Explosion at Ariana Grande Concert in England

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

From the article:



The refusal to recognize the religious motivations of Islamic radicalism is a failure of imagination on the part of secular Westerners. It's so difficult to put ourselves in the shoes of someone who believes in holy war, divinely-inspired scripture, and paradise, that we look for alternative explanations.

While that may be true, that same failure occurs when people blame only the religion, and the religion as a whole. It's very simple to put it in a neat little package and say "Here we go, I've located the problem, proceed to hate the problem" but it doesn't hold water, logically, when the vast majority of followers don't engage in violence. Of course it's easy to say that the religion is where the ideas that inspire the violence comes from, but that's not at all exclusive to Islam and can even be found today in Christianity. Do we take the same lazy approach when Christianity inspires violence and hate? Is all of Christianity the problem? I've never heard that, except from hardened atheists of course, in which case their hate of religion is fairly equal across the board.

[FlamesAddiction]

The youngest victim was a beautiful 8 year old year girl. Saffie Rose Roussos.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...rande-concert/

[CroFlames]

The killer was British born of Libyan origin. I won't post his name, no need.

Link if interested:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...e-bomber-know/

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Of course it's easy to say that the religion is where the ideas that inspire the violence comes from, but that's not at all exclusive to Islam and can even be found today in Christianity. Do we take the same lazy approach when Christianity inspires violence and hate? Is all of Christianity the problem? I've never heard that, except from hardened atheists of course, in which case their hate of religion is fairly equal across the board.

I imagine if there were sects of Christianity inspiring as much violence and mass terrorism as radical Islam is today, we'd be taking a pretty hard look at them. If a few hundred million Christians from 17th century Europe were teleported into the present world, I expect we'd have a pretty big problem on our hands with fanatical zeal, ultra-conservatism, and religious violence. Fortunately, Christianity was moderated by the Reformation and Enlightenment, and the West became largely secularized. How many young American, Brazilian, or Polish Christians are rushing off to the Philippines to wage holy war against the Muslim population, or blow themselves up in an Istanbul restaurant?

People who blame all Muslims are idiots. But so are people who refuse to believe Islam today has an egregious problem with radicalization and violence.

[northcrunk]

#### Daesh. #### them in their asses with hot pokers. A bunch of sociopaths. We need to eradicate them from the planet.

[CaptainCrunch]

BBC Breaking News‏Verified account @BBCBreaking 16m16 minutes ago




Manchester Arena bomb suspect named as 22-year-old Salman Abedi by police, but not formally identified by coroner http://bbc.in/2rwwGao




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...e-bomber-know/

[PepsiFree]

Here's another good Atlantic article about the double edged sword of media coverage following terrorist attacks like this one:

Unfortunately, the very act of publicizing an act of terrorism cannot help but advance the ends of terrorists, who try to generate as much media attention as possible to stoke fear.

That tension ought to inform coverage of terrorist attacks more than it does.

...

Even if further research bears out those findings, I do not believe it desirable, or tenable, for terrorist attacks to go unreported. But a United Nations report was persuasive when declaring, “the relationship between terrorism and media is complex and fraught. At its worst, it is a perverse symbiotic relationship – terrorist groups devising spectacles of violence to continue drawing the world’s attention, and the media incentivised to provide wall-to-wall coverage due to huge audience interest.”

Terrorism is aimed at the people watching

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

What I see is a destabilized part of the world (thanks to years of interference from the west - mainly the USA and Britain) who keep that part of the world destabilized in order to have more control. There is a long history stemming from the 1st world war of the west making deals with Arabs for support, and then turning away from those deals once they get what they want. You have generations that have grown in a system of instability and violence. A system where dictators and radical clerics control the nation. Where people are bereft of many freedoms. On top of this, what is there to hope for in the future? How many people have lost relatives?

You can't ascribe these motivations to someone who was born and raised in the UK like this guy was. You just can't.

What's the common thread here? What did he have in common with a Somali man born in Toronto, raised in Calgary, who joined ISIS in Syria? With an Egyptian who was highly educated in architecture and flew a plane into the World Trade Center? With a Tunisian who drove a truck into a Christmas market in Berlin? Religion has EVERYTHING to do with this.

