Explosion in Manchester UK

[doblocruiser]

So with a few of you pointing out to me that it would not be a good idea what I said. What is your solution to get rid of the problem? Wouldn't mass surveillance be a much bigger danger for people's liberty?

If those "profiles" are known by the authorities, if criminal records are there, if links with radical networks are there then what is the problem to simply remove them from the streets? I'll ask again: Is it laxity?

 

[Carbonox]

That is the new normal. We must get used to it. France and England have a long history with the Middle East, and there's no going back and no fixing it. Gardening may take your mind off it. Also drink lots of wine and watch racing on TV, not the news.

Well, that's some classic defeatism right there.

 

[Dotini]

Well, that's some classic defeatism right there.

This is success!!

Freedom and independence has always come at the cost of blood, often plenty of it. Look at the American Revolution, the French Revolution, WWI and WWII. Lots of blood, but great freedom and prosperity were won.

The truly wonderful freedom, prosperity, and diversity we enjoy now are being sustained at an almost invisibly small price. Drugs, alcohol, car wrecks and bath tub falls are our worst problems. The statistically insignificant number sacrificed to the odd violent misfit is not worth worrying about.

 

[Carbonox]

This is success!!

Freedom and independence has always come at the cost of blood, often plenty of it. Look at the American Revolution, the French Revolution, WWI and WWII. Lots of blood, but great freedom and prosperity were won.

The truly wonderful freedom, prosperity, and diversity we enjoy now are being sustained at an almost invisibly small price. Drugs, alcohol, car wrecks and bath tub falls are our worst problems. The statistically insignificant number sacrificed to the odd violent misfit is not worth worrying about.

I don't like nitpicking one part of a post, but how did anything good that came out of the French revolution even closely outweigh the pure evil of the perpetrators who indiscriminately executed anyone branded as a traitor to the cause?

 

[Famine]

If those "profiles" are known by the authorities, if criminal records are there,

If they have broken the law, they should be dealt with. Once they have served the required penalties for breaking the law, they are free to resume their place in society.

if links with radical networks are there

'Links with radical networks' need to be very closely and very carefully defined. Identifying as a specific religion and going on holiday to a high-risk country aren't 'links' to anything.

then what is the problem to simply remove them from the streets?

They haven't committed any criminal acts nor is there any reasonable suspicion that they may.

Even if they have sufficiently evidenced links to 'radical networks' (and I don't even know what that means; I might be classed as a radical for thinking that our government, election systems and a large chunk of laws are not fit for purpose and should be dismantled and replaced) they should be surveilled, not subject to being randomly arrested and deported.

So meanwhile with all the information authorities have you will be happy that another one will blow himself up in the middle of a crowd from who we knew in advance had problems with the law and frequented a radical network?

Yeah, probably. I'd be happy that I lived in a society that didn't give in to paranoia, despite being force fed it by news outlets and officials who seem to actually want you to fear and hate people who want to be feared and hated so it proves their point that they're feared and hated. If the security services weren't doing their job when it was in their (existing) power to prevent it, that's a problem for the security services.


You're rather grossly missing the point that it's just not relevant to me, or you, or anyone but the security services what the actual reason was that some dick blew themselves up with some other people. Knowing why or how they got to that point has no meaning to any of us - the end result is that some dick blew themselves up with some other people. The security services need to know, but the targets and victims (us) don't.

As such, the information about who they were and where they've been is meaningless and there's no reason for it to be published or yelled at you from TV screens. It serves only to fuel hate and fear, to the point where some people will happily extend the powers of the security services to just straight up ignore hard-won freedoms. That's then used as evidence of hate and fear, which is used as propaganda by the hatemongers and fearmongers, so more dicks blow themselves up with some other people.

Well done, you just managed to create the exact situation you were afraid of by your fear of it.

 

[PeterJB]

Been informed by mum that apparently there's been a bomb scare at the bus station in Bath.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If they have broken the law, they should be dealt with. Once they have served the required penalties for breaking the law, they are free to resume their place in society.

'Links with radical networks' need to be very closely and very carefully defined. Identifying as a specific religion and going on holiday to a high-risk country aren't 'links' to anything.

They haven't committed any criminal acts nor is there any reasonable suspicion that they may.

Even if they have sufficiently evidenced links to 'radical networks' (and I don't even know what that means; I might be classed as a radical for thinking that our government, election systems and a large chunk of laws are not fit for purpose and should be dismantled and replaced) they should be surveilled, not subject to being randomly arrested and deported.

