Manchester Arena blast

[yorkie1999]

1 minute ago, Rincewind said:

Doh My brain hurts

There's obviously a problem with it then

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I think the problem is we haven't really tried anything, hate preachers have remained here preaching hate, dodgy mosques are still dodgy. Anyone who travels to Libya or Syria still seems to be allowed to come back.

 

We need real cross party joined up thinking, this is not an area for political gain. I listened with Interest to the charity based in Warrington that claims to have turned around many extremists, we need to speak to these people and roll out their practices more widely.           

 

I guess the Jihadists are a bit like those groomed by Paedophiles, they are venerable and  they are groomed by scumbag imams to commit these terrible attacks                                          

 

 

 

If we had more access to intelligence data (which we can't, for obvious reasons) we could really see what was being tried and what was happening behind the scenes. There could well be more informants within the Muslim communities doing work to stop this than we have any idea of. So...I do think stuff is being done, but as good as the British scurriers in the dark are they can't be totally utterly 100% effective.

 

A unilateral response, and continuing work to neutralise folks who purport the kind of death-and-power-worshipping fascism that appeals to young disaffected people is called for, while not compromising the values that separate us from those who think that way.

[Rincewind]

Funding to the police has been cut in recent years so they can only do so much. Like in that video, he was asked Why do Muslims do this? He answered I have no idea I am not a homicidal manic with suicidal tendencies.

Watch the video he speaks a lot of sense..

[Buce]

41 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I think the problem is we haven't really tried anything, hate preachers have remained here preaching hate, dodgy mosques are still dodgy. Anyone who travels to Libya or Syria still seems to be allowed to come back.

 

We need real cross party joined up thinking, this is not an area for political gain. I listened with Interest to the charity based in Warrington that claims to have turned around many extremists, we need to speak to these people and roll out their practices more widely.           

 

I guess the Jihadists are a bit like those groomed by Paedophiles, they are venerable and  they are groomed by scumbag imams to commit these terrible attacks                                          

 

[AKCJ]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4535970/JAMES-HARKIN-Ariana-Grande-symbol-Islamists-hate.html

 

Christ almighty.

[yorkie1999]

Don't know what they're going to make of the Kiss concert this weekend then!

[Guest MattP]

23,000 potential Jihadis in the country. Horrible, if just 1% act in it that's 230 more if these attacks - I'm not sure the country has the stomach for that.

[Bellend Sebastian]

Bit weird yesterday having a pint on Highcross Street and seeing armed coppers on patrol.

 

I'm really not sure if it makes me feel more or less safe

[Innovindil]

19 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Bit weird yesterday having a pint on Highcross Street and seeing armed coppers on patrol.

 

I'm really not sure if it makes me feel more or less safe

I agree, picked my folks up from the airport a couple of months ago and felt weird seeing the armed police there. (I know they've been there for ages). Can guarantee if/when shit hits the fan we'll be glad they're around though, don't think I could do their job tbh. 

[Tielemans63]

On 5/25/2017 at 17:52, Buce said:

 

I think the problem we in the West have is a lack of understanding of the concept of Ummah; to a Muslim, the Nation of Islam takes precedence over any nation state to which they also belong. So, even when they are born here, even when they have lives of privilege here, when we bomb and kill other Muslims we are bombing their people.

Absolutely right Buce. 

 

I'm no fan of Jeremy Corbyn but he was right when he said this is partly down to our waging of ill-conceived and illegal wars in the middle East. I don't think he was defending them - just stating the bleeding obvious. These twats aren't motivated solely by hatred, they're trying to make a political point. In my humble opinion it's disingenuous for May and others to disregard the impact and legacy of coalition invasions. I'm not in any way defending these ***** or saying we should just accept these atrocities but there has to be a realisation that they come from somewhere and there are inevitably consequences for past actions.

[bovril]

18 minutes ago, Paddy. said:

Absolutely right Buce. 

 

I'm no fan of Jeremy Corbyn but he was right when he said this is partly down to our waging of ill-conceived and illegal wars in the middle East. I don't think he was defending them - just stating the bleeding obvious. These twats aren't motivated solely by hatred, they're trying to make a political point. In my humble opinion it's disingenuous for May and others to disregard the impact and legacy of coalition invasions. I'm not in any way defending these ***** or saying we should just accept these atrocities but there has to be a realisation that they come from somewhere and there are inevitably consequences for past actions.

If you're talking specifically about isis then not exactly, they are not coy about stating the fact that even if the west stopped meddling in the ME the attacks would continue. It's ideological for them, not political.

However, British and American foreign policy has created the vacuum to allow these groups to flourish. 