[afc wimbledon]

through most of my life Islam has been no more or less violent than any other religion, what has happened is that a small group of wack jobs, no different than the IRA or Michigan Militia have galvanised a whole bunch of idiots on the internet.
The internet and our 24 hour news cycle have made acts like this seem attractive to a small group of screw ups, the publicity for mass shootings in the states attracts other pathetic wack jobs to go out and plan a mass shooting, it is just as much an act of suicide, they don't plan on surviving after they have shot their old teacher and a classroom full of kids they've never met for some imagined slight that in their deluded mind caused them a lifetime of not finding a job or a girlfriend and never feeling like they fitted in.

Religion is obviously a somewhat more potent draw to a similar kind of idiot because it offers not only the sense of power and notoriety that killing people offers but wraps it up in a sense of righteousness that the Dylan Clebold's don't get from their wack jobbery, in the end though their is little difference between the two and these crimes will come in bursts, if and when ISIS falls and Syria and Iraq are once again ruled by incredibly unpleasant brutal regimes then this will peter out.

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by peter12

This post is totally pointless. You can't obfuscate the issue by pointing to historical and global examples. That isn't the issue here.

It is pointless, which is what I said at the end of that post. It's as pointless as people implying other religious groups don't commit acts of violence or terrorism.

What is the issue here? That Islamic terrorism is the only problem? That radicalization of any ideology is a problem? Or something else? How do we begin to solve these issues?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

through most of my life Islam has been no more or less violent than any other religion, what has happened is that a small group of wack jobs, no different than the IRA or Michigan Militia have galvanised a whole bunch of idiots on the internet.
The internet and our 24 hour news cycle have made acts like this seem attractive to a small group of screw ups, the publicity for mass shootings in the states attracts other pathetic wack jobs to go out and plan a mass shooting, it is just as much an act of suicide, they don't plan on surviving after they have shot their old teacher and a classroom full of kids they've never met for some imagined slight that in their deluded mind caused them a lifetime of not finding a job or a girlfriend and never feeling like they fitted in.

Religion is obviously a somewhat more potent draw to a similar kind of idiot because it offers not only the sense of power and notoriety that killing people offers but wraps it up in a sense of righteousness that the Dylan Clebold's don't get from their wack jobbery, in the end though their is little difference between the two and these crimes will come in bursts, if and when ISIS falls and Syria and Iraq are once again ruled by incredibly unpleasant brutal regimes then this will peter out.

If the IRA had billions of dollars to promote their ludicrous agenda overseas to Boston and Sydney and Cape Town, the west would be dealing with international Irish terrorism in the same way they deal with Islamic terrorism.

The question is, would western governments be doing billions of dollars in business with the republic of Ireland if it was the largest , most prominent state sponsor of terrorism? I would hope not, but based on what we know of Saudi Arabia, the answer would probably be yes.

[GirlySports]

it's sad that a family that fled Libya to get away from the Ghadaffi regime, are devout Muslims, anti-radicals...have a son who was a radical.

It's difficult to pinpoint the reason for disconnect for troubled Muslim youths in the Western world.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

through most of my life Islam has been no more or less violent than any other religion, what has happened is that a small group of wack jobs, no different than the IRA or Michigan Militia have galvanised a whole bunch of idiots on the internet.
The internet and our 24 hour news cycle have made acts like this seem attractive to a small group of screw ups, the publicity for mass shootings in the states attracts other pathetic wack jobs to go out and plan a mass shooting, it is just as much an act of suicide, they don't plan on surviving after they have shot their old teacher and a classroom full of kids they've never met for some imagined slight that in their deluded mind caused them a lifetime of not finding a job or a girlfriend and never feeling like they fitted in.

Religion is obviously a somewhat more potent draw to a similar kind of idiot because it offers not only the sense of power and notoriety that killing people offers but wraps it up in a sense of righteousness that the Dylan Clebold's don't get from their wack jobbery, in the end though their is little difference between the two and these crimes will come in bursts, if and when ISIS falls and Syria and Iraq are once again ruled by incredibly unpleasant brutal regimes then this will peter out.

When the IRA was committing terrorist acts, they clearly stated their reasons and goals, and people accepted that at face value.

When Islamic terrorists commit these acts, they state they do it in the name of religion/caliphate/allah or whatever. In the West, people don't accept this for some reason and state that they do it because of other reasons.

