OK I am confused 21 murdered and 1 twat dead and the Police have contacted all the families of the injured in hospital and the dead BUT there is still I think 7 missing. WHERE ARE THEY !!!
Manchester Arena Bombing 22.05.17
- Thread starter VeevaVee
- Start date
Liberal interventionism isn't really bred of Christian morality or ethic. The two worked in tandem during the colonial era (so roughly, 200 years), but it was a matter of self interest converging rather than any complicit pact between church and state.
Yeah, not sure what's going on there. Confusion in hospitals? I don't understand how everyone can't be accounted for at this stage.
You could certainly portray it as an act of misogny, which would be very much their style.
It's so hard to process, and in a sense I don't want to. Nothing is sacred to these beasts, apart from their scripture.
Pot, kettle, black
Yeah, its nice to show a bit of solidarity in moments like these. I'm not from Manchester, but I love the City and the people. And so I really can't bring myself to hate Man City at the minute. Given what has happened and the response of the whole city makes our rivalry so trivial. We will of course go back to hating eachother in due corse but now is not the time.
We arrest our nutters. You name streets after yours.
I would understand it and other modern ethical notions such as 'human rights' as subconscious facets of a 'secularized' Christian universalism.
It is, though.
I'm talking specifically about angry disenfranchised youths, who feel they've been a dealt a shit hand in life and want to lash out at the world. They're tailor made for jihadists to take under their wing and eventually encourage them to do something like this. All based around motivations and justifications which are unique to their specific faith.
You just don't see any other faith used as an outlet for violent or destructive tendencies from alienated youngsters. The closest I could think of would be white supremacists or people with their own unique and individual perverted visions of the world, like Anders Breivik. These are ideological, rather than religious motivations.
You just don't see "lone wolf" atrocities carried out in the name of any other faith. Not that I'm aware of, anyway. Can you think of any?
I find it extremely unnerving that we have to go through the same 'Islam is trouble', 'But Christians caused Crusades'. Yes, mindless violence is caused by a few religious extremists in every religion. It's not a problem only with Islam. But, Islam also needs a serious reformation within inside. That will not happen if everyone is defensive and say 99% is good. Yes, 99% is good, but 1% of Islam is still a huge number and it will be a problem if 1% will continue to be radical.
Western countries need to rethink their strategy of interventionist policies as well. They can't afford to topple regimes trying to influence countries but they also can't turn a blind eye to people like Saddam and Assad committing genocide. For all this 'don't get involved in middle east', there is still a humanitarian crisis that happens in this region if no intervention is made. It's a delicate problem. If the solution was simple, it would have been already done already. This entire 'Bush and Blair are war criminals first', 'Islam is terrorism', 'Religion is bad' leads us nowhere. We have already messed up. We should all work in this together.
Religious institutions are turning around. Churches, Mosques and influential religious leaders are already lending their voice to make this better. We should empower these conversations and try and push reforms from within. Politics, religion, Common sense and empathy all need to work in one single direction of solving these conflicts. Maps can be redrawn. Radical solutions need to be proposed and accepted. Hard choices have to be made by everybody. Trying to maintain status quo has failed. Having a country filled with one sect like Shia/Sunni and have the others migrate as refugees to other countries is just not a workable solution. Non-intervention is not an option for other nations when dictators wantonly commit genocide based on your sect/faith etc.
I don't know the answer. But there are people dedicated to solving this stuff. Let's hope they figure this out sooner than later. But this is not only dividing the middle east. It's dividing every country. People sitting in Idaho and Surrey make their leadership choices based on a candidate's global view. So a person like Donald Trump or Theresa May can get elected inciting fear about terrorism. That is not to say Clinton, Sanders or Corbyn is any better because I don't know if a hands-off policy will work either. This problem disrupts harmony in this very forum. I can't really take sammsky seriously anymore after railing for months against Trump, I come to know that he's in fact a conservative when it comes to taxes, but just hates Trump because of his rhetoric against Islam. This shit is messing up our life and the casualties are not just innocent lives, it's our way of life as we know it.
Sorry about the rant.
Western countries need to rethink their strategy of interventionist policies as well. They can't afford to topple regimes trying to influence countries but they also can't turn a blind eye to people like Saddam and Assad committing genocide. For all this 'don't get involved in middle east', there is still a humanitarian crisis that happens in this region if no intervention is made. It's a delicate problem. If the solution was simple, it would have been already done already. This entire 'Bush and Blair are war criminals first', 'Islam is terrorism', 'Religion is bad' leads us nowhere. We have already messed up. We should all work in this together.