[Benguin]

1 hour ago, Paddy. said:

Absolutely right Buce. 

 

I'm no fan of Jeremy Corbyn but he was right when he said this is partly down to our waging of ill-conceived and illegal wars in the middle East. I don't think he was defending them - just stating the bleeding obvious. These twats aren't motivated solely by hatred, they're trying to make a political point. In my humble opinion it's disingenuous for May and others to disregard the impact and legacy of coalition invasions. I'm not in any way defending these ***** or saying we should just accept these atrocities but there has to be a realisation that they come from somewhere and there are inevitably consequences for past actions.

Biggest load of turd I've ever heard.

 

I am absolutely under no delusion that the war in Iraq was justified but to state that it's the reason we must be subjected to terrorism is absurd.

 

First point - Terrorism in the name of Islamic extremism far preceded our invasion of Iraq (03 not gulf)

Second point - What were heads of Islamic state doing before the Iraqi war? Sharing jokes with Westerners? No of course not, they were terrorists.

Third point - What's the alternative to military action? Well it's pretty clear ISIS want to kill all "Kuffir bastards," impose strict sharia law" and make the entire world into an Islamic state. So should we let them? Or should we bomb them? Of course innocents are dying from our intervention but if you think they'd be safer if we let ISIS go about their business then you're deluded.

 

If someone is so committed to their ideology they're willing to blow their own guts out, clearly there is no reasoning with that, we either allow them to do it or detain/kill them.

 

Before anyone replies with "Yeah but ISIS are using the 03 invasion of Iraq as a way too radicalise home-grown Muslims."

1. Do you think ISIS, or whatever terrorist group that would exist had we not invaded Iraq, would not still be able to radicalise?

2. Do you think a psychopath capable of blowing himself and 22 others up, including kids, needs the Iraqi war as motive?

 

I mean come on, yes Blair/Bush were essentially war criminals but to state that the Iraqi war is the reason for acts like the other day is beyond stupid.

[Buce]

11 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Biggest load of turd I've ever heard.

 

I am absolutely under no delusion that the war in Iraq was justified but to state that it's the reason we must be subjected to terrorism is absurd.

 

First point - Terrorism in the name of Islamic extremism far preceded our invasion of Iraq (03 not gulf)

Second point - What were heads of Islamic state doing before the Iraqi war? Sharing jokes with Westerners? No of course not, they were terrorists.

Third point - What's the alternative to military action? Well it's pretty clear ISIS want to kill all "Kuffir bastards," impose strict sharia law" and make the entire world into an Islamic state. So should we let them? Or should we bomb them? Of course innocents are dying from our intervention but if you think they'd be safer if we let ISIS go about their business then you're deluded.

 

If someone is so committed to their ideology they're willing to blow their own guts out, clearly there is no reasoning with that, we either allow them to do it or detain/kill them.

 

Before anyone replies with "Yeah but ISIS are using the 03 invasion of Iraq as a way too radicalise home-grown Muslims."

1. Do you think ISIS, or whatever terrorist group that would exist had we not invaded Iraq, would not still be able to radicalise?

2. Do you think a psychopath capable of blowing himself and 22 others up, including kids, needs the Iraqi war as motive?

 

I mean come on, yes Blair/Bush were essentially war criminals but to state that the Iraqi war is the reason for acts like the other day is beyond stupid.

 

Nobody is suggesting that it's the sole reason for Islamic terrorism; it does, however, act as a very effective recruiting sergeant, something that is accepted by former heads of our intelligence services and numerous political commentators.

[Benguin]

Just now, Buce said:

 

Nobody is suggesting that it's the sole reason for Islamic terrorism; it does, however, act as a very effective recruiting sergeant, something that is accepted by former heads of our intelligence services and numerous political commentators.

And something that wouldn't really change anything without it. It's just redundant comments that do or mean nothing. Though I fundamentally do not believe this, even if we accept that the Iraqi war created this monster, what difference does it make? The monster exists and is prepared to die to take as many innocent Kuffir's out as possible, do we let it or fight it?

[Thracian]

20 hours ago, Rincewind said:

Funding to the police has been cut in recent years so they can only do so much. Like in that video, he was asked Why do Muslims do this? He answered I have no idea I am not a homicidal manic with suicidal tendencies.

Watch the video he speaks a lot of sense..

We shouldn't be needing armies of police and didn't need them years ago. The fact that we need them only emphasises the extent of the problem and the mistakes that have been made. MI5 reveals there have investigated 23,000 terror suspects or "potential jihadists" are living in Britain right now and more than 3000 are being investigated as "subjects of interest".

