 
Robin
The UK threat level has been upgraded to the highest level 'critical' meaning an attack is immenent and the Army has been deployed. Wow.

They must have found something out from the investigation, maybe he is working with others.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40023488
Click to expand...
Unsurprising really. Somehow, someone has made a viable explosive device. Short of discovering a bomb factory at his home, they have to assume he got it from someone or somewhere and that there may be more.

Army on the streets shouldn't be a new sight to anyone however, so I don't quite understand the alarm.
 
Dennisch
According to a lot of people these are isolated cases, and only a small amount of people are radicals. Surely the services around the globe are capable to monitor only a few radicals?

Or are the services around the world underestimating the amount of people who they actually need to monitor, or are they not telling us that they're not up to the task?

edit.

Let me add something.

What pisses me off the most, apart from children being targeted, is that yet again this perp was known the authorities. This has been the case far too often. It shows gross incompetence in the world of anti terrorism services. If the perp is someone completely unknown, without any known ties to radicals/ism, then you can say that that someone couldn't be stopped. But yet again, the services failed. Gross incompetence. That is what I see.
Click to expand...
You have to remember that a minority is still a large number where population is concerned. I truly understand why you think this way, but the way I see it is that we would be much less competent if we didn't know who the person was at all.

That we knew of him shows that we were closer to stopping this than had we not known about him at all. This is how and why we do stop so many attacks, and not just from ISIS but from many different sources. I'm sure that we would all feel the difference if we removed our security services from the picture for a while.
 
Dennisch
I've added a bit more to the post above.
Click to expand...
I understand your concerns and frustrations, and do share them. However, I still believe it's too simplistic. We know very little. What does 'known to' mean? If it's 'we know he was trying to make a bomb' then, yes, it's a disgrace. However, it could just as easily mean 'we saw him a couple of times attending the same mosque as a known extremist.' And if that's the case and they had no other information on him, is it really fair to ask what were they doing in this case?

As others have said, we hear on an almost weekly basis about raids, arrests and convictions of those attempting to carry out such attacks. We will never be able to stop all of them and it's unrealistic to think we can.
 
Dotini
I see that several members have posted the odds of being killed in a terror attack are minuscule. Indeed so trivial that there is no justification for citizens to change their behavior.
Click to expand...

Not quite.

TRGTspecialist
you absolutely don't need to fear how you live your life because of terrorism.
Click to expand...

As I said to JP, there's a difference between rationally changing your behaviour, and being more fearful because of terror. That's what I believe isn't justified (not without a lot of other things in life people don't generally fear, also becoming fearful, like driving or cycling).

I don't appreciate the suggestion I'm getting from the rest of your post (please tell me I'm wrong with this), that making this argument also means not caring about, or being morally ambivalent towards dead children. 👎
 
MatskiMonk
I wonder if there is much of a difference between Irish-Americans and American Muslims in how they view attacks made by people in their name.
Click to expand...

It would be an interesting topic to research. If I had to guess on what you'd find, it would be that there simply is too much diversity in each group, Irish-Americans and American Muslims to form a concrete opinion. For example Boston-Irish and Kentucky Irish are not one in the same, they both celebrate the same ancestry and that is where the similarities end. I would imagine it's a similar situation with American Muslims which came from countries like Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and more recently, Syria.
 
Dave A
You have to remember that a minority is still a large number where population is concerned. I truly understand why you think this way, but the way I see it is that we would be much less competent if we didn't know who the person was at all.

That we knew of him shows that we were closer to stopping this than had we not known about him at all. This is how and why we do stop so many attacks, and not just from ISIS but from many different sources. I'm sure that we would all feel the difference if we removed our security services from the picture for a while.
Click to expand...

PzR Slim
I understand your concerns and frustrations, and do share them. However, I still believe it's too simplistic. We know very little. What does 'known to' mean? If it's 'we know he was trying to make a bomb' then, yes, it's a disgrace. However, it could just as easily mean 'we saw him a couple of times attending the same mosque as a known extremist.' And if that's the case and they had no other information on him, is it really fair to ask what were they doing in this case?

As others have said, we hear on an almost weekly basis about raids, arrests and convictions of those attempting to carry out such attacks. We will never be able to stop all of them and it's unrealistic to think we can.
Click to expand...

These times call for new approaches. If the services are allowed to spy on you doing your daily internet routine, without you and me breaking the law, they could perhaps divert some of those resources towards sniffing out radicals and nipping them all in the butt right at the beginning. As I have said before, if a person feels like he/she doesn't like the way we live our lives here in the west, he/she should be under pretty much constant surveillance. These times ask for such actions. You can't have it that once or twice a year a venue full of children gets blown up because radicals have rights too.
 