Religious institutions are turning around. Churches, Mosques and influential religious leaders are already lending their voice to make this better. We should empower these conversations and try and push reforms from within. Politics, religion, Common sense and empathy all need to work in one single direction of solving these conflicts. Maps can be redrawn. Radical solutions need to be proposed and accepted. Hard choices have to be made by everybody. Trying to maintain status quo has failed. Having a country filled with one sect like Shia/Sunni and have the others migrate as refugees to other countries is just not a workable solution. Non-intervention is not an option for other nations when dictators wantonly commit genocide based on your sect/faith etc.
I don't know the answer. But there are people dedicated to solving this stuff. Let's hope they figure this out sooner than later. But this is not only dividing the middle east. It's dividing every country. People sitting in Idaho and Surrey make their leadership choices based on a candidate's global view. So a person like Donald Trump or Theresa May can get elected inciting fear about terrorism. That is not to say Clinton, Sanders or Corbyn is any better because I don't know if a hands-off policy will work either. This problem disrupts harmony in this very forum. I can't really take sammsky seriously anymore after railing for months against Trump, I come to know that he's in fact a conservative when it comes to taxes, but just hates Trump because of his rhetoric against Islam. This shit is messing up our life and the casualties are not just innocent lives, it's our way of life as we know it.
Sorry about the rant.
You made a terrorist prime minister. I don't want to get into this in this thread, but I won't accept you moralising
No apologies needed - a good rant. I think we're all scared and confused.
I guess some might be nigh on impossible to identify, sadly.
Arsenal have cancelled their FA cup victory parade if they were to beat Chelsea.
Good on 'em!
Good on 'em!
Without sounding out of place they have probably been blown to bits. Literally.
Getting the DNA and all that stuff is probably taking longer than expected with so many people present etc.
I admire the optimism in this gesture.
It's absurd claiming that every such event affects one personally.
As I type this post how many people around the world die painfully? It's a tragedy for somebody, but not for me.
If the proponents of violence have already concluded that they are right, why the charade of debate?
Thought I'd post this here.
I fully agree.
In 2015 almost 10,000 people were killed by suicide bombers.
https://aoav.org.uk/2013/a-short-history-of-suicide-bombings/
Who?
The same reason any debate happens - to win the undecided or hesitant to their side. Everything ISIS does - the acts of violence, the propaganda, the appeal to Islamic authority - is designed to win Muslims over to their cause.
Well that was my first thought and did say pretty mucg that yesterday, but why would the Police say the had spoke to the families of all injured and dead.
Heh, I was thinking about thatReminds me of this.
Blair ?
MEN reporting this.
Manchester Arena bomb maker at large and could strike again
Intelligence services now believe that Salman Abedi who detonated the nail bomb in the foyer of the venue was a ‘mule’ using a device made by someone else.
The person who made the bomb that blew up Manchester Arena is still at large and could strike again at any time.
Intelligence services now believe that Salman Abedi who detonated the nail bomb in the foyer of the venue was a ‘mule’ using a device made by someone else.
Manchester Arena bomb maker at large and could strike again
Intelligence services now believe that Salman Abedi who detonated the nail bomb in the foyer of the venue was a ‘mule’ using a device made by someone else.
The person who made the bomb that blew up Manchester Arena is still at large and could strike again at any time.
Intelligence services now believe that Salman Abedi who detonated the nail bomb in the foyer of the venue was a ‘mule’ using a device made by someone else.
It's not really that hard to understand when they are doing it to their own daughters:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...amascus-father-convinces-jihadi-a7488371.html
That's a somewhat different point.
I don't underestimate the psychological impact of such atrocities. But I wonder, as a matter of public policy, if it wouldn't be better to play them down rather than big them up. There is no 'war'. Islamic terrorism is not an existential threat to the West.
True.
You don't see it because it's not deemed necessary.
If hugely superior Muslim armies invaded, bombed and occupied Christian countries over a 5 decade period leaving a catalogue of ruined lives and cities we might see some.
It's definitely through religious channels but it's not innate.
Yep, I made that point earlier. Cover the incident, paint him as a nutter. Do whatever you need to behind the scenes but I'd stop the war narrative.
For years that was policy v The IRA.
I've nervous for Carricks Testimonial 
it was meant to be a fun thing for me
it was meant to be a fun thing for meI mean, he wasn't a terrorist when we made him Prime Minister.
