Manchester atrocity

[OwlsFan]

I see President Higgins and others used the word "cowardly" when describing the Manchester murderer. Bush also used that word when describing "the folks" who flew in to the Twin Towers. Anyone who straps a load on TNT around their waist ready to blow themselves up, even if their victims cannot defend themselves or are children, or flies in to a building, are not cowards. Vicious, barbaric etc but not "cowardly". The IRA bombs in the UK were cowardly because the bombers didn't put themselves in harms way. I bring this up because the reactions are nearly always the same to these atrocities, to even using the same words of condemnation: Prime Minister visits the site, Britons will not be cowed, flower laying, the city (whichever) is strong and will come together, atrocity won't divide, grainy videos of the attack and the perpetrator is soon named. No matter where and when it happens and how terrible the deed, it's always the same.

Who are the words of condemnation aimed at? The terrorists ? The stronger they are the better as far as they are concerned because they see Arab women and children being blown to pieces in their countries often by western bombs so western women and children being blown apart doesn't bother them at all

What irritates me is that the perpetrators get the publicity they desire. Their names and pictures are spread all over the media - if you go to the 9/11 museum they're also there with the pictures of their victims. The guy who murdered the kids in Manchester must have brought some identity with him as how was he identified so quickly. He was "known to the police" though but still very fast. No doubt what's left of him will eventually be returned to his people for burial. Most are religious fanatics. Would it be too much to announce that any future Muslim terrorists will be buried with the remains of a pig? Might give them something to think about.

What point am I making ? I don't know really but something different needs to be done as these will just continue. Most of these fanatics are "known to the police". They don't live in a police state in the UK and they do thwart some attempts but obviously not enough. In the meantime, we wait for the next atrocity and the words of condemnation and the city will be "business as usual" and the body count continues. Just a vicious circle with people being murdered. The UK isn't going to convert to Islam; it's not going to pull back from its foreign commitments because of the killings and the fools who blow themselves up are going to get a shock when they find there is no harem of virgins waiting for them as their guts splatter against the 4 walls. So depressing.

[NeverFeltBetter]

It's certainly been playing on my mind recently, what new and additional approaches can be advocated to tackle terrorism by those who espouse a generally liberal and progressive political philosophy (so no to greater military efforts, surveillance state crackdowns, draconian immigration laws, etc).

One thing I heavily advocate is a greater legislative and diplomatic effort to clampdown on Saudi funding for Wahabbism-based Islamic schools throughout Europe, including Ireland. The amount of money the House of Saud sends to them is mind-boggling, and they frequently educate children in a very fundamentalist and inherently hateful manner, that is out of kilter with most other interpretations of Islam.

We (the west that is) should also be more willing to come to the table with terrorist groups. I think it was a RAND investigation I read during my Masters, that somewhere in the region of just 7% of former terrorist movements were defeated by military power, with the majority ceasing to exist as effective groups when they agreed to join a political process or when they were hunted to extinction by civilian constabulary forces. God knows the Irish should recognize that reality, and so should the UK.

In regards your "suggestion" for how the perpetrators of suicide bombings should have their remains treated, I remember that it was either official or semi-official policy from the Israeli government for the family homes of suicide bombers to be demolished after they were identified. The practice was formally stopped in '05, and I don't believe it was ever especially effective as a deterrent. Indeed, it was probably counter-productive. Punitive treatment beyond the established societal and cultural norms for those carrying out such acts leading to greater public support for their cause is also something the Irish should be well-versed in.

[bennocelt]

Horrific atrocity

Wonder will T May use political capital out of this considering she voted for the bombing of Libya, while Jeremy didn't.

[backstothewall]

It was obviously a ghastly attack. May got it very badly wrong when she described it as indiscriminate murder. It is obvious that the targeting of children was completely deliberate which sets it apart from anything that has happened in Europe in centuries. The manner in which it has been used by politicians and the press to attempt to influence the upcoming election has also been sickening.