Yeah, probably. I'd be happy that I lived in a society that didn't give in to paranoia, despite being force fed it by news outlets and officials who seem to actually want you to fear and hate people who want to be feared and hated so it proves their point that they're feared and hated. If the security services weren't doing their job when it was in their (existing) power to prevent it, that's a problem for the security services.


You're rather grossly missing the point that it's just not relevant to me, or you, or anyone but the security services what the actual reason was that some dick blew themselves up with some other people. Knowing why or how they got to that point has no meaning to any of us - the end result is that some dick blew themselves up with some other people. The security services need to know, but the targets and victims (us) don't.

As such, the information about who they were and where they've been is meaningless and there's no reason for it to be published or yelled at you from TV screens. It serves only to fuel hate and fear, to the point where some people will happily extend the powers of the security services to just straight up ignore hard-won freedoms. That's then used as evidence of hate and fear, which is used as propaganda by the hatemongers and fearmongers, so more dicks blow themselves up with some other people.

Well done, you just managed to create the exact situation you were afraid of by your fear of it.

I see a huge level of assumption here that you think you understand what motivates terrorists and what their take might be to our reactions. The truth is we really have no idea what our fear or outrage or over reaction or under reaction means to a terrorist organization. It's just as possible IMO that downplaying the individual and pretending like nothing happened so to speak, so as not to draw undue attention to the terrorist themselves, the organization, or it's effect on our society, might simply enrage them further. They might think they have to try even harder and do more damage to get our attention. Maybe, maybe not. But the line of reasoning that has them slowing down their activities because we don't mention terrorist names and details in the media seems pretty weak to me.

It's also possible that heightened awareness may prevent another disaster. It may spur reporting of suspiciously acting individuals to security services. The front lines of this war are manned by ordinary citizens, who are the most likely to see these terrorists in the moments leading up to their heinous act. Ordinary citizens have already been instrumental in taking down terrorists in the act. I think we all recall the incident on the Amsterdam to Paris train run last year with ordinary citizens taking down a creep armed with a handgun and an AK47. I think we need as much information as we can get in order to be as aware as possible of our surroundings so that we, as citizens, can protect ourselves and our families if the need arises.

 

[doblocruiser]

Well done, you just managed to create the exact situation you were afraid of by your fear of it.

I simply don't agree!

We have the right to react and it has nothing to do with being afraid of them or not. I simply refuse to accept living in a society where people blow themselves up and where the authorities say we have to learn to live with it.

You're rather grossly missing the point that it's just not relevant to me, or you, or anyone but the security services what the actual reason was that some dick blew themselves up with some other people.

I can say the same of you because the problem comes from within Muslim society and you simply refuse to give it a name. You rather call it "dick" and therefore closing your eyes from where the issue actually lies.

If we would have a German, A Frenchman, A Libyan, An Englishman or a Syrian blowing themselves up, your theory of "dick" would work. In this case it doesn't.

 

[lancia delta hf]

There are two things that pisses me off when these things happen.

1. It is less than 24 hours after I've said to a friend: How long before official sources say he was known to them, that official sources say the culprit was known to them ( this irks me so much)

2. I do not need to see a photo of the ***** ugly ****ing face!

Now number 1. I personally hold the government responsible for victims of these attacks. You know they're dangerous, but "human rights". **** human rights or laws. Change the law like you did quickly regarding Kodi, oh right Kodi is a bigger issue.

I don't blame any set of people for these attacks other than the perpetrators and our governments. Let's not forget these attacks on us are nothing compared to the thousands of civilians we kill in the east.

 

[TheCracker]

I see a huge level of assumption here that you think you understand what motivates terrorists and what their take might be to our reactions. The truth is we really have no idea what our fear or outrage or over reaction or under reaction means to a terrorist organization. It's just as possible IMO that downplaying the individual and pretending like nothing happened so to speak, so as not to draw undue attention to the terrorist themselves, the organization, or it's effect on our society, might simply enrage them further. They might think they have to try even harder and do more damage to get our attention. Maybe, maybe not. But the line of reasoning that has them slowing down their activities because we don't mention terrorist names and details in the media seems pretty weak to me.