1997 - First elected
2001 - Re-elected
2003 - Iraq war begins
2005 (March) - Confirmation that there were no WMDs in Iraq
2005 (May) - Re-elected
2007 - Resigns
Now I'm not trying to defend the decision to reelect him in 2005, and certainly I am not defending Blair in following Bush into Iraq with no evidence in a potentially illegal war...
But democracy isn't fool proof.
I don't know. It's a chicken/egg type argument, but generally speaking, religion tends to adapt to the state rather than the other way around. The moral/ethical values of the West have shaped doctrine more than doctrine has shaped those values. Which is why when you see the Westboro Baptist Church being the most hated organisation in America, it's ironic, because everything they do and say has a certain legitimacy in Old Testament doctrine. That's where you see the divergence between moral norms and doctrinal values. For churches to be legitimate in the West, they've had to exclude those parts of doctrine which exclude or condemn large parts of society. See Pope Francis for further reference.
The temporal drives the spiritual in the West, that much I'm fairly confident of. I'd also argue that it's been that way since at least the Industrial Revolution.
Well colonialism has left an unpleasant legacy all over the world, affecting people of many different faiths. Yet here we are, with one specific faith used as justification for atrocities like this again and again and again.
You're right, of course, that the west is reaping the whirlwind of heavy-handed foreign policy in the region, motivated by the need to secure a steady supply of oil. I completely agree with that. I also think it's possible that the role certain faiths have in preventing a peaceful resolution is a distinct issue which needs discussion and consideration in its own right. All the more so when you see the way it can be used as a basis for seriously unpleasant human rights abuses, including endemic misogny and homophobia. Not sure any of that can be blamed on Western foreign policy tbf.
Last edited:
I've nervous for Carricks Testimonial
Haven't been to old trafford this season, never got the chance with work and things, but the way mates who go describe it, its probably the safest building in the city when a match is on.
Not sure I can go 12 rounds on this anymore. London's parliament attack was only months ago and we all went through the full gamut of emotions and blame in that incident.
Every time an attack happens, I feel the same cycle of emotions and internal conflicts. And so I felt the same when the bomb went off in Manchester: my university city for 3 years and home of United, the football club I dearly love. It's a deep pain for the loss of innocents and a frustration that Islam is blamed for it. It feels like a festering wound, it gets re-opened on a regular and consistent basis and so it never heals.
And yet this time, I'm fed up with the empty rhetoric we get from Western politicians and leaders. They claim the terrorists will never win, and yet in the same breath, make contradictory and inflammatory foreign policy and further erode our civil liberties. Theresa May says they will never win nor change our way of life, and yet minutes later elevates the security threat to code red, flooding out streets with guns and soldiers. Her partner in hypocrisy and best friend, the US president calls terrorists 'losers', whilst he enjoys the trapping of a full royal Saudi welcome.
If this is ever to be solved, western politicians and the voters who give them power need recognise their key role in this. Ever since oil was discovered in the middle east, US/UK armies have developed relationships with the Al Saud family: guardians of the Wahabi doctrine: the most corrupted form of Islam which has inspired ISIS and many western bombing terrorists. Western politicians have played significant roles in murderous regime change and not stayed around long enough or invested enough $ to rebuild these leaderless states. Our politicians have approved military acts that have killed millions of innocent Arab civilians, including 100,000s of defenceless women and children. Those events happen on such a regular basis, we don't even know they occur.
The west provides context for ideological jihadists and fails to properly integrate displaced refugees and immigrants from the regions they destabilise or colonially subjugate. This disenfranchised youth you talk about are largely creations of the west.
I don't think it's surprising that some people who have emotional ties to this region breakdown, and when they do, are indoctrinated by jihadists into becoming murderous suicide bombers. Blame Islam all you like, I suspect the core issue is closer to home. It seems to me that this is the ball game.
It's difficult because it will require the reversal of nearly 100 years of western foreign policy thinking, it would require a fair and just solution to the crimes committed aginst Palestinian people and it would require a fairer global distribution of oil which may lower the standards of living in the west.
I can't stand any of it: hypocrisy from western powers though I'm stuck with my British identity and reactionary terrorism from British-born maniacs. Best would be to lock them all up in a cage ring and charge for cable viewing. It seems to me that unless all of these things are addressed, then terrorism against anyone and anytime is the price that has to be paid.
Condolences and sincere regret to those who affected by the killings in Manchester.
Last edited: