Manchester Arena

Timmo1341 posted:

MDS posted:

The police have now named the bomber: a 22 year-old, born in Manchester of Libyan descent.

I think MangoMonkey makes a fair point above. How did this 22 year old come to act in this way? Surely not on his own. And how did he obtain the explosives and knowledge to produce the bomb? He must have been aided.  And what of his family and friends? Was he able to plan and execute this abhorrent act without leaving any hints or clues that his friends and family might see? The authorities will I'm sure be asking and pursuing these and other questions with vigour.  It is those that aided the perpetrator that deserve the heaviest penalties that the law can apply, and those close to hime that saw things and did nothing must also be held to account.     

Not too sure as to the relevance of the descriptor "of Libyan descent". 

If he was born and raised in Manchester he was British. Would we have differentiated had he been born to N. American, Swiss, Australian or Icelandic parents? No, I thought not.

Presumably Frank F would have seen him deported to Libya, had he survived!

i think it's time to accept this is not a Libyan, Syrian, Pakistani, Afghani etc. etc. issue. Unless it can be demonstrated that this young man was radicalised, trained and funded by a foreign regime, this is a British terrorist committing atrocities on British soul, it's a British problem, not one for which we should be demonising Libya or a Middle Eastern country.

If he was born and raised in Manchester he was British.

You quite rightly point out that, having been born in UK, one is in fact British.

However, in that case, if one's imported ideology leads one to commit such acts, that is of little relevance.

"Would we have differentiated had he been born to N. American, Swiss, Australian or Icelandic parents? No, I thought not."

Had that been the case, how likely do you imagine it is that he would have carried out such an atrocity?

"Unless it can be demonstrated that this young man was radicalised, trained and funded by a foreign regime, this is a British terrorist committing atrocities on British soil.

The young man in question was, most probably, not directly funded or trained as you describe, but there can be little doubt that those responsible for his having been radicalised, here in UK, do indeed receive support, whether financial, or idealistically, from abroad.

it's a British problem, not one for which we should be demonising Libya or a Middle Eastern country.

It's a British problem, insofar as we have to find a way to prevent future radicalisation of young Muslims, whether UK born or not.

dave marshall posted:

Timmo1341 posted:

Not too sure as to the relevance of the descriptor "of Libyan descent". 

If he was born and raised in Manchester he was British. Would we have differentiated had he been born to N. American, Swiss, Australian or Icelandic parents? No, I thought not.

If he was born and raised in Manchester he was British.

You quite rightly point out that, having been born in UK, one is in fact British.

However, in that case, if one's imported ideology leads one to commit such acts, that is of little relevance.

 

Not true. Being born in Britain doesn’t make him British.

If one of his parents was a British citizen or had permission of permanent residence he would be British. Otherwise, he is not British.

But, he is a Manc.

dave marshall posted:

If he was born and raised in Manchester he was British.

You quite rightly point out that, having been born in UK, one is in fact British.

However, in that case, if one's imported ideology leads one to commit such acts, that is of little relevance.

 

"Would we have differentiated had he been born to N. American, Swiss, Australian or Icelandic parents? No, I thought not."

Had that been the case, how likely do you imagine it is that he would have carried out such an atrocity?

 

"Unless it can be demonstrated that this young man was radicalised, trained and funded by a foreign regime, this is a British terrorist committing atrocities on British soil.

The young man in question was, most probably, not directly funded or trained as you describe, but there can be little doubt that those responsible for his having been radicalised, here in UK, do indeed receive support, whether financial, or idealistically, from abroad.

 

it's a British problem, not one for which we should be demonising Libya or a Middle Eastern country.

It's a British problem, insofar as we have to find a way to prevent future radicalisation of young Muslims, whether UK born or not.

 

Very true Dave. The key to this is not the nationality or race of the perpetrator, which are completely irrelevant, but his religious ideology.

Kevin-W posted:

dave marshall posted:

If he was born and raised in Manchester he was British.

You quite rightly point out that, having been born in UK, one is in fact British.

However, in that case, if one's imported ideology leads one to commit such acts, that is of little relevance.