It's also possible that heightened awareness may prevent another disaster. It may spur reporting of suspiciously acting individuals to security services. The front lines of this war are manned by ordinary citizens, who are the most likely to see these terrorists in the moments leading up to their heinous act. Ordinary citizens have already been instrumental in taking down terrorists in the act. I think we all recall the incident on the Amsterdam to Paris train run last year with ordinary citizens taking down a creep armed with a handgun and an AK47. I think we need as much information as we can get in order to be as aware as possible of our surroundings so that we, as citizens, can protect ourselves and our families if the need arises.

'Heightened awareness' isn't brought about by the press going through the details of an individual who has already committed a heinous crime. We know the crime has been committed - its all over the news. Knowing some guy 'kept himself to himself and seemed very religious' doesn't help the general population stop further attacks. The guy on the Paris-Amsterdam train wasn't brought down by citizens with a heightened awareness of what a terrorist looks like. He was taken down by citizens who were confronted by a nutter waving around an AK47 and a handgun.

 

[Famine]

I see a huge level of assumption here that you think you understand what motivates terrorists and what their take might be to our reactions.

It's more that I don't really care what motivates them, but sure.

The truth is we really have no idea what our fear or outrage or over reaction or under reaction means to a terrorist organization.

Terrorism aims to spread terror, by targeting civilians and the infrastructure they use to terrify them.

Being terrified means they win. Not being terrified means that they don't.

It's just as possible IMO that downplaying the individual and pretending like nothing happened so to speak, so as not to draw undue attention to the terrorist themselves, the organization, or it's effect on our society, might simply enrage them further. They might think they have to try even harder and do more damage to get our attention.

Yep. Just as when you ignore a troll, or a toddler, they try harder and harder to get your attention. It becomes harder to ignore, but ultimately when they get your attention, they win and when they don't, they don't.

I mean, Da'esh is unlikely to tire itself out to the point where it can't bomb any more, but that's what the military option against their Levantine bases of operations is for.

But the line of reasoning that has them slowing down their activities because we don't mention terrorist names and details in the media seems pretty weak to me.

That's not really what I said.

What I said was that their names are meaningless to the public. We're no better or worse off for knowing this latest dick's name, because it's just not relevant. However, giving them blanket, rolling news coverage in papers and on TV is literally evidence for them (well, not the blown up dick, but any dick that might want to follow them) that dicks blowing themselves up spreads terror. More than that, it makes the public afraid of people like the dick that just blew themselves up, especially when there's a few of them.

By making the public afraid of a certain kind of person and treating them differently because they're a certain kind of person, you make that kind of person different from 'normal'. And when there's a terrorist organisation saying to that kind of people 'Look, they hate you because of the type of person you are. Come join us and we'll fight for you', it becomes their recruitment literature. Just look at the first reaction of any explosion these days - you have people on one side saying 'Let me guess, it's a radical Muslim. Something something religion of peace' and people on the other saying 'I hope it's not a Muslim'. You can't exactly say Da'esh is wrong when it says people in the West treat Muslims differently.

I didn't say that not giving the names out slows them down. I said that talking about them, who they are and where they have been non-stop is without any merit and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It's also possible that heightened awareness may prevent another disaster. It may spur reporting of suspiciously acting individuals to security services.

But only if they're Muslim and have been to Libya recently...

And often just because they're Muslim.

The front lines of this war are manned by ordinary citizens, who are the most likely to see these terrorists in the moments leading up to their heinous act. Ordinary citizens have already been instrumental in taking down terrorists in the act. I think we all recall the incident on the Amsterdam to Paris train run last year with ordinary citizens taking down a creep armed with a handgun and an AK47.

I think we're well beyond the point of 'acting suspiciously' when you're walking around a train actually shooting people... I seriously doubt that anyone on that train was helped by knowing the names or holiday plans of any of the previous dicks who'd blown themselves up or shot people in France.

I simply don't agree!

You don't agree that being frightened of Muslims because they're Muslim helps the cause of a terrorist organisation that tells Muslims that they're feared because they're Muslims?

We have the right to react and it has nothing to do with being afraid of them or not.

You're talking about dismantling your own freedoms and human rights so that you can treat people as criminals and have them deported in case they might think of blowing you up, and it's not about fear?

I simply refuse to accept living in a society where people blow themselves up and where the authorities say we have to learn to live with it.

'The authorities' should certainly be managing and stopping credible threats. They shouldn't be rounding people up because they look like people who are credible threats.

It's like the history we have of doing this to people is absolutely meaningless to some.

I can say the same of you because the problem comes from within Muslim society and you simply refuse to give it a name. You rather call it "dick" and therefore closing your eyes from where the issue actually lies.