This 3 way conflict between the Western, Shia and Sunni powerblocks for control of the middle east has been going on since at least as far back as 1978 and shows no sign of ending.

Any previous time the world has got into this sort of state it has required the competing parties to sit down together and do a deal. To me it seems time for a new Congress of Vienna style summit to draw up a new blueprint for the power structures of the 21st century. The alternative is perpetual deterioration of the situation to the point where some event triggers a terrible conflict. If we learned anything from the 20th century it is that if you go through the conflict you only end up having to go to Versailles or Yalta to thrash out a new world so the sensible approach would seem to be to follow the 19th century approach and cut to the chase without destroying millions of lives and trillions of dollars.

[osarusan]

I would imagine the 'cowardly' refers to the attack on unsuspecting victims rather than the more 'honourable' idea that you fight it out like a man.

[DannyInvincible]

A terrible incident and it felt scarily close-to-home as I lived in Manchester for six years until a few months ago. My sister and brother have also lived there for extended spells in recent years. In fact, I lived in Oldham Street, which isn't really that far from the Manchester Arena, for my final year there and had actually attended the venue itself to see a boxing match between Dungiven's Paul McCloskey and Amir Khan a few years ago.

Fallowfield, where one of the raids took place, was a regular haunt when I was at uni and I have very close friends living in Chorlton, where another raid occurred. The sister of another one of my friends previously lived in the Granby House flats off Sackville Street, where there was another controlled explosion and raid today.

Nobody I know was directly caught up in Monday night's chaos at the Arena, although some friends working in the city centre were either let home early yesterday or had their building (near the Arndale) evacuated due to another scare that resulted in the arrest of a man on Market Street. People have been on high alert since.

I know a few junior doctors as well who were working in the hospitals and their reports of some of the injuries coming in to them on Monday night and Tuesday morning were harrowing; they spoke of bolts being embedded in sinuses, facial fractures and shrapnel in a cerebellum. Another friend said that a work colleague of his sister, who works in Blackburn, had lost his wife in the attack, whilst another friend of a friend personally knew Martyn Hett.

I was following the BBC and Sky News channels for much of the day yesterday and it's a shame that they devoted not a second of coverage to this positive story: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7191306.html

Thousands of Muslims from across the world converged on the UK for a convention where they rejected extremism and violence of terror groups such as Isis.

More than 30,000 members of the Ahmadiyya Islamic movement met at Oakland Farm in Hampshire for a three-day convention, the 50th time the annual event has taken place.

In spite of that and the fact the bomber, Salman Abedi, had stopped attending the Didsbury mosque - which is incredibly moderate and actively campaigns against ISIS - apparently because he didn't like how much they pushed the anti-ISIS message, we still get idiots like Piers Morgan tweeting stuff like the following which only stirs further animosity and indulges racists/Islamophobes who seek to blame Islam or Muslims as a whole:



Abedi was already known to security services, possibly even because of a tip-off from the mosque or someone in the community.

The IRA bombs in the UK were cowardly because the bombers didn't put themselves in harms way.

Quite a few IRA volunteers were killed by their own bombs exploding prematurely. Thomas Begley, who died whilst planting the Shankill bomb, was a notable example. They evidently did put themselves in harms way considering so many lost their lives whilst planting explosives.

As a general rule, save for exceptions (which were numerous) like the horrendous Kingsmill massacre, the IRA didn't intentionally target civilians either. That was official protocol and members who acted "rogue" or who targeted civilians potentially left themselves subject or open to being court-martialled, the penalty of which, if found guilty, was execution (or enforced exile in cases where an execution - of an informant, for example - might have sapped internal morale or embarrassed the organisation in publicly exposing the extent to which the IRA had been infiltrated by UK intelligence).

