Explosion at Manchester Arena - Fatalities Confirmed

by cofty 342 Replies latest members politics

  • LoveUniHateExams
    LoveUniHateExams

    Re Cofty's 5 points - in case no 1 the person needs to be shot dead without fail, obviously. Double tap to the head & heart. Bang-bang!

    And if a person manages to make it to no 1, then the person has beaten our anti-terrorism policy in that instance.

    Here's what I think is the important point: we need to stop people before they reach scenario no 1.

    I'm still undecided between internment and killing for no's 2-5.

    How about fly them to Guantanamo and waterboard them? Sounds like a good idea to me ...

  • LoveUniHateExams
    LoveUniHateExams

    Please, before denouncing another religion, let's remember what we in the west are guilty of - f**k off, no way.

    It's our political policies in the middle East that has caused this problem - no, it's not. ISIS has said why they attack us. You're not paying attention.

    Islamist terror groups have declared war on the West and on other countries.

    We can't afford to navel-gaze or wallow in self-guilt.

    We need to efficiently and forcefully stamp out terrorism.

    We should all be on the same page in this regard.

  • scotsman
    scotsman

    If Islam has always been like this, why did it wait until 2004 to start terrorist activity in Europe?

  • _Morpheus
    _Morpheus

    Absolute and blatant falsehood that the west's foreign policy made isis.

    Osama himself is the son of wealthy saudis. The saudis are nominal allies of the west and publically somewhat moderate toward all things "western".

    The west backed osama in afganistan. The west proped up several other islamic states in the late 70's and 80's as sort of lesser of two evils ideals.

    Islam has used acts of terror since its inception. "Recent" history saw islam use the 1883 eruption of krackatoa as a reason to foment terror in java and Indonesia.

    This is nothing new at all. Its typical bleeding left wing 'oh we are at fault' crap that tries to claim that somehow western foreign policy flew planes into the world trade center or set off bombs at the boston marathon or drive trucks into crowds in europe or blow up bombs at an aria grande concert.

    bull. Shit.

    These were acts done by religious zealots for the express purpose of killing infediels. It has nothing to do with imagined foreign policy sleights or western money mid east politics or santa clause or any other imaginary crap you want to blame.

    Radical islam is the problem.

  • Simon
    Simon
    If Islam has always been like this, why did it wait until 2004 to start terrorist activity in Europe?

    It didn't. We used to fight it better and they were busy in-fighting. We've since provided them with a rampant breeding ground by destabilizing governments that we previously propped up and flooded the regions with weapons (like the ones Clinton sent to Libya, now in Syria).

    But the real roots of the current issue goes back further and we definitely helped create the current wave of extremism due to short sighted idiots thinking that the enemy of your enemy is our friend (ongoing ideology wars with Russia) rather than groups out for their own ends.

    Some people supported the Iraq invasion for the flimsiest of reasons based on evidence that didn't hold up (I didn't and got a lot of shit for it off people). Likewise there are those who beat their war drums every time something happens in the world (often overlooked is Clinton's desire to setup no-fly-zones which could have led to conflict with Russia and WWIII).

    The Afghan-Russian conflict also saw the US contributing to the weaponization of Islam by printing tens of millions of childrens books to desensitize them to violence and death ("hey kids, lets learn to count by counting grenades and severed heads !").

    But that only explains the current cycle, not the many that went before it. Was the Iraq invasion the cause of Islam fighting with the Nazi's for instance? Or the brutal extermination of many more millions of African slaves than ever got on boats to the US. Or the reason there are no Jews in Saudi Arabia or the Armenians suffered genocide? Or so many girls are killed or butchered and live their lives oppressed. Or why rape of children is accepted as part of everyday life and not even hidden from view. What about the endless massacres of history. Oh, I know, we're only supposed to remember the killing done by the evil white patriarchy, not the barbaric slaughter that others did far more often, far more aggressively.

    Islam is a fertile, prepared soil for extremism to grow - it's why it's so easy for the likes of ISIS to convert Muslims to it (one of the things Majid Nawaaz recently focused on). That is also why it has always been problematic and dangerous throughout history and will always be unless it is beaten down and contained.

    Yes, we should not throw additional gasoline on it. But it's Islam that is the dry tinder and the spark.

  • cofty
    cofty

    TIMI.1972 - It is outrageous that you attempt to make a moral equivalence between the political and military leaders of the west and the terrorists of radical Islam.

    Intentions matter.

    Imagine there was a magic weapon that would reliably kill only those who you intend to kill and could guarantee zero collateral damage.

    What would the results be if both sides owned such a weapon?

    Every Islamic terrorist would be dead and not one single neutral male and not one woman or child would be killed - not one.