Someone who blows themselves up with the intent of killing others is a dick. It doesn't matter what spirit they pray to, or even if it's none at all. They're a dick.

The issue isn't the spirit. It's dicks.

If you want to blame the entire religion then congratulations, you're literally playing the exact game Da'esh wants - demonise Muslims so they can get hold of them, brainwash them and get them to blow themselves up, to cause even more fear.

If we would have a German, A Frenchman, A Libyan, An Englishman or a Syrian blowing themselves up, your theory of "dick" would work. In this case it doesn't.

You know that Muslim isn't a country, right?

 

[Dotini]

If we would have a German, A Frenchman, A Libyan, An Englishman or a Syrian blowing themselves up, your theory of "dick" would work. In this case it doesn't.

Wasn't the bomber born in England and therefore an Englishman? So maybe Famine's great dick theory does work?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Wasn't the bomber born in England and therefore an Englishman? So maybe Famine's great dick theory does work?

Indeed, he was English. Or, as we more usually say, British.

How long before official sources say he was known to them, that official sources say the culprit was known to them ( this irks me so much)

To my shame I have a criminal misdemeanour on my record (a minor one that don't I have to declare on anything other than Enhanced Disclosures, fortunately). I've also been prosecuted by the police twice in the last 21 years for excessive speed in a motor vehicle.

I am known to the police. How should they handle that/me?

 

[TRGTspecialist]

People like this perp tick certain boxes that should warrant increased surveillance. Times have changed and it needs new tactics to fight it.

What I meant to say is that special forces should be given more authority to profile and remove certain individuals from the street even if it costs some individual rights for a certain amount of time. I don't want mass surveillance because that really has no use.

To give authorities sweeping powers to survey or detain the people who might be bad guys, means giving politicians the power to define what "might be bad guys" actually is.

Thankfully, politicians are really trustworthy people who will make sure "might be bad guys" only means "people who almost certainly want to blow us up". They'll never change it to "any Muslim who has come from/been to Syria". Or "all Muslims". Or "Jews". Or "Japanese Americans". That'll never happen.........

Maybe in an alternate universe Brianna Wu becomes US president and decides that anyone who doesn't unequivocally agree with feminist causes is a threat to society, and should be kept a very close eye on (or sent to "gender re-education" facilities, perhaps). I have a feeling a lot of people would suddenly not be such big fans of authoritarianism - even though they'd happily give her the power that would allow her to make the definition in the first place........

 

[ryzno]

I simply refuse to accept living in a society where people blow themselves up and where the authorities say we have to learn to live with it.

Don't waste your finger tips arguing this with them... As they love to argue, IT'S ONLY A SMALL PERCENT CHANCE WE"LL GET BLOWN UP!
It is a chance that shouldn't be taken. Our governments are literally allowing us to be pawns in their game, cause the people don't want to lose a freedom we don't have anyways... Believe it or not...

How many more attacks need to happen before they do something about ISIS and the other groups? Besides arrest people after the fact they knew who they were. That is what really pisses me off about the whole thing. It's like they want it to continue. Either that or they are full of it.

And all that blabla about fanning ISIS flames in the news. Blow them all up, that's what they do to themselves anyways.`

 

[lancia delta hf]

Indeed, he was English. Or, as we more usually say, British.



To my shame I have a criminal misdemeanour on my record (a minor one that don't I have to declare on anything other than Enhanced Disclosures, fortunately). I've also been prosecuted by the police twice in the last 21 years for excessive speed in a motor vehicle.

I am known to the police. How should they handle that/me?

Are you known to police for being linked with extremism and being a possible threat to civilians? There are also civilian who are not a threat and have their rights abused often, such as that lad protesting fox hunting the other day. Can't do that to a potential terrorist though.

 

[UKMikey]

Some of the posts in this thread remind me of the death sentence supporters who say "don't worry, we'll only execute the 100% guilty people". By all means watch people but locking them up for precrime is madness.

 

[Famine]

Don't waste your finger tips arguing this with them... As they love to argue, "IT'S ONLY A SMALL PERCENT CHANCE WE"LL GET BLOWN UP!".

Hi there.

I'm the 'them' with which the above discussion is currently ongoing, and to whom that response you quoted was directed. I'd like you to directly cite me saying anything even close to the thing you put in quotation marks there.

It is a chance that shouldn't be taken.

What would be an acceptable level of chance to take that someone might blow you up?

How many more attacks need to happen before they do something about ISIS and the other groups? Besides arrest people after the fact they knew who they were.