Dennisch
These times call for new approaches. If the services are allowed to spy on you doing your daily internet routine, without you and me breaking the law, they could perhaps divert some of those resources towards sniffing out radicals and nipping them all in the butt right at the beginning. As I have said before, if a person feels like he/she doesn't like the way we live our lives here in the west, he/she should be under pretty much constant surveillance. These times ask for such actions. You can't have it that once or twice a year a venue full of children gets blown up because radicals have rights too.
Click to expand...
Once again that is far too simplistic. I detest the way some people in the west choose to live their lives. Does that mean I should be kept under constant surveillance? Or here's a thought, there is a possibility that any one of us could become a radicalised Islamic terrorist, or a radicalised Irish Republican terrorist, or start hearing voices in our head and kill a load of people, or fall asleep at the wheel and plough into a crowd of people. Let's keep an eye on absolutely everyone. That way nothing bad will ever happen again 💡
 
My condolences to the families of those who are affected. Manchester, stay strong. In my country, we know what it's like.

One of the questions is, how could the terrorist bring the bomb to such a big concert? Since there were so many victims, the bomb wasn't small, and wasn't so easy to hide. There was no security inspection on the entry (with metal detectors etc)? Some hole in the security? Or there was no proper security at all?..
 
Rage Racer
One of the questions is, how could the terrorist bring the bomb to such a big concert? Since there were so many victims, the bomb wasn't small, and wasn't so easy to hide. There was no security inspection on the entry (with metal detectors etc)? Some hole in the security? Or there was no proper security at all?..
Click to expand...
The bomb blew up at the door, as people were coming out.
 
Famine
The bomb blew up at the door, as people were coming out.
Click to expand...

He still got inside the Foyer though which was right outside the doors to the arena. There should have been better security, screening all people entering the building, I think that much we can all agree on.
 
Famine
The bomb blew up at the door, as people were coming out.
Click to expand...
DDastardly00
He still got inside the Foyer though which was right outside the doors to the arena. There should have been better security, screening all people entering the building, I think that much we can all agree on.
Click to expand...
Hmm, that makes sense. The concert ended and I guess the security relaxed, thinking their work is over for today, when the bomber entered the area.
 
DDastardly00
There should have been better security, screening all people entering the building,
Click to expand...
Why?

I mean, even ignoring the fact that forcing people to stand outside in Manchester is probably a breach of human rights legislation, we don't have security scanners at the external doors to cinemas, theatres, shopping malls, supermarkets, motorway services, libraries or even airports, so why do we need them at concerts?

You could kill 300 people at a big movie opening weekend showing with a couple of pipe bombs without ever being checked for anything. Honestly the fact that the MEN has any more security than is required to ensure only people with tickets can go into the show that's on surprises me.
DDastardly00
I think that much we can all agree on.
Click to expand...
Nope.

This insistence on corralling people through a pat down by rent-a-cops on the basis that one in six million of them might have a bomb vest is fear-led paranoia that makes a mockery of a free society where innocence is assumed and guilt must be proven.

🤬 abandoning these principles.
 
So apparently May just authorised troops on the streets in every major city. Lets see how long it takes her to declare martial law and become dictator.
 
Famine
Why?

I mean, even ignoring the fact that forcing people to stand outside in Manchester is probably a breach of human rights legislation, we don't have security scanners at the external doors to cinemas, theatres, shopping malls, supermarkets, motorway services, libraries or even airports, so why do we need them at concerts?

You could kill 300 people at a big movie opening weekend showing with a couple of pipe bombs without ever being checked for anything. Honestly the fact that the MEN has any more security than is required to ensure only people with tickets can go into the show that's on surprises me.

Nope.

This insistence on corralling people through a pat down by rent-a-cops on the basis that one in six million of them might have a bomb vest is fear-led paranoia that makes a mockery of a free society where innocence is assumed and guilt must be proven.

🤬 abandoning these principles.
Click to expand...

....And apparently I am wrong, we can't agree on something as simple and common sense as that is.

Pat downs are a bit much but I see nothing wrong with going through a Detector and having a backpack searched (if you brought one with you) to gain entry to a venue. I went to a Major League Baseball game last Sunday, got in line to be screened and guess what, it was no big deal at all and the wait wasn't more than a couple of minutes. And how is screening people a breach of Human rights legislation?

I don't buy the argument that going through an added layer of security is giving up a free society way of life. Is this what people thought when Metal Detectors were added at airports in the 70's?
 
First time that the threat level has been raised to Critical in over a decade, last time was after the Glasgow Airport bombing in 2006 and it was only at that level for a few days, has been set to Severe for much of the time since then.
 
DDastardly00
And apparently I am wrong, we can't agree on something as simple and common sense as that is.
Click to expand...
Things don't become true because you say they are and say they're common sense.

Both of our societies are founded on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. While private venues are at liberty to impose whatever security measures they wish, the very concept that we expect to be inspected for guilt simply for being around other people* is a clear indicator of just how not free, how not innocent and how under suspicion we all are at all times.

And it's driven by fear and paranoia about a vanishingly small percentage of the population.
DDastardly00
And how is screening people a breach of Human rights legislation?
Click to expand...
That was a joke about the typical conditions outside in Manchester.

* And only in very specific circumstances, apparently. It seems you're okay with keeping people outside of concerts and baseball games until a rent-a-cop says they're not a threat, but you didn't seem to pass any comment on doing the same for cinemas, theatres, shopping malls, supermarkets, motorway services, libraries or airports. What crowd size is your lower bound for inspecting everyone electronically to make sure they aren't a threat to other people? 100,000? 10,000? A train? A bus?
 
