Manchester Arena Explosions?

[Dougie Do'ins]

Turns out the off duty police officer just named today is the partner of my Bosses cousin.  

You OK hun ?? xx

[Section_31]

I'm still baffled as to what Rico is on about.

[Pureblood]

I'm still baffled as to what Rico is on about.

 

It's okay to spit at Muslim women and call them names because of terrorism.

[Paulie Dangerously]

You OK hun ?? xx

PM me

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

[Dougie Do'ins]

Oh look, here's the queen doing the rounds in the hospitals. 

[Denny Crane]

Rico is giving atheists​ a bad name.

 

We need to stand up and condemn him before it spreads.

[Strontium]

But you do get people walking into a school, killing kids and then killing themselves all because they disagreed with something or someone, with no known religious angle.

 

So whilst a twisted interpretation religion might cause an idiot to commit mass murder, a twisted view of other things can also cause the same.

 

Look at Celtic and Rangers divided by religion, but few of those fans are religious, they simply use the religious banner as a convenient justification for irrational hatred.

 

Hungerford, Dunblane, Lake District, Raul Moat, Columbine... There are lots of examples where religion wasn't a motive.

 

I clearly missed all those Rangers fans massacring Catholic school kids.

 

But look, nobody is saying that mass killings sometimes happen without religion being a factor. Religion just makes it more likely.

 

It's like sometimes people get lung cancer without ever smoking. But you'd be laughed at if you tried to pretend that smoking wasn't the cause of most cases.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

I clearly missed all those Rangers fans massacring Catholic school kids.

 

But look, nobody is saying that mass killings sometimes happen without religion being a factor. Religion just makes it more likely.

 

It's like sometimes people get lung cancer without ever smoking. But you'd be laughed at if you tried to pretend that smoking wasn't the cause of most cases.

Fervent nationalism and residing in the Gaza Strip are also a major factor.

[Strontium]

A little off topic but anyone who's not been to Auschwitz should go, it changed my attitude to all this stuff and make you realise how those traintracks started with a sneer or a joke in a coffee shop.

 

No, they started, as usual, with holy books.

[moof]

No, they started, as usual, with holy books.

I was always under the impression that race was the main motivating factor behind the persecution of various groups of people in Nazi Germany, rather than religious zeal.

[skend04]

No, they started, as usual, with holy books.

Did they? Here's me thinking it was racism and the fear of Aryans having to mix with the inferior race of Jews.

[FanchesterCity]

I clearly missed all those Rangers fans massacring Catholic school kids.

But look, nobody is saying that mass killings sometimes happen without religion being a factor. Religion just makes it more likely.

It's like sometimes people get lung cancer without ever smoking. But you'd be laughed at if you tried to pretend that smoking wasn't the cause of most cases.

I maintain religion isn't the cause. The divisions existed before religion which is why factions develop. A religion is then formed to represent that group. The moment that group starts disagreeing, they form a new faction or flavour of the religion. Religion is representative of difference it doesn't create it.

Man made religion, one would assume to justify existing beliefs.

 

So when a man says he kills because his religion told him too, it's bullshit, even though he may believe it to be true. Man invented the religion, or a specific interpretation of a religion to justify what they already believe.

 

If you hate homosexuals you can find justification in most religions, if you support homosexuals you can find the same.

The same goes for jihadists. THEY want to kill and selectively interpret parts of their religion to offer legitimacy to it.

Take away religion and these guys would still want to kill.

[skend04]

Did you read the thread I posted?

I was just pointing out the racism isn't merely name calling especially for those on the receiving end of it.

[Kloppite]

I maintain religion isn't the cause. The divisions existed before religion which is why factions develop. A religion is then formed to represent that group. The moment that group starts disagreeing, they form a new faction or flavour of the religion. Religion is representative of difference it doesn't create it.

Man made religion, one would assume to justify existing beliefs.

 

So when a man says he kills because his religion told him too, it's bullshit, even though he may believe it to be true. Man invented the religion, or a specific interpretation of a religion to justify what they already believe.

 

If you hate homosexuals you can find justification in most religions, if you support homosexuals you can find the same.

The same goes for jihadists. THEY want to kill and selectively interpret parts of their religion to offer legitimacy to it.

Take away religion and these guys would still want to kill.

I agree.

 

I think it's because they are mental.

 

No one sane minded would do this type of thing they gave to be bat shit crazy. If it was a white person who had done this type of thing they would be called psychopathic.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Just breaking that the bomber's (not Tony Bellew) sister has claimed that he carried out his attack as revenge for the killing of children in airstrikes in Syria.

 

It's not clear where she's got this information from, whether it's something the bomber said or just her own interpretation of things.

 

But, if it is accurate, are we as a nation still going to bury our head's in the sand and refuse to even have the "foreign policy" conversation?

 

The bloke on Newsnight last night got it spot on. Divert attention and resources away from an overseas military intervention strategy and give it to the domestic intelligence agencies instead. This might make us safer and also remove one of the things that motivates these dickheads to murder innocents.

[Boss]

No, they started, as usual, with holy books.