After the allegedly-unsanctioned Birmingham bombings in 1974, the IRA Army Council's Dáithí Ó Conaill stated:

If IRA members had carried-out such attacks, they would be court-martialled and could face the death penalty. The IRA has clear guidelines for waging its war. Any attack on non-military installations must be preceded by a 30-minute warning so that no innocent civilians are endangered

As mentioned there, the IRA also gave warnings as a general rule - many, such as those given for the Birmingham bombings, were indefensibly inadequate, sloppy, vague or late, as those obligated with providing the warnings (generally the bombers themselves, seeing as only they knew when a device had actually been set and made viable) had to rely on getting to a working phone box in time in the days before mobile technology - in order to avoid civilian casualties, as civilian "collateral" was regarded as both strategically counter-productive (it was unpopular even within hardline republican communities, whilst it hardened public attitudes in Britain and turned an increasingly-embittered British working-class, who were historically allied to the Irish republican cause, against the IRA rather than against their own government for its continued involvement in the north of Ireland) and morally indefensible or "regrettable". It's at least an operational or practical difference, whether one views it as morally distinguishing or not.

The guy who murdered the kids in Manchester must have brought some identity with him as how was he identified so quickly. He was "known to the police" though but still very fast.

He had ID on his person. If he's part of a cell or wider network, I would suggest that having ID on his person was a very careless oversight as it enabled police to identify him almost immediately, work out with whom he associated and then make raids on the basis of that information within hours.

It was actually the US intelligence services who leaked his identity to the US media, contrary to the wishes of UK intelligence. Naturally, the UK security services weren't happy:

Rudd, the home secretary, took the rare step of issuing a public reprimand to the American authorities for releasing information about the Manchester investigation to the media. Asked about the leaks of information coming out of the US (see 7.40am), she said:

The British police have been very clear that they want to control the flow of information in order to protect operational integrity, the element of surprise. So it is irritating if it gets released from other sources and I have been very clear with our friends that should not happen again.

It is very unusual for a government minister to criticise the Americans explicitly in this way.

No doubt what's left of him will eventually be returned to his people for burial. Most are religious fanatics. Would it be too much to announce that any future Muslim terrorists will be buried with the remains of a pig? Might give them something to think about.

I'd be very uneasy with the idea of the state dictating to a family how or with what they ought to bury their son, in spite of what he did. Dictating that he be buried with the remains of a pig would be particularly insensitive to his family (who are no doubt in a state of shock and likely to be grieving too), whilst it would be utterly incendiary to the wider Muslim community, even to moderates, I would think. It would be a bonkers idea that would only serve to provoke more resentment, grievance and trouble than it would prevent, subdue or deter.

[DannyInvincible]

What point am I making ? I don't know really but something different needs to be done as these will just continue.

I posted this letter (that was written in February by two Manchester social workers and an academic in response to a previous Guardian article characterising Manchester's Moss Side as a breeding ground for "jihadis") in the 'Trump' thread a while back, but I feel it's particularly pertinent in light of recent events: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...side-residents

...

As for the Asian/Muslim population, the sentiments of one of the interviewees who said “It is telling that one of those quoted in the article says that what is pulling these youngsters toward terrorism is something he does not understand”, is telling. The government’s misunderstanding has been to claim that radicalisation is the main cause of terrorist violence. Often known as the “conveyor belt theory”, it states that extreme interpretations of belief systems offer the best explanations for why people commit acts of violence. This has been largely discredited by most mainstream academics as it ignores the role of structural violence: racism, poverty, vulnerability, foreign interventions etc – often the products of state policy.

Your article ignores the underinvestment of social and public services in the community. Moss Side is often presented as responsible for many of society’s ills, and your article pathologises its residents. It oversimplifies what causes terrorism and “gang violence”, castigating an area with a rich spirit and fantastic people who have to continually answer the charge of its imagined criminality.

I fully agree with NeverFeltBetter and backstothewall in that dialogue and trying to reach some sort of mutual understanding, agreement or compromise is the way forward, as undesirable as that may sound. It's only being realistic and pragmatic; "military solutions" to conflicts are very rare and they clearly haven't been working over the past ten to twenty years considering tensions have only gotten worse.