Define 'do something about ISIS'. What would be your steps for the eradication of Da'esh, exactly?

This is an organisation based in the Levant with a complicated organisational structure that requires end operatives to have absolutely no knowledge of one another, managed by handlers who have absolutely no knowledge of one another. It is unlikely that, unless you imprison all Muslims and people ever exposed to Muslim ideology (and their families, because nothing radicalises someone like locking up their mum or kid) both already in your country and coming into it, you will ever eliminate the organisation's influence in your country. And that's a lot of innocent people right there, which I'm sure your Fifth Amendment would have something to say about. Besides, you already tried it with the Japanese in World War 2.

Your best bet is with enough bombs in the Levant, taking out all of the leaders so that the handlers never receive any instructions (although there may be instructions in place on what to do if the person above you doesn't contact you within a set period of time). But to be honest, you tried that already for the last 30 years - and blowing up Muslims in the Levant is kinda how you got Da'esh in the first place.

If you have better suggestions, I'm sure Donald will take them on board.

 

[Tornado]

Don't waste your finger tips arguing this with them... As they love to argue, "IT'S ONLY A SMALL PERCENT CHANCE WE"LL GET BLOWN UP!".
It is a chance that shouldn't be taken. Our governments are literally allowing us to be pawns in their game, cause the people don't want to lose a freedom we don't have anyways... Believe it or not...

How many more attacks need to happen before they do something about ISIS and the other groups? Besides arrest people after the fact they knew who they were. That is what really pisses me off about the whole thing. It's like they want it to continue. Either that or they are full of it.

And all that blabla about fanning ISIS flames in the news. Blow them all up, that's what they do to themselves anyways.`

I suspect if the point of discussion was about gun control (you'd have to change very few words of this post) you wouldn't be so cavalier about what the obvious solution is.

 

[doblocruiser]

I seem to have difficulties in getting my point across.

You don't agree that being frightened of Muslims because they're Muslim helps the cause of a terrorist organisation that tells Muslims that they're feared because they're Muslims?

I agree that people shouldn't be made afraid for Muslims because they are Muslim. I understand people are afraid of terrorism in general. However the terrorism we are dealing with comes from within the Muslim community. Not reacting and saying we are not afraid doesn't show because you can sense society is paralized and afraid because of this terrorism. Therefore it would be in everyone's interest to stick heads together and do something about the problem. This means doing something about it together (independant of cultural background).

You're talking about dismantling your own freedoms and human rights so that you can treat people as criminals and have them deported in case they might think of blowing you up, and it's not about fear?

I don't see any freedoms and human rights being dismantled. It is not about fear but prevention. Some call for mass surveillance but that seriously harms people's freedoms as nonstop surveillance on motorways already does and nobody seems to complain because as a good citizen we have nothing to hide do we? If I may take an example of surveillance at an airport. There were complaints of Muslims being scanned and that the police scanned based on racial profiling. This meant that now all kind of different passengers needed to be scanned. This reduces the efficiency of the police enormously because everyone knows for what kind of person they are looking for but law prohibits to due so. If you are searching for a young woman that can cause a threath it really has no use to scan old men. If you are searching for a white man in his 30ties there is no use to scan Afro Americans. We do have a problem with terrorism from a specific group so it is completely normal this group is profiled at a much higher and detailed basis. I can't see any problem with that.

'The authorities' should certainly be managing and stopping credible threats. They shouldn't be rounding people up because they look like people who are credible threats.
It's like the history we have of doing this to people is absolutely meaningless to some.

I agree! Therefore I said if all elements are in place. If the police has gathered all elements and the proof is there, why actually wait until the explosion happens so they have the legal authority to react?

If you want to blame the entire religion then congratulations, you're literally playing the exact game Da'esh wants

Are you an expert on what they think? Second time you are making an assumption.

Indeed, he was English. Or, as we more usually say, British.

He must have felt himself very British to blow himself up within his British society he loved so dearly. Have they found his other passport yet?

I think that we all agree this should stop yesterday. I sincerely hope we find the right tools to deal with it.

 

[ryzno]

Hi there.

I'm the 'them' with which the above discussion is currently ongoing, and to whom that response you quoted was directed. I'd like you to directly cite me saying anything even close to the thing you put in quotation marks there.

Hi. I'm not going to go back through the 60+ posts I just read since last night, to figure out who said that and exactly how it was worded. He was talking to other people too... But, that was my interpretation of the line. I'll take it out of qoutes.