 

"Would we have differentiated had he been born to N. American, Swiss, Australian or Icelandic parents? No, I thought not."

Had that been the case, how likely do you imagine it is that he would have carried out such an atrocity?

 

"Unless it can be demonstrated that this young man was radicalised, trained and funded by a foreign regime, this is a British terrorist committing atrocities on British soil.

The young man in question was, most probably, not directly funded or trained as you describe, but there can be little doubt that those responsible for his having been radicalised, here in UK, do indeed receive support, whether financial, or idealistically, from abroad.

 

it's a British problem, not one for which we should be demonising Libya or a Middle Eastern country.

It's a British problem, insofar as we have to find a way to prevent future radicalisation of young Muslims, whether UK born or not.

 

Very true Dave. The key to this is not the nationality or race of the perpetrator, which are completely irrelevant, but his religious ideology.

Thank you -  my post was prompted by the irrelevance of the Libyan reference.

Timmo1341 posted:

Kevin-W posted:

dave marshall posted:

If he was born and raised in Manchester he was British.

You quite rightly point out that, having been born in UK, one is in fact British.

However, in that case, if one's imported ideology leads one to commit such acts, that is of little relevance.

 

"Would we have differentiated had he been born to N. American, Swiss, Australian or Icelandic parents? No, I thought not."

Had that been the case, how likely do you imagine it is that he would have carried out such an atrocity?

 

"Unless it can be demonstrated that this young man was radicalised, trained and funded by a foreign regime, this is a British terrorist committing atrocities on British soil.

The young man in question was, most probably, not directly funded or trained as you describe, but there can be little doubt that those responsible for his having been radicalised, here in UK, do indeed receive support, whether financial, or idealistically, from abroad.

 

it's a British problem, not one for which we should be demonising Libya or a Middle Eastern country.

It's a British problem, insofar as we have to find a way to prevent future radicalisation of young Muslims, whether UK born or not.

 

Very true Dave. The key to this is not the nationality or race of the perpetrator, which are completely irrelevant, but his religious ideology.

Thank you -  my post was prompted by the irrelevance of the Libyan reference.

The Libyan reference was highlighted by the BBC

Timmo1341 posted:

Kevin-W posted:

dave marshall posted:

If he was born and raised in Manchester he was British.

You quite rightly point out that, having been born in UK, one is in fact British.

However, in that case, if one's imported ideology leads one to commit such acts, that is of little relevance.

 

"Would we have differentiated had he been born to N. American, Swiss, Australian or Icelandic parents? No, I thought not."

Had that been the case, how likely do you imagine it is that he would have carried out such an atrocity?

 

"Unless it can be demonstrated that this young man was radicalised, trained and funded by a foreign regime, this is a British terrorist committing atrocities on British soil.

The young man in question was, most probably, not directly funded or trained as you describe, but there can be little doubt that those responsible for his having been radicalised, here in UK, do indeed receive support, whether financial, or idealistically, from abroad.

 

it's a British problem, not one for which we should be demonising Libya or a Middle Eastern country.

It's a British problem, insofar as we have to find a way to prevent future radicalisation of young Muslims, whether UK born or not.

 

Very true Dave. The key to this is not the nationality or race of the perpetrator, which are completely irrelevant, but his religious ideology.

Thank you -  my post was prompted by the irrelevance of the Libyan reference.

But the Libyan reference was not linked to his nationality. Nobody said he was Libyan.

However, his family roots may be an indication of his religious ideology. And maybe not. But it should not be ignored and deemed irrelevant.

More importantly, I'm fairly certain that the radicalizers cast a wide net - what of the other folks that they tried to radicalize?

And the ones that succeeded to radicalize.

The guy who blew himself up probably just 'won the lottery' - what of the others?

Do any lessons learned from the time of the IRA apply?

To quote the BBC's latest headline 'The UK terror threat level has been raised to the highest level of "critical", meaning further attacks may be imminent, Theresa May has said.

The key cog-wheel in the distribution of terror goes to work again. Tw@ts!

MangoMonkey posted:

Do any lessons learned from the time of the IRA apply?