DDastardly00
....And apparently I am wrong, we can't agree on something as simple and common sense as that is.

Pat downs are a bit much but I see nothing wrong with going through a Detector and having a backpack searched (if you brought one with you) to gain entry to a venue. I went to a Major League Baseball game last Sunday, got in line to be screened and guess what, it was no big deal at all and the wait wasn't more than a couple of minutes. And how is screening people a breach of Human rights legislation?

I don't buy the argument that going through an added layer of security is giving up a free society way of life. Is this what people thought when Metal Detectors were added at airports in the 70's?
Click to expand...
As I suggested earlier, what's the point? When was the last time a bad guy tried to carry a bomb on a plane? As soon as they know that there is a security check they just move somewhere else and just as many people will die. Or stand out on the street and wait for everyone to come out. The end result is the same.
 
DDastardly00
....And apparently I am wrong, we can't agree on something as simple and common sense as that is.

Pat downs are a bit much but I see nothing wrong with going through a Detector and having a backpack searched (if you brought one with you) to gain entry to a venue. I went to a Major League Baseball game last Sunday, got in line to be screened and guess what, it was no big deal at all and the wait wasn't more than a couple of minutes. And how is screening people a breach of Human rights legislation?

I don't buy the argument that going through an added layer of security is giving up a free society way of life. Is this what people thought when Metal Detectors were added at airports in the 70's?
Click to expand...

Have you seen any images regarding the layout of the MEN? It's public space just outside the arena, I don't think you can justify scanning every person walking by that bit of public space just because there is a concert on.
It's also right by a train station, and someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it connected by a short walkway?
The attack could have taken place at the train station, doesn't seem like a viable strategy to scan and backpack search all people at train stations..
 
DDastardly00
....And apparently I am wrong, we can't agree on something as simple and common sense as that is.

Pat downs are a bit much but I see nothing wrong with going through a Detector and having a backpack searched (if you brought one with you) to gain entry to a venue. I went to a Major League Baseball game last Sunday, got in line to be screened and guess what, it was no big deal at all and the wait wasn't more than a couple of minutes. And how is screening people a breach of Human rights legislation?

I don't buy the argument that going through an added layer of security is giving up a free society way of life. Is this what people thought when Metal Detectors were added at airports in the 70's?
Click to expand...
And how many people were in that queue, who could be targeted by a suicide bomber or were lined up like ducks for a couple of extremists with AK's to mow down having not had to go through security. Or do you need a security check to be allowed to wait in line for the next security check? Intelligence led prevention is the way to deal with this threat.
 
Dotini
Take a look at that list I posted, and notice the dates. ISIS seems like it might like to repeat on certain dates.
Click to expand...
It seems 22 is a date with a meaning? Major planned attacks often/always on the 22nd. Added by the so called lone wolf actions an random dates.

For that reason Ed Sheeran concert next month on 22nd at the O2 Arena is under extra investigation and also UK Queens Day is on the 22nd.

Bizar that we as public plebs are already part of this spreading fear and uncertainty. You can imagine that the Europols of this world already know this for years and investigate these facts thoroughly and often we gladly don't even know whats happening around us. But now this is also part of the daily news headlines.
 
TenEightyOne
I'm not convinced. That theory isn't far from 11-9=2, 11*2=22 omgz.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced either. I think it is coincidence but media puts some extra oil on the fire to make us believe these kind of stories (fake until proven otherwise). But still very sad this happens with so much civilian victims coincidence or not.
 
gokartman78
Have you seen any images regarding the layout of the MEN? It's public space just outside the arena, I don't think you can justify scanning every person walking by that bit of public space just because there is a concert on.
It's also right by a train station, and someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it connected by a short walkway?
The attack could have taken place at the train station, doesn't seem like a viable strategy to scan and backpack search all people at train stations..
Click to expand...
I can confirm having been there several times that the area the bomb went off is not inside the arena itself. It's a foyer area raised up from Victoria Station but connected by stairs and a walkway. Through the foyer is the entrance to the arena itself. This area is also connected to a public corridor that goes out to Trinity Way allowing people to get from there to the station without walking all the way round either the arena or the station and then there is the multi storey NCP car park that also connects to this foyer area. It's definitely not part of the arena itself and it was, until recently home to a McDonalds.
 
The French Minister of internal affairs, Gerard Collomb, states that the blowuppie travelled to Syria and Libya.
 

Similar threads

Touring Mars
Gatwick airport closed by drone attack
5 6 7
Replies
204
Views
10K
Dotini
Dotini
Ken
Explosive Devices found in New York City.
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
mister dog
mister dog
ukfan758
Explosions in Jakarta
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
FoRiZon
F
T
London Bridge/Borough Market Terror Incidents
8 9 10
Replies
282
Views
15K
UKMikey
UKMikey
EvanJamesLee
High School bomb threats
Replies
16
Views
1K
Quakebass
Quakebass

Latest Posts

Back