[backstothewall]

Something that has been playing on my mind again recently is this.

Would it be so bad if there was a new caliphate? It seems to me that we (the west) are doing no more than playing whack-a-mole with Islamism. It was driven from Afghanistan and showed up in Iraq. It was driven from Iraq and moved on to Syria. If it is beaten is Syria it is going to show up in Libya, or Lebanon, or Turkey or some other god forsaken place which has become fertile ground for political extremism.

Maybe it is better to give them enough rope to hang themselves. They would probably soon be fighting each other rather than us and at least we would have someone to talk to

[DannyInvincible]

Indeed, it turns out Abedi was reported to the authorities by the Muslim community on a number of separate occasions over the last few years and little or nothing was done about it. The following article is a pretty damning indictment of the UK's security services: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...op-manchester/

The article mentions one community leader who said that Abedi had been reported two years ago "because [the community leader] thought [Abedi] was involved in extremism and terrorism". Mohammed Shafiq, the chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, is quoted as saying:

People in the community expressed concerns about the way this man was behaving and reported it in the right way using the right channels. They did not hear anything since.

Furthermore, two friends of Abedi's telephoned the police counter-terrorism hotline separately from one another - five years ago and again last year - after they became concerned that "[Abedi] was supporting terrorism" and due to Abedi having expressed the opinion that "being a suicide bomber was OK".

According to a member of south Manchester's close-knit Libyan community, Akram Ramadan, Abedi had been banned from the mosque in Didsbury due to having confronted the imam there as the imam delivered a sermon denouncing extremism. Ramadan claims Abedi should have been placed on a watch-list because the mosque had reported him as a result of the views he expressed. The mosque had contacted the British Home Office's 'Prevent' programme to warn them.

A US official also alleges that members of Abedi's own family had gotten in touch with British police to report that Abedi was "dangerous", whilst it transpires that British authorities were even aware that Abedi's father had connections to a well-known militant group in Libya that happens to be proscribed in Britain.

[CraftyToePoke]

I fully agree with NeverFeltBetter and backstothewall in that dialogue and trying to reach some sort of mutual understanding, agreement or compromise is the way forward, as undesirable as that may sound. It's only being realistic and pragmatic; "military solutions" to conflicts are very rare and they clearly haven't been working over the past ten to twenty years considering tensions have only gotten worse.

What do you offer ISIS though ? What will chill them the f*uck out a bit ?

[Charlie Darwin]

Most are religious fanatics. Would it be too much to announce that any future Muslim terrorists will be buried with the remains of a pig? Might give them something to think about.

I really doubt people who vaporise their bodies are concerned with how their bodies will be buried. Unless you plan on doing DNA tests on blood spatter so you can smear it on a sausage.

[DannyInvincible]

What do you offer ISIS though ? What will chill them the f*uck out a bit ?

In statements, ISIS consistently state that attacks are "in response to [the infidels'] transgressions against the lands of the Muslims": http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7752056.html

If such attacks are indeed "blowback", then there's room for movement there on the part of Western governments. Refraining from meddling in the affairs of the Middle East might be a start.

If that's too much to contemplate, another option would be to go after the roots of their funding - which comes from other states, as far as I understand - and exert influence over those states in order to force ISIS to the negotiating table. The ideology of ISIS may appear utterly warped and depraved to us, but they are also humans, like us, with basic needs, desires, grievances and demands. That's not to say that working something out would be easy, but they're not aliens living in bubbles that are immune from the influence or effects of the material conditions within which they operate. They are products of their environment and there are causal reasons for why they think the way they do. I do think that provides room for working towards some sort of "common ground"/conflict resolution, or at least a de-escalation of tension.

Internally, governments could also pursue policies that will prevent, or at least reduce, the marginalisation of minorities, especially Muslims, in Western countries.

[DannyInvincible]

I really doubt people who vaporise their bodies are concerned with how their bodies will be buried. Unless you plan on doing DNA tests on blood spatter so you can smear it on a sausage.