    On the other hand the streets of the UK and France, Germany, Belgium and the USA would be strewn with tens of thousands of murdered civilians.

    How dare you attempt to make it our fault you self-loathing masochist!

  • cofty
    cofty
    If Islam has always been like this, why did it wait until 2004 to start terrorist activity in Europe? - Scotsman

    Is that a sincere question or an attempted gotcha?

    If the former then the answer is interesting and complex. There are two books I recommend as a starting point. "A History of the Modern Middle East" by William L. Cleveland and Martin Buntin and "The Great War for Civilisation - The Conquest of the Middle East" by Robert Fisk.

    The former is quite academic, the other a 1300 page polemic by a journalist.

    If you meant it as a gotcha then it will only impress those who know nothing of Middle East politics apart from what they hear in internet soundbites.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Robert Fisk is an excellent journalist. He has argued for years that the Palestine conflict was the motive for 9/11 and other attacks. The focus on "Muslim ideology" is a smokescreen to avoid reassessing US and Western foreign policy.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-for-10-years-weve-lied-to-ourselves-to-avoid-asking-the-one-real-question-2348438.html

    Which rather supports Scotsman's point. So why do you mention his book as a response? Have you read it? Do you agree with it?

  • Thisismein1972
    Thisismein1972

    LoveUniHateExams. So you believe that ISIS is actually behind all this?

    Let me pose a question to you. You know about the NSA and GCHQ right? You know that GCHQ has had billions of pounds pumped into it to stop terrorists from even releasing content to the general public.

    Why then can ISIS seam to get their "media arm" to publish information and take credit for the atrocities that happen? Why if such government agencies have had billions thrown at them can they not intercept the so called media arm of ISIS and shut them down before they even try to publish their crap. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise there is something seriously wrong with the political system if ISIS can ALWAYS publish propaganda. Surely by now, after all this time that their websites would have been shut down a long time ago.

    This however douse not fit the narrative, and as I've seen here by some, the tactic of a few individuals are working. The fear is rampant. I still stand by my statement that our governments, along with the sell out main stream media are to blame for the current problems.

    Let's not forget the original reason why we in the West INVADED Iraq, it had nothing to do with 9/11. Apparently Saddam Hussein was stockpiling WMD's. This however turned out to be a big fat lie. Ever since then, the west has demoniised a few other leaders of sovereign countries. We are currently, either indirectly or directly waging war with several middle eastern countries, but they don't want to stop at the ones we are waging war with now, no, we now want to provoke Iran, North Korea, the Philippines, and of course Russia. See where there is a huge problem here! There is one country in this line up that has never waged war with another country and that is Iran. The Philippines is technically still an ally of the US, but as soon as the president of the Philippines decides that he would rather do business with other countries ISIS suddenly appear out of nowhere in the Philippines. I have friends in the Philippines, in fact I have friends in Davao City, This city is currently under martial law, there is a curfew in place where all citizens have to be home for 10pm. This is due to the apparent ISIS attack.

    We are not being told the truth, and this is due to the hand in glove mainstream media. For instance, how many here actually are aware of the war in Yemen? How many are aware of the genocide in Yemen, how many are aware that it is the Saudi's dropping illegal cluster bombs that rip limbs apart, and are supplied by our western military industrial complex?

    Our western governments are culpable on the highest level, we cry persecution, yet we are killing tens of thousands of innocent lives abroad.

    I'll leave you with a quote by one of the best presidents the US ever had. John F Kennedy. A man who wanted to change his country for the best, and he was assassinated for this reason.

    "For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

    Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match."

  • cofty
    cofty
    So why do you mention his book as a response? Have you read it? Do you agree with it? - SBF

    Of course I've read it. It's looking dogeared on my bookshelf right behind me as I type. I recommended two books that between them would provide a comprehensive and balanced account of Middle East history. I try not to live in an echo chamber. I read both sides of political and religious issues.

    I highly recommend Robert Fisk's book for its detailed information. I think his opinions on foreign policy have a strong left-wing bias, he is not as far out there as Chomsky but he is on that side of the spectrum. One of the most memorable sections of his book is the story of the Armenian genocide by Muslim Turks - something Turkey still denies.

    The other book I suggested provides an academic account of the long history of Islamic Imperialism and its interactions with the Christian West.

    Its amazing that some people are entirely ignorant of centuries of conflict between Islam and Christianity. Its as if the Ottoman Empire never happened.

    Most people's opinions are based on YouTube soundbites or books and articles exclusively from one side of a debate. Investigate the whole story from different perspectives. To blame modern Islamic terrorism in Europe on foreign policy is pathetically naive.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit