Manchester Arena

Eloise posted:

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?

Yeah, it's always Britain, or Europe's, or the West's fault. Or maybe it's down to Brexit, which is of course the root of all evil and the worst thing to have happened, ever. Maybe The Donald had a hand in it too.

There is no such thing as personal responsibility, everyone is immune to peer influence, there are no extremist websites out there, nobody looking for thickos, losers, psychos or the vulnerable to exploit and draw into their web to do their bidding. There are no malignant strains of an unreformed religion that detest women (and detest young women enjoying themselves and being 'immodest' particularly), gays, unbelievers and apostates. There are no people anywhere in the world who loathe the west for its decadance and immorality. There is no such thing as a nihilistic death cult founded by rapists, paedophiles and slave-owners. There are no fascists except for UKIP.

Anyway, that's a roundabout way of saying that your post makes no bloody sense whatsoever. I think really you were just looking for an excuse to point the finger at the West again.

Summary: this is the kindergarten 'but he started it' excuse. 

Huge posted:

---

 

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).

Or even further back than that, to 636/7, and the Rushidun Caliphate's seizure of Jerusalem.

This gets nobody anywhere...

I see your seizure of Jerusalem and raise you by the Roman assault on Carthage in 264 BC.

Leading of course to the ultimate question "What have the Romans..?"

I was bluffing - I have a Royal Flush - the Sack of Jerusalem in the 10th Century BC by the Pharoah Shishak. Bloody Egyptians! It's in the Old Testament, so it must be true.

Kevin-W posted:

Eloise posted:

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?

Yeah, it's always Britain, or Europe's, or the West's fault. Or maybe it's down to Brexit, which is of course the root of all evil and the worst thing to have happened, ever. Maybe The Donald had a hand in it too.

[...]

Anyway, that's a roundabout way of saying that your post makes no bloody sense whatsoever. I think really you were just looking for an excuse to point the finger at the West again.

Kevin obvious we see things differently, but my comment was in direct response to a post linking to ran article glorifying the UK's part in operations in Iraq and Syria.

In that context I feel it made complete sense; but you're welcome to your point of view on it.

Kevin-W posted:

I was bluffing - I have a Royal Flush - the Sack of Jerusalem in the 10th Century BC by the Pharoah Shishak. Bloody Egyptians! It's in the Old Testament, so it must be true.

You may well have been bluffing with your creation of the Rightly Guided after the death of The Prophet my old china, however I think what you fail to realise is that this fable was merely a theological construct created by the Hebrew elite, specifically those who could afford to pay top dollah for the best men (or women) money could buy, the sole purpose of which was keeping the proletariat exactly where they belonged, to wit, downtrodden.

Now, I grant you, Shishak may well have had a bit of a toy with the Ark of the Covenant, thus paving the way for Lord God all bleeding mighty Steven Spielberg to create one of the great adventure movies of our time and thus cannot be all bad, but to present his alleged 'sacking' of (one might almost prefer to say 'overnight stay' in) Jerusalem as a winning hand only goes to play to the intent and desires of the power brokers within the quasi fascist state that was the Kingdom of Judah (or was it the Popular Kingdom of Judah? I forget...) and thereby I feel you have presented a busted, as opposed to a royal, flush.

But I think you know that already.

Kevin, Jamie - thank you. Your exchanges have cheered me up 

do you guys believe the NYT should have refused to publish the sensitive information that was leaked about identity of bomber and the details of the anatomy of the bomb? sorry if this has already been covered ... havent read it all from beginning...

enjoy

ken

i haven't read the NYT article but cannot see what possible public interest argument there could be for publishing the details of the anatomy of the explosive device if indeed this is what they have done.

ken c posted:

do you guys believe the NYT should have refused to publish the sensitive information that was leaked about identity of bomber and the details of the anatomy of the bomb? sorry if this has already been covered ... havent read it all from beginning...

No and Yes.  The details shouldn't have been published, but it's not for the NYT to keep the secrets.  Someone is leaking like a sieve!

The main issue (as I read it) was about the release of the bombers identity.  The element of surprise and seeing the immediate reaction when family and close friends were presented with the identity of the bomber was lost (that's the claim of the UK police afaik). 

As for the actual bomb anatomy ... that just lurid curiosity afaics

Eloise posted:

Kevin obvious we see things differently, but my comment was in direct response to a post linking to ran article glorifying the UK's part in operations in Iraq and Syria.

In that context I feel it made complete sense; but you're welcome to your point of view on it.

I completely agree that Western meddling  in the ME has caused no end of pain and trouble for everyone concerned.

But the fact is that Salafism/Wahhabism, the vicious, puritanical and literalist creed followed by the likes of Bin Laden, al-Bhagdadi, Khomeni and, one suspects, the Manchester bomber and his helpers, emerged long before the West's misguided interventions.

In its current form it owes most to Sayyid Qutub, the most influential of 20th century Islamists,  who visited the States in the 1940s and was repelled by (what he perceived as) its decadence, immorality and materialism. This had the rather unfortunate effect of turning him into a clerical fascist. Even more unfortunate, his books, many of which are as repellent in their own way as Mein Kampf, have been widely read in the Islamic world and have proved massively influential - particularly with those of a totalitarian and/or violent intent.

Kevin, Jamie - thank you. Your exchanges have cheered me up 

+1. The knowledge and the wit on this forum is a delight (especially as I am work!)

It's often hard to find anything out there to be cheerful about at the moment.  So I thought it might be worth mentioning the One Love Manchester concert held on Sunday.  We should surely be celebrating the courage of Ariana Grande for returning so soon to Manchester and of the fans who packed Old Trafford to hear her, many of them still hurting deeply.  I sometimes think that the young in our society have much to teach us oldies who have made such a mess of so many things.  Ultimately they are our future and on the basis of Sunday night, I can find a little spark of optimism.

Roger