According to info leaked by porous US intelligence to the NY Times, half of Salman Abedi's body (his torso) was actually in tact and had been flung across the foyer of the arena: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ls-photos.html

That's not to say I'm disagreeing with your general point. I similarly suspect such a policy (as burying whatever remains of suicide bombers may be left with a pig) wouldn't act as a deterrent.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Another thing to bear in mind is the idea of the "accidental guerilla", essentially that large sections of insurgency/terrorist groups like ISIS operating in the Middle East aren't doing so out of any genuine diehard belief in the religious aspects, but because they are young men bored with their crappy lot in life and lack of prospects.

How the west can counter-act that, without undue interference in the internal affairs of the Middle-East, is very tricky. You can pour money into the "legitimate" governments of countries like Iraq for the purposes of improved infrastructure, education, etc, but the results are all over the place in nations factionalised at every level.

[backstothewall]

Another thing to bear in mind is the idea of the "accidental guerilla", essentially that large sections of insurgency/terrorist groups like ISIS operating in the Middle East aren't doing so out of any genuine diehard belief in they religious aspects, but because they are young men bored with their crappy lot in life and lack of prospects.

A lot of the initial success Islamic State enjoyed taking territory was achieved thanks to the military proficiency provided by veterans from the Sadaam Hussein era. The idea that the army of Sadaam Hussein are radical Islamista is obviously laughable. It clearly started as a Sunni Alliance resisting domination by the new Iran backed Shia government in Bagdhad, and the Iran backed regime in Syria.

How the west can counter-act that, without undue interference in the internal affairs of the Middle-East, is very tricky. You can pour money into the "legitimate" governments of countries like Iraq for the purposes of improved infrastructure, education, etc, but the results are all over the place in nations factionalised at every level.

I sometimes feel like the west are guilty of trying to find a miracle drug that will sove the problem without causing any disruption. That is impossible but there are smaller things which could be done to create improvement here and there, which could then be built upon.

For example Tunisia came out of the Arab Spring in fairly good order before the attack on the beach. Tourism has presumably fallen flat on It's face since then but the EU doesn't seem to be doing anything to assist.

If we do nothing, and the new democratic government falls in time, who have we to blame but ourselves?

More limited action to bolster moderate (or at least stable) governments like Tunisia, Kuwait etc, and perhaps establishing some new states where an ethnic group might be able to maintain a stable government. The Kurds and the Druze seem like obvious examples.

But it isn't going to be possible to build a giant multi-ethnic nation states to govern huge areas/populations. Iraq showed that more than clearly

[BonnieShels]

But Iraq, while not ideal did have freedoms of certain degrees under Saddam. Multi-ethnic states are possible but not ideal. Perhaps deciding that changes to the mess that Sykes-Picot gave the world should be made around ethnic, religious and ethno-religious lines perhaps may stop this whole sh!tshow finally!

As said above, we are long overdue some sort of Vienna or Versailles again.

[DannyInvincible]

Labour have closed the gap between themselves and the Tories to just 5 points now in the latest YouGov/Times poll (taken since Monday's atrocity). The Tories are down one (since the last YouGov survey) and are now at 43 per cent whilst Labour are up three, now at 38 per cent.

Has Monday had an impact? I had anticipated, or feared even, a reactionary lurch to the right, but that seems not to have transpired. Perhaps people are seeing the merits of Corbyn's vehement anti-war stance.

Interestingly, when Labour won the 2005 UK general election and Blair was re-elected as PM, they won 35 per cent of the popular vote. If Corbyn's Labour manage to top that, which appears a distinct possibility if this latest poll is an accurate reflection of popular opinion, the media narrative that "Corbyn is destroying Labour" is exposed as nonsense.

[BonnieShels]

The only thing that concerns me is that Labour in power weakens Scotland's independence argument and the reunification of Ireland somewhat. A slight Tory majority may be no bad thing. Get us to the next Scottish referendum. Watch them make a balls of Brexit and have them hammered in the inevitable following election to an almost rump party. I'd take that.