 

What might they be?

I don't know. Hence the question.

To get to the point I am more interested into who or what exactly enabled him to commit this atrocious act.  I dont think he was just trolling the internet and did it all by himself. And its not just a 'British' problem. Whether he was a Muslim, Catholic or  Buddhist or whatever someone pursuaded him to do it.   And yes to previous posts who exactly is supporting and funding ISIS?  Maybe I am naive, but I find it incredible that ISIS are still around and aloud to operate with impunity terror around the world.  Also the british Muslims have on occasions voiced their condemnation of the terrorists acts but I find that majority of Muslims in UK just sit quietly.  So I am confused is ISIS just a bad part of Islam or do Muslims around the world disown ISIS?.  There has never been a united without doubt voiced condemnation of ISIS from Muslims around the world?

SongStream posted:

To quote the BBC's latest headline 'The UK terror threat level has been raised to the highest level of "critical", meaning further attacks may be imminent, Theresa May has said.

The key cog-wheel in the distribution of terror goes to work again. Tw@ts!

One significance of the threat level being raised (as I understand it from reading) is that it allows areas which are normally secured by armed police (Parliament, Airports, etc) to be secured by military personel (still under the command of police).  This frees up the armed police to support more 'investigative' duties.

From May's statement there is no evidence (yet) of if the perpetrator was working alone or as part of a group; and there appears to be no direct threats which are being investigated. 

In summary I think we should be careful to not read too much into raising the threat level, and to give police time and space to investigate without second guessing their actions.

Following my earlier comment, I would call on us all to not use this outrageous attack to make policial points.

Eloise posted:

SongStream posted:

To quote the BBC's latest headline 'The UK terror threat level has been raised to the highest level of "critical", meaning further attacks may be imminent, Theresa May has said.

The key cog-wheel in the distribution of terror goes to work again. Tw@ts!

One significance of the threat level being raised (as I understand it from reading) is that it allows areas which are normally secured by armed police (Parliament, Airports, etc) to be secured by military personel (still under the command of police).  This frees up the armed police to support more 'investigative' duties.

From May's statement there is no evidence (yet) of if the perpetrator was working alone or as part of a group; and there appears to be no direct threats which are being investigated. 

In summary I think we should be careful to not read too much into raising the threat level, and to give police time and space to investigate without second guessing their actions.

Following my earlier comment, I would call on us all to not use this outrageous attack to make policial points.

No problem with what you say, and the right decision IMHO.  My issue is.......

In seeing this on the BBC News front page, who benefits most?

I have so much anger that I am tempted to express myself with bad words against those responsible for this horrendous act. I find it hard to focus my feelings and thoughts on those affected by this atrocity, but I will.

Now it's time to grieve, at least for myself, then I will participate in all the rest.

MangoMonkey posted:

I don't know. Hence the question.

MM, I don't think there are many similarities with the IRA campaign e.g. it predated radicalisation via the internet, didn't involve suicide bombers and usually warnings (whether or not adequate) would be given by the IRA. This is in no way meant to excuse the IRA campaign. Indeed the building in Manchester in which I worked had to be demolished following the bomb which was in a lorry parked next to it exploded in the mid 90s.

I should add that, fortunately for myself this bombing was on a Saturday so that the building was only minimally occupied. However it did cause alarm and distress as well as damage to the Manchester Arndale shopping area. 

Erich posted:

I have so much anger that I am tempted to express myself with bad words against those responsible for this horrendous act. I find it hard to focus my feelings and thoughts on those affected by this atrocity, but I will.

Now it's time to grieve, at least for myself, then I will participate in all the rest.

I have friends and colleagues that reside in Manchester.  What happened is horrific, and when I read about it, I feel it, not from my heart, because that keeps beating regardless, but in my stomach; it literally sinks, and even hurts.

Unfortunately the proximity of the Manchester Arena to Victoria Railway and Metrolink station exposes it to an increased security risk in so far as rail and metrolink passengers are likely to have bags/cases etc. with them making it impractical to ban or even search all such items other than on a random basis.

JamieWednesday posted:

One can say 'no' to radicalisation.