That's the weird part to me.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If the IRA had billions of dollars to promote their ludicrous agenda overseas to Boston and Sydney and Cape Town, the west would be dealing with international Irish terrorism in the same way they deal with Islamic terrorism.

The question is, would western governments be doing billions of dollars in business with the republic of Ireland if it was the largest , most prominent state sponsor of terrorism? I would hope not, but based on what we know of Saudi Arabia, the answer would probably be yes.

Does Ireland have oil?

I honestly think things might be changing though. The US is very close to becoming energy dependent and the current Saudi's regime is not sustainable with current oil prices.

It'll be interesting to see how China plays into this though. As the US is gaining energy independence, China's needs are growing. China's approach definitely seems to be different. They don't have the same political and post-cold war agendas that the US has.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

When the IRA was committing terrorist acts, they clearly stated their reasons and goals, and people accepted that at face value.

When Islamic terrorists commit these acts, they state they do it in the name of religion/caliphate/allah or whatever. In the West, people don't accept this for some reason and state that they do it because of other reasons.

That's the weird part to me.

because people treated the IRA like any other civil war going on at the time. They were attacking within the UK. They were not immigrating here. They were not bombing other cities or other races (this make a difference).

If the IRA bombed cities in China for example, Some Chinese people would start hating white people and other Chinese people would be sympathetic to nice white people. There are always two sides.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

it's sad that a family that fled Libya to get away from the Ghadaffi regime, are devout Muslims, anti-radicals...have a son who was a radical.

It's difficult to pinpoint the reason for disconnect for troubled Muslim youths in the Western world.

Youth are troubled everywhere. Generally, young people are angry and upset. Give them access to weapon training and rhetoric and things will generally end poorly.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If the IRA had billions of dollars to promote their ludicrous agenda overseas to Boston and Sydney and Cape Town, the west would be dealing with international Irish terrorism in the same way they deal with Islamic terrorism.

The question is, would western governments be doing billions of dollars in business with the republic of Ireland if it was the largest , most prominent state sponsor of terrorism? I would hope not, but based on what we know of Saudi Arabia, the answer would probably be yes.

The IRA never accepted outsiders, they were like the Mafia, as such while their philosophy was massively attractive to rebellious lefties in the late 60's and seventies there was never any way to join or ally with them unless you were born and bred catholic Irish, within that small group they vacuumed up every single possible recruit.

If you grew up in left wing circles in the 70's though you had pictures of Che and Bobby Sands, the Black Panthers on your walls, most grew out of it, a few joined the weathermen or the Squamish five or the Bader Mienhoff gang, the Red Army Faction, there has always been an attraction to a small number of people for these kinds of activities, the internet and 24 hour news cycle has increased the perception of its importance to the deluded numpties (and the rest of us frankly) than it used to have.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by blankall

Does Ireland have oil?

I honestly think things might be changing though. The US is very close to becoming energy dependent and the current Saudi's regime is not sustainable with current oil prices.

It'll be interesting to see how China plays into this though. As the US is gaining energy independence, China's needs are growing. China's approach definitely seems to be different. They don't have the same political and post-cold war agendas that the US has.

And what do you think happens when the Saudi Regime crumbles? It's going to be better? It's going to be an overboiling pot. A population of barely employable people (as a result of living off a stipend their whole lives) who mostly follow the most extreme version of their religion.

Support for the Saudi regime is not only about oil. We may never have started without it, but it's not the only thing that keeps us there.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

it's sad that a family that fled Libya to get away from the Ghadaffi regime, are devout Muslims, anti-radicals...have a son who was a radical.

It's difficult to pinpoint the reason for disconnect for troubled Muslim youths in the Western world.

The same family lost their twin daughters to ISIL as well. Trained to be Doctors they instead fled to Syria. The family moved back to Lebanon after that, the sons stayed behind in the UK.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by nik-

And what do you think happens when the Saudi Regime crumbles? It's going to be better? It's going to be an overboiling pot. A population of barely employable people (as a result of living off a stipend their whole lives) who mostly follow the most extreme version of their religion.

Support for the Saudi regime is not only about oil. We may never have started without it, but it's not the only thing that keeps us there.

No I agree. I think it's very complicated, and I don't know what the right answer is, or if there even is one.


It's further complicated by the fact that Saudi Arabia is the main counterbalance to Iran in the region. Without one, the other goes nuts.