I've consistently said May is the worst PM ever. It's proving to be the case.

[DannyInvincible]

Here's the ever-insightful John Pilger discussing Monday night's attack on Russia Today:

Pilger argued that individual research by the Joint Intelligence Committee, the CIA and the think tank Chatham House all showed that Britain’s involvement in the Iraq War was resulting in a “blowback” of terrorism in the West.

“They were bombs brought about because of Britain’s invasion of Iraq, its whole historic role in the mayhem, exploitation and suffering of the Middle East,” the documentary filmmaker said.

Although Nafeez Ahmed, the British Muslim author of this piece, agrees with Donald Trump's description of Salman Abedi as an "evil loser" - whilst I feel such terminology trivialises a complex and serious issue - Ahmed's piece still makes for an interesting read as it looks deeper into what the appeal of joining or acting in the name of ISIS is for young "jihadis". He cites as factors: societal alienation, mental illness, ISIS' promise to recruits of meaning, the "seductive theology of heroic salvation" and "British [or Western] collusion in Saudi Arabia's support for Islamist terror".

So what is it that pushes someone from this confluence of depression, alienation, and ‘social defeat’ into violence? In the case of ISIS, the research to date shows that most people who join up or sympathise are attracted to the group’s promise of meaning — a twisted, but seductive theology of heroic salvation.

People who join Islamist extremist groups, for the most part, are not grounded in religious observance. Instead, usually (though not exclusively) their first major encounter with Islam is through contact with an extremist preacher or recruiter outside the traditional mosque circuit, or by finding extremist literature — often online.

...

Theological illiteracy is actually a useful precondition for the prospective recruit, from ISIS’ perspective. It permits them to effectively promote these ideas in such a way that they push a person into accepting the ISIS worldview. Because the prospective recruit lacks the theological resources and grounding to see ISIS ideology for what it is — a flagrant b*stardisation of Islam.

Meanwhile, in the north of Ireland...

'Calls made by Unionist councillors for British Army to be deployed on the streets of Derry following Manchester terror attack': https://www.derrynow.com/news/calls-...-attack/164678

Independent Unionist Councillor Maurice Devenney said that troops should be deployed because of the increased terror threat in the wake of the Manchester attack. A minute's silence was held at the meeting for all civilian victims of conflict being particularly mindful of those in Manchester. Speaking at the meeting Alderman Devenney said that the attack had brought back painful memories for those who had lost loved ones due to attacks 'on the mainland by the IRA'. His call was seconded by the UUP's Derek Hussey who said that 'every defence force should be made available' to deal with the terror threat.

You have to wonder what planet these guys are on. British soldiers on the streets of Derry would provoke more trouble and disorder than they'd prevent, and it's hardly as if Derry - of all places - is going to be targeted by ISIS! That these councillors would be prepared to have the peace process threatened by the presence of British troops on Irish streets simply in order to prove their uber-Britishness beggars belief.

[DannyInvincible]

The only thing that concerns me is that Labour in power weakens Scotland's independence argument and the reunification of Ireland somewhat.

This is true, unfortunately. I'm a fan of Corbyn (the fact he's an ally of Irish republicanism wins him extra kudos) and the prospect of another half a decade (at least) of Tory rule disconcerts me, but I also desire Irish unity - preferably as soon as possible - and I can see that Tory rule and all that would most likely come with it (Scottish independence, hard Brexit, the onward march of imperious Anglocentrism, greater economic hardship for ordinary people and the continued destruction of the NHS, for example) would serve to make re-unification much more attractive to the "undecideds" and would, therefore, make it much more likely in the short-term.

No matter what happens, it's a double-edged sword, but I think I could tolerate the immediate pain of a Tory victory for the greater benefit or "payoff" - for this island and the Irish people as a whole - of Irish unity down the road.