And one can say "no" to shooting up an elementary school as well. Unfortunately with mental illness it isn't as easy as that, esp if the person feels oppressed by others (whether they truly are or not) then they will go where their mind takes them, and sometimes evil will take advantage of that.

Or some people just want to kill others. It's the world we live in, unfortunately, and throwing out the baby with the bathwater (i.e. creating a fascist state in the name of security from outside terrorism) would, I think, in the long run be quite bit worse. Working on that experiment over here in the USA right now. 

What a shitty week: first Chris Cornell (an old friend and subject of mine) and now this. The world sure sucks sometimes....

If the deranged individual believed he would enter heaven surrounded by virgins, I wonder what he'd be doing now with his b0ll*cks blown off in the bombing? I hope he died an excruciatingly painful death.

Fwiw, I can't read anymore news about this without crying.

People should still acknowledge the ultimate possibility that we are all Potential victims wherever we are in the world right now. This is not a situation that just happens to others. That I might one day lose my life to this race of sorts is not the worse thing that could happen. Rather that than be radicalised and to live under such a skewed concept of historical reality.

Absolutely no disrespect for The solidarity people show against Terrorism, but it doesn't change the odds for those who might be the next victims.

Our boys seem to be doing the best job against them.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.u...amic-state-fighters/ 

TOBYJUG posted:

People should still acknowledge the ultimate possibility that we are all Potential victims wherever we are in the world right now. This is not a situation that just happens to others. That I might one day lose my life to this race of sorts is not the worse thing that could happen. Rather that than be radicalised and to live under such a skewed concept of historical reality.

Absolutely no disrespect for The solidarity people show against Terrorism, but it doesn't change the odds for those who might be the next victims.

Of course when talking about odds, since the bomb 48 hours ago... (based on averages) 64 people have died from accidents; 14 have been killed by hanging / suffocation or other threats to breathing; 20 people have taken their own lives; 1 has been killed in a fire; 8 have been accidentally poisoned; 3 have been murdered.  Those are just examples and pale compared with the 160 who died in the last two days from lung cancer.

I'm not trying to deminished the horrific tragedy, nor excuse in any way the terrorism but the "odds" as you put it are very small.  Personally I will continue to live my life, wary of what is going on around me but no more scared of the next middle eastern looking man carrying a rucksack than I am of crossing the road.

Our boys seem to be doing the best job against them.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.u...amic-state-fighters/

You really think bombing makes any difference except making the west feel a little better?

Again in no way excusing the coward who performed this horrific act ... but if it turns out he was once fighting against Gadaffi, could it not be argued that bombing and military action in the Middle East carried out by the West is not just a causal factor, but directly caused his redicalisation?

To put the threat from terrorism into perspective, here are the statistics (in this case for the USA, but the UK isn't that far off)

http://www.thepeakeffect.com/2...nity-of-measure.html

So even asteroid impact is viewed as being a greater risk!  The terrorists are so ineffective they can't even compete with that, and are nowhere near approaching the risk of using the roads, something most of us do daily.  How many people avoid traveling by car or bicycle or even walking beside a road; if your worried by terrorism you should stop using roads in any way at all (and stop drinking any alcohol or eating dried nuts or seeds, and a thousand and one other things).

Eloise posted:

 could it not be argued that bombing and military action in the Middle East carried out by the West is not just a causal factor, but directly caused his radicalisation?

Could be argued to be on none other than Napoleons shoulders for the first western military action that took over the Middle East.  Still, didn't do Marie Antoinette any harm.  

TOBYJUG posted:

Eloise posted:

 could it not be argued that bombing and military action in the Middle East carried out by the West is not just a causal factor, but directly caused his radicalisation?

Could be argued to be on none other than Napoleons shoulders for the first western military action that took over the Middle East.  Still, didn't do Marie Antoinette any harm.  

---

 

Err, you need to go a bit further back than that... try 1096-1099, with the first crusade (and ending that particular episode with the capture of Jerusalem).

There were then quite a few more before Napoleon jumped on the bandwagon.  The only thing Napoleon changed was that the religious excuse was dropped!