 

Why are they here? Were they born here? And why are they being investigated and why is it so hard to do anything about them including withdrawal of their citizenship if such action is needed? Are our laws strong enough to do what's necessary?   

[Tielemans63]

28 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Biggest load of turd I've ever heard.

 

I am absolutely under no delusion that the war in Iraq was justified but to state that it's the reason we must be subjected to terrorism is absurd.

 

First point - Terrorism in the name of Islamic extremism far preceded our invasion of Iraq (03 not gulf)

Second point - What were heads of Islamic state doing before the Iraqi war? Sharing jokes with Westerners? No of course not, they were terrorists.

Third point - What's the alternative to military action? Well it's pretty clear ISIS want to kill all "Kuffir bastards," impose strict sharia law" and make the entire world into an Islamic state. So should we let them? Or should we bomb them? Of course innocents are dying from our intervention but if you think they'd be safer if we let ISIS go about their business then you're deluded.

 

If someone is so committed to their ideology they're willing to blow their own guts out, clearly there is no reasoning with that, we either allow them to do it or detain/kill them.

 

Before anyone replies with "Yeah but ISIS are using the 03 invasion of Iraq as a way too radicalise home-grown Muslims."

1. Do you think ISIS, or whatever terrorist group that would exist had we not invaded Iraq, would not still be able to radicalise?

2. Do you think a psychopath capable of blowing himself and 22 others up, including kids, needs the Iraqi war as motive?

 

I mean come on, yes Blair/Bush were essentially war criminals but to state that the Iraqi war is the reason for acts like the other day is beyond stupid.

Read back through my post a few times now and still can't see where I suggested that Isis should be left to get on with it, don't recall saying military action shouldn't be considered and don't remember stating that terrorism started in with the Iraq invasion. I was referring to disaffected Muslims before they become radicalized- Isis is another point entirely. Seems you've just used my post to have a bit of a rant.

 

My point was that some politicians seems intent on simplifying what is a complex issue which imho is dangerous. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough but at the same time, don't manipulate my words and make up some utter bullshit.

[Thracian]

22 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Biggest load of turd I've ever heard.

 

I am absolutely under no delusion that the war in Iraq was justified but to state that it's the reason we must be subjected to terrorism is absurd.

 

First point - Terrorism in the name of Islamic extremism far preceded our invasion of Iraq (03 not gulf)

Second point - What were heads of Islamic state doing before the Iraqi war? Sharing jokes with Westerners? No of course not, they were terrorists.

Third point - What's the alternative to military action? Well it's pretty clear ISIS want to kill all "Kuffir bastards," impose strict sharia law" and make the entire world into an Islamic state. So should we let them? Or should we bomb them? Of course innocents are dying from our intervention but if you think they'd be safer if we let ISIS go about their business then you're deluded.

 

If someone is so committed to their ideology they're willing to blow their own guts out, clearly there is no reasoning with that, we either allow them to do it or detain/kill them.

 

Before anyone replies with "Yeah but ISIS are using the 03 invasion of Iraq as a way too radicalise home-grown Muslims."

1. Do you think ISIS, or whatever terrorist group that would exist had we not invaded Iraq, would not still be able to radicalise?

2. Do you think a psychopath capable of blowing himself and 22 others up, including kids, needs the Iraqi war as motive?

 

I mean come on, yes Blair/Bush were essentially war criminals but to state that the Iraqi war is the reason for acts like the other day is beyond stupid.

Even if Muslim fundamentalists have or had even the strongest (in their eyes), reasons for justifying terrorist actions, why do we accommodate them here?. But in truth you only have to key-in "Muslim Acts of Terrorism" or something similar to see there have been similar abominations in countless countries all of them illustrating the determination of Islamist zealots to dominate and expand the Islamic world, including Turkey's Erdogan who makes no secret of wanting an Ottoman-style caliphate.   .

 

Just as sad is that many of us in the UK despised Blair and Bush for their actions in the Middle East and I, for one, vehemently opposed them long before the action started, along with many others who didn't believe a word of Blair's bullshit, didn't see any sensible justification for getting involved and didn't see any positive strategic outcome resulting.              

 

Even now, I don't see that anything has changed for the better, quite the contrary in some ways . 

 

 

 

[Steven]

Theresa May defends UK ties with Saudi Arabia

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39485083

Saudi officials were 'supporting' 9/11 hijackers, commission member says

First serious public split revealed among commissioners over the release of the secret ‘28 pages’ that detail Saudi ties to 2001 terrorist attacks

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/12/911-commission-saudi-arabia-hijackers

 

What is Wahhabism? The reactionary branch of Islam from Saudi Arabia said to be 'the main source of global terrorism' 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/29/what-is-wahhabism-the-reactionary-branch-of-islam-said-to-be-the/

 

Join the dots ................