Edit, technically mustafur brought it up first.

I wouldn't sacrifice my Liberty for something that is less likely to have me killed then going for a walk to the shops.

It's a stupid view. We'll always have more freedom then they can imagine.
So y'all enjoy your freedom with a side of bomb. I'll keep pushing our leaders to find these losers (as Trump has offically labeled them) and deal with them. I've posted this view before and I continue to stand by it

There is nothing civilized about this war. We need to stop acting so PC...

Edit 2.0

But to be honest, you tried that already for the last 30 years - and blowing up Muslims in the Levant is kinda how you got Da'esh in the first place.

We wouldn't have the Da'esh if we finished what we started in the first place.
Bush pulled out to save his election, which failed.
Obama let it continue to grow, even welcomed them in with open arms...
Look what we have now...

 

[lancia delta hf]

I seem to have difficulties in getting my point across.


I agree that people shouldn't be made afraid for Muslims because they are Muslim. I understand people are afraid of terrorism in general. However the terrorism we are dealing with comes from within the Muslim community. Not reacting and saying we are not afraid doesn't show because you can sense society is paralized and afraid because of this terrorism. Therefore it would be in everyone's interest to stick heads together and do something about the problem. This means doing something about it together (independant of cultural background).


I don't see any freedoms and human rights being dismantled. It is not about fear but prevention. Some call for mass surveillance but that seriously harms people's freedoms as nonstop surveillance on motorways already does and nobody seems to complain because as a good citizen we have nothing to hide do we? If I may take an example of surveillance at an airport. There were complaints of Muslims being scanned and that the police scanned based on racial profiling. This meant that now all kind of different passengers needed to be scanned. This reduces the efficiency of the police enormously because everyone knows for what kind of person they are looking for but law prohibits to due so. If you are searching for a young woman that can cause a threath it really has no use to scan old men. If you are searching for a white man in his 30ties there is no use to scan Afro Americans. We do have a problem with terrorism from a specific group so it is completely normal this group is profiled at a much higher and detailed basis. I can't see any problem with that.

I agree! Therefore I said if all elements are in place. If the police has gathered all elements and the proof is there, why actually wait until the explosion happens so they have the legal authority to react?


Are you an expert on what they think? Second time you are making an assumption.



He must have felt himself very British to blow himself up within his British society he loved so dearly. Have they found his other passport yet?

I think that we all agree this should stop yesterday. I sincerely hope we find the right tools to deal with it.

What I'm going to say is just my opinion not fact.

Most of these terrorists born in the country aren't committing these crimes because they believe in a religion. No normal thinking human picks up a book a then blows people up because it apparently said so in a book. They are lost people who don't feel like they fit in society, they are preyed upon by extremists groups who use them as fodder. There have been people who have joined Isis from the U.K. and Italy that I know of and they were full on Europeans with no former relationship with Islam.

I have my own ideas why some of these people commit these crimes and it's likely no different to the situations like in the US and where people shoot up schools.

 

[Famine]

I agree that people shouldn't be made afraid for Muslims because they are Muslim. I understand people are afraid of terrorism in general.

... which we shouldn't be, as fewer people are dying than any point in history through violence, and more people will die this week on the UK's roads than in every terrorist act in the UK since the IRA caught politics.

However the terrorism we are dealing with comes from within the Muslim community.

Not really, no.

You might be able to make an argument that the most current major terrorist threat in the West comes from a subset of Islam, Wahhabism, but it's really not innate to that either.

Where it comes from is a very small bunch of isolationists who believe that it is the duty of anyone not like them to convert or die, and the duty of anyone like them to die converting or killing anyone not like them. They are indeed Muslims and it says something similar in the hadith about killing nonbelievers - but they're Muslims in the sense that people who believe doctors that abort (or, in their mind, 'kill') foetuses should themselves be killed are Christians (and it says something similar in the Old Testament about killing nonbelievers, just so you know). It's a big, gross label that applies to a whole load of people who don't share their specific beliefs and which doesn't really reflect their specific beliefs. Sometimes they'll use a book that Muslims use and read it in a certain way to justify being a dick - because no-one's ever read a religious text exactly how they want to for their own ends before, right.

Honestly, Wahhabism is a bit strange all round, but even so I don't think that you could say that 'Islamic fundamentalist terrorism' is a Wahhabist problem either. It's just too big of a label, but it's more accurate.