 

Hitler wasn't religious. He might've used religion to rally support, but it was all a sham. His hatred of the jews stemmed from his belief that they cost Germany the First World War. He blamed them for the financial crash and the hyperinflation under the Weimar Republic. Hitler didn't kill Jews because of the Bible, and the Jews didn't die because of the Torah.

[Kloppite]

Just breaking that the bomber's (not Tony Bellew) sister has claimed that he carried out his attack as revenge for the killing of children in airstrikes in Syria.

 

It's not clear where she's got this information from, whether it's something the bomber said or just her own interpretation of things.

 

But, if it is accurate, are we as a nation still going to bury our head's in the sand and refuse to even have the "foreign policy" conversation?

 

The bloke on Newsnight last night got it spot on. Divert attention and resources away from an overseas military intervention strategy and give it to the domestic intelligence agencies instead. This might make us safer and also remove one of the things that motivates these dickheads to murder innocents.

If it's true that was his motivation and there has in fact been children killed by airstrikes in Syria then why don't these people engage in peaceful protest?

 

This type of thing isn't going to change foreign policy it is just going to keep that part of the world high up as a target for the West.

[Kloppite]

Also the British haven't been involved in airstrikes the Russians have and so have the Syrian military.

[rubble-rouser]

Just breaking that the bomber's (not Tony Bellew) sister has claimed that he carried out his attack as revenge for the killing of children in airstrikes in Syria.

 

It's not clear where she's got this information from, whether it's something the bomber said or just her own interpretation of things.

 

But, if it is accurate, are we as a nation still going to bury our head's in the sand and refuse to even have the "foreign policy" conversation?

 

The bloke on Newsnight last night got it spot on. Divert attention and resources away from an overseas military intervention strategy and give it to the domestic intelligence agencies instead. This might make us safer and also remove one of the things that motivates these dickheads to murder innocents.

 

One  way of looking at that is that it allows terrorists to dictate our foreign policy. 

 

The logic behind a British man of Libyan extraction bombing defenceless civilians as opposed to military or political targets in response to Syrian airstrikes is twisted. The Syrian situation is ridiculously complex - do nothing and you're condoning Assad & chemical weapons and some fanatics will condemn you for that; get involve,d with the inevitable loss of innocent life and hey presto, your kids  are legitimate targets.

 

I was  against the Iraq war for many reasons, not least because it would stir up fundamentalists in this way. Proactive consideration of the factors is essential in policy-making, but politically and morally I'm not sure you can divert from a course because of the actions of a terrorist.

 

None of which is to say that i agree with the policy in Syria.  

[Anubis]

Er, yes we have been involved in airstrikes. We had a commons vote on it.

[ZonkoVille77]

Kloppite, on 25 May 2017 - 1:03 PM, said:

 

If it's true that was his motivation and there has in fact been children killed by airstrikes in Syria then why don't these people engage in peaceful protest?

 

This type of thing isn't going to change foreign policy it is just going to keep that part of the world high up as a target for the West.

Peaceful protest?! Airstrikes in Syria/Lybia/Afghanistan should be illegal. What the west is doing is killing innocent people. What this cunt did was kill innocent people. It's an eye for an eye. Causality. How's about stopping airstrikes and leaving the middle east alone? It might just, ya know, stop people wanting to get revenge.

 

The place is a target for the west for no other reason than to steal from these countries. That's the foreign policy which has caused this. No amount of peaceful protest is going to stop the UK/US/France from wanting to steal their natural resources.

[Captain Turdseye]

35 pages of shite. It's essentially the same people repeating the same things as they did every other time there's been a terrorist attack.

[Kloppite]

Peaceful protest?! Airstrikes in Syria/Lybia/Afghanistan should be illegal. What the west is doing is killing innocent people. What this cunt did was kill innocent people. It's an eye for an eye. Causality. How's about stopping airstrikes and leaving the middle east alone? It might just, ya know, stop people wanting to get revenge.

 

The place is a target for the west for no other reason than to steal from these countries. That's the foreign policy which has caused this. No amount of peaceful protest is going to stop the UK/US/France from wanting to steal their natural resources.

Just checked on Google and it was military units but there was an investigation and thd British military said they can't comment and the reason for the investigation is because it's not government policy to target Syrian military.

 

Why also is the only time you hear about this is when we have a suicide bomber. Why are there no Muslim leaders speaking out about the British military killing Syrian children?

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

If it's true that was his motivation and there has in fact been children killed by airstrikes in Syria then why don't these people engage in peaceful protest?

 

This type of thing isn't going to change foreign policy it is just going to keep that part of the world high up as a target for the West.

On your first point, it's because foreign policy isn't their only motivation. Most people on this thread aren't looking at his motivation as being a single issue one. Religion plays a part. Possibly somebody in his ear too, enforcing all the bits of the religion that can be interpreted as justifying a violent response.

 

The second point kind of lends to what I'm saying. Fine. If we react by dropping more bombs in "the war on terror" so be it. But, we can complain and grieve etc when the other side in the "war" strikes back, but can we really be surprised if we're playing a part in perpetuating the vicious circle?