[Benguin]

3 minutes ago, Paddy. said:

Read back through my post a few times now and still can't see where I suggested that Isis should be left to get on with it, don't recall saying military action shouldn't be considered and don't remember stating that terrorism started in with the Iraq invasion. I was referring to disaffected Muslims before they become radicalized- Isis is another point entirely. Seems you've just used my post to have a bit of a rant.

 

My point was that some politicians seems intent on simplifying what is a complex issue which imho is dangerous. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough but at the same time, don't manipulate my words and make up some utter bullshit.

Perhaps I jumped the gun a little but I was addressing yours and Buce's point, to which I assumed you agreed with as you said "spot on"

 

From what I understood of your post, you were saying that whilst you're not fond of Corbyn, you agreed with his comments from yesterday, that we are partly to blame from past military actions. If I remember you suggested that this was "bleeding obvious."

 

What I also gathered from your post is that we should not consider these terrorists as just mindless westerner haters and that we should perhaps consider that they're are trying to make a political point.

 

I think your final contention was that we need to appreciate the impact/consequences of coalition invasions.

 

Not sure my reply was putting words in your mouth 

[Tielemans63]

8 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Perhaps I jumped the gun a little but I was addressing yours and Buce's point, to which I assumed you agreed with as you said "spot on"

 

From what I understood of your post, you were saying that whilst you're not fond of Corbyn, you agreed with his comments from yesterday, that we are partly to blame from past military actions. If I remember you suggested that this was "bleeding obvious."

 

What I also gathered from your post is that we should not consider these terrorists as just mindless westerner haters and that we should perhaps consider that they're are trying to make a political point.

 

I think your final contention was that we need to appreciate the impact/consequences of coalition invasions.

 

Not sure my reply was putting words in your mouth 

Equally I'm not sure how you construed my comments as being somehow sympathetic of extremism? Perhaps I wasn't clear enough but my point was that at least Corbyn (who I really am not a fan of) was prepared to start some sort of discourse about the problem and acknowledge some of the root of the problem. There doesn't seem to be much discussion about it on a public level let alone any real action. My personal opinion is that by refusing to engage properly with the problem then we're not really tackling it- merely piling more and more pressure on to our security services.

 

In my opinion, the more we discuss it openly and constructively in the public domain the more impressionable young Muslims will be exposed to the truth rather than hearing the lies of dubious Imams behind closed doors. We can't do much about what goes on there but a more helpful media approach might stop a few nutters doing something disgusting. 

 

 

[Rincewind]

Sometimes you have to take the middle ground. While intervention by the west cannot be held fully responsible the war in Iraq will have increased the 'threat' of retaliation by some groups.We have tried military action a few times but the threat is still there. I am surprised we still sell weapons to some ME countries where they can fall into the hands of the wrong people.

 

In football terms. Your team GK concedes 5/6 goals every other match. You have to conclude that the GK is crap or the def is shite. You would not normally blame the striker. If it carries on then maybe a change of manager who will introduce different tactics.

If a policy does not work then maybe it is time for a new policy But politicians are only human and sometimes find it hard to admit they may be wrong.

[yorkie1999]

Shame that the world's major oil deposits weren't discovered in Australia, we'd have none of this shit and the middle east would have been left to blow itself to kingdom come.

[Rincewind]

True. If you wanted to find an Aussie terrorist you'd find them in the nearest bar. Gooday Bruce.

[Alf Bentley]

 

Terror threat rating reduced again from "Critical" to "Severe": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40069959

 

Presumably the police/security services are confident that they've rounded up all immediately dangerous members of the network that Abedi belonged to.

 

Good news insofar as it goes, though I'm sure there are plenty of others out there with similar intentions - just not in a position to do much about it imminently (or unidentified).

[theessexfox]

54 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

Sometimes you have to take the middle ground. While intervention by the west cannot be held fully responsible the war in Iraq will have increased the 'threat' of retaliation by some groups.We have tried military action a few times but the threat is still there. I am surprised we still sell weapons to some ME countries where they can fall into the hands of the wrong people.

 

In football terms. Your team GK concedes 5/6 goals every other match. You have to conclude that the GK is crap or the def is shite. You would not normally blame the striker. If it carries on then maybe a change of manager who will introduce different tactics.

If a policy does not work then maybe it is time for a new policy But politicians are only human and sometimes find it hard to admit they may be wrong.

Are you? Sadly it doesn't surprise me one bit.