It's an important distinction, because it's one that you're not supposed to know or care about. You're supposed to think 'Islamic fundamentalist terrorism', when really you should be thinking 'Extreme isolationist Wahhabi terrorism', because by losing the distinction you lose focus, put all Muslims in the crosshairs and end up being nasty to the wrong people - which often makes them into the right people eventually.

Ultimately, the community where the terrorism comes from is a bunch of dicks.


Ironically, the USA has just agreed a deal to sell a crapton of weapons to Wahhabists.

Not reacting and saying we are not afraid doesn't show because you can sense society is paralized and afraid because of this terrorism.

I'm not getting that sense.

The usual racists are effing and blinding about 'muzzies' as they usually do. Children hearing about the attack on the news are a little afraid and asking difficult questions of parents. Much of the population is expressing how sad it made them feel with Facebook statuses, and trying to work out how to put a filter over their profile image that expresses their solidarity with Manchester, because they've no idea what the flag is and they can't put the Union Flag or Cross of St. George because that'd look super-racist.

Therefore it would be in everyone's interest to stick heads together and do something about the problem.

One of the main problems is that so few people have an idea of what the problem actually is.

They want to lock up or deport Muslims. They want to bomb the bits of Syria that are still left after Assad has bombed them, while also wanting to bomb Assad because of chemical weapons, which is odd as Assad and Da'esh are on opposite sides. It turns out, you see, that sometimes dicks fight with each other, despite both being dicks, because what they're dicks about is different.

The problem, really, is one of propaganda, and we're really chewing onto it hard. We need to stop believing that all Muslims are the enemy. We need to stop being afraid of and suspicious of Muslims. We need to stop believing that immigration is the root of all of our problems (and how can anyone in Europe or the USA ever believe that - we're all immigrants, some sooner than others) and that every asylum seeker is a potential terrorist. We need to stop giving credence and attention to the people who espouse these views (we've heard them before, only it wasn't Muslims last time).

We need to stop driving innocent people towards extremism by treating them as if they are the enemy by default - do you think that the latest dick wanted, when he was 8, to blow himself up with a bunch of kids, or do you think that there was a process from being an 8 year old to being a suicide bomber? Do you think we could have prevented the process with inclusion and education? Do you think that arresting his family because they came from Libya would have helped or not?

I don't see any freedoms and human rights being dismantled.

When you're talking about arresting and deporting people for served criminal records and unusual holiday destinations (though to be honest, what's unusual about going to Libya when your family is from Libya?), you're talking about denying human rights.

It is not about fear but prevention.

Terrorist incidents are almost always prevented anyway. You don't hear about them because they don't happen...

Some call for mass surveillance but that seriously harms people's freedoms

That is correct. The UK's Investigatory Powers Act is an appalling piece of invasive legislation.

as nonstop surveillance on motorways already does and nobody seems to complain because as a good citizen we have nothing to hide do we?

You might be new here, as we complain about it a lot in this forum

If I may take an example of surveillance at an airport.

Sure, but remember what I said before - private institutions may establish whatever security they wish, and airports are indeed privately owned.

A lot of people 'need' to use them (as in they want to because it is the most convenient, rapid and cost effective way to travel long distances) and so put up with really unpleasant treatment from the rent-a-cops there.

I agree! Therefore I said if all elements are in place. If the police has gathering all elements and the proof is there, why actually wait until the explosion happens so they have the legal authority to react?

They don't. Most terrorist incidents are prevented. You don't hear about them because they don't happen.

In the case of Manchester I have no idea if all the elements were in place and the proof was there to arrest the dick in question or not. If they were, the police failed. If they were no, they did not.

He must have felt himself very British to blow himself up within his British society. Have they found his other passport yet?

I believe that the Manchester dick was British, the Westminster dick was British, the dick who killed Jo Cox was British, the dicks who killed Lee Rigby were both British, the dick who tried to bomb mosques was Ukrainian, and the dicks who tried to blow up bits of London were born in England and India. There was also a dick who tried to blow up Exeter, and he was British.

That's an entire decade of all terrorist attacks on the British mainland. 78% British or born within the UK:

If we would have a German, A Frenchman, A Libyan, An Englishman or a Syrian blowing themselves up, your theory of "dick" would work.

So yeah. They're dicks.

 

[Exorcet]

So with a few of you pointing out to me that it would not be a good idea what I said. What is your solution to get rid of the problem? Wouldn't mass surveillance be a much bigger danger for people's liberty?

