Manchester Attack

[Bitpipe]

I grew up in NI on a large catholic housing estate in the 70s and 80s and then studied in Belfast in the 90s. Living with terrorism and general disruption to life was not something I or my friends gave much though to, life had to go on on both sides. Bad things happened across the board, aside from the bigger events that made the news on the 'mainland', there was a drip, drip, drip of weekly murders, beatings, shootings, intimidation etc. Sensible precautions were taken (i.e. avoiding a given area, etc) where possible but that was about it. There was a certain fatalism that if you were unlucky then that was it.

 

To me, this is the ideal response to terrorism. The whole point of it is to use asymmetrical methods to terrorise a broader population and to actually encourage the alienation of the community that you're hiding within, as that will drive more people to your point of view. Obviously we came out of that situation and things have somewhat normalised - who knows, maybe in 20 years there will be a new threat from another, currently benign, section of society and we'll view todays horror the same way we look at the bombings of the 70s and 80s.

 

Obviously, it is practically incomprehensible to understand the grief and pain that the affected families will go through, but the reality remains that the chances of being caught up in an attack are vanishingly small and statistically we keep doing the things that are most likely to kill us (lifestyle choices, driving, sports, power tools) but fear things that are highly, highly unlikely. It was interesting to hear the scant 30 seconds given to six people killed in a single car on the M6 today vs the understandable hours of coverage on Manchester.

 

So while somewhat trite, for me the keep calm and carry on mantra is pretty effective.

[jack]

I was never in London around the time of the Troubles (and I suspect day to day it wasn't as bad as your experience), but I understand there was a similar stoicism involved there.

 

13 minutes ago, Bitpipe said:

It was interesting to hear the scant 30 seconds given to six people killed in a single car on the M6 today vs the understandable hours of coverage on Manchester.

 

I had exactly that conversation with someone today.  Far more people die on the UK's roads every week than were killed in this attack.  We just have this guttural reaction to events like this that the drip of "ordinary" deaths don't seem to involve.  I supposed it's called "terrorism" for a reason. 

[reddal]

10 hours ago, jack said:

I'm not even sure that these people are evil in the true sense of the word.  I assume they're not psychopaths, but actually genuinely believe that what they are doing is right.

 

I fear this is correct. A lot of them genuinely feel they are doing gods work - what their religion demands - and fighting to right injustices etc. They feel just as morally justified as someone fighting in WW2 in the french resistance.

 

I would want it to be made more difficult for them to believe that. I would like to see a clear statement from every leader of a muslim country and every islamic religious leader - stating without any caveats that they completely condemn these attacks - that they represent the opposite of islam - and nobody who commits such attacks can consider themselves a muslim.

 

That would make it more difficult for people to believe these attacks are demanded by their religion. It would also clarify that the majority of the islamic world do not support the attacks - just a fringe of idiots. Some islamic leaders would refuse to make such a statement - and then we would know they are part of the problem.

[Guest Alphonsox]

1 hour ago, reddal said:

I would like to see a clear statement from every leader of a muslim country and every islamic religious leader - stating without any caveats that they completely condemn these attacks

 

Care to identify one that hasn't ?  (I can only identify Afghanistan and this may be to limited news feeds from the area)

[ToughButterCup]

26 minutes ago, reddal said:

[...]

Some islamic leaders would refuse to make such a statement - and then we would know they are part of the problem.

 

They do, and we know who they are.

[reddal]

1 hour ago, Alphonsox said:

Care to identify one that hasn't ?  (I can only identify Afghanistan and this may be to limited news feeds from the area)

 

How about the Islamic leadership in Saudi as an example? They condemned a recent attack on churches in egypt - but I can't see anything from them yet on this attack.

 

Strong statements from them and all their equivalents around the muslim world would make it more difficult for attackers to believe they are doing what their religion demands.

[Guest Alphonsox]

1 hour ago, reddal said:

I would like to see a clear statement from every leader of a muslim country and every islamic religious leader - stating without any caveats that they completely condemn these attacks

 

Try

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2017/05/23/Saudi-Arabia-condemns-Manchester-bomb-attack-.html

http://www.arabnews.com/node/1103936/saudi-arabia

 

Anti-Muslim rhetoric is exactly the effect the response the