First it needs to be asked if there is even a problem. I think the answer is undoubtedly yes but at the same time, terrorism isn't the dominant danger to western society. These incidents aren't very like to harm you. I don't want to tell people how to react to them, but I don't feel pressured to respond to these attacks in a significant way.

 

[Dotini]

What I'm going to say is just my opinion not fact.

They are lost people who don't feel like they fit in society

I wholeheartedly agree with this analysis.

IF (and it's obviously a big if) this analysis is correct, the solution is very easy to see. You simply shower them with money, employment, housing, attractive companionship, pharmacopeia, comprehensive health care, and tickets to all the best shows. They will be misfits no more! The problems with this theory - let's call it the big tit theory - is the cost/benefit ratio, and there may not be enough money in the budget to afford it. Certain, ah, austerities may allow it to be workable.

 

[doblocruiser]

@Famine Thanks for your clear and well written answer 👍 I can see how you see things but I am yet unable to agree with all of them

@lancia delta hf "
They are lost people who don't feel like they fit in society"

Why not simply leave and search a place where you do feel happy instead of causing misery to others because of disgust towards society you live in? It is to easy to take on this "victim" syndrome attitude and justify your acts because of it.

PS: sorry for the quoting mess. Phone is tricky...

 

[DDastardly00]

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.

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?

I'm no expert on Security but I would imagine the thought process behind screening people at larger venues is simply to prevent a mass-casualty event from happening. The Baseball game I attended probably had about 15-20K people. The MEN can hold about 21K people. To throw out an arbitrary number, 10K seems acceptable to have additional security measures in place. Johnnypenso is right in that terrorists are looking for soft targets and they would just move on to smaller venues that have less security. Clearly it is impossible to prevent every one of these occurrences from happening, but yes, I believe larger venues where massive casualties can occur, like NFL games and large concerts for example, should be protected by having addition security measures in place. I do not buy the notion that screening measures are a presumption of guilt either and typically when you purchase a ticket for an event, you are consenting to be screened.

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..

I have seen the layout recently in the media coverage for this attack, it might be more challenging then some venues but certainly not impossible.

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.

There were about 4 lines, maybe 10-12 people with each line moving quickly. Security is always tight for these events with police presence everywhere. If someone were to brandish an AK-47 and starting shooting they would get shot pretty quickly I'd imagine.

Intelligence gathering is a far great violation of privacy rights and presumption of guilt than tossing your car keys and pocket change into a bowl before you walk through a metal detector.

 

[Famine]

I'm no expert on Security but I would imagine the thought process behind screening people at larger venues is simply to prevent a mass-casualty event from happening.

So, the key questions here are how many mass-casualty events happened at larger venues before screening was the norm and how many have there been since?

I'm honestly struggling to think of any, but I guess you don't see any tigers around here either.

The Baseball game I attended probably had about 15-20K people. The MEN can hold about 21K people. To throw out an arbitrary number, 10K seems acceptable to have additional security measures in place.

The key question there is why 10,000 people in one place should be screened for their own protection and why 5,000 people should not. Or 500 people. Or 50 people - more than twice as many as were killed in Manchester on Monday.

Johnnypenso is right in that terrorists are looking for soft targets and they would just move on to smaller venues that have less security.

Or they'd stay at the same venue and just target the queues for the security checkpoint. Or wait around outside for the crowds to come back out, trapping people inside in addition to the deaths caused at the chokepoint.

I do not buy the notion that screening measures are a presumption of guilt either

Of course they are. A security screening is a check to make sure that you are not a threat. That's literally the exact opposite of 'innocent until proven guilty' - the assumption is that everyone is guilty until they have been checked and found not to be guilty.

And naturally a condition of buying the ticket is consenting to be searched. The point isn't that venues can't do this - in the post you quoted I pointed out that they of course can, as private premises - but that the expectation that they do is an indicator of the paranoia and fear that terrorism has sown.

 

[MUSC4EVER]

An off-duty Police Officer is among the victims, she was attending the concert, Five people now arrested, one of the people being questioned is the older brother of the bomber, he lives in Tripoli in Syria.

 

[DDastardly00]

One thing doesn't add up to me, some of the witnesses that were interviewed claimed they heard two explosions, a smaller one then a much bigger one. The statement from the Daesh said he planted bombs, as in plural, implying more than one was planted, which seems to back up some of the witnesses statements, but most of the coverage I have seen since describes only one bomb being detonated by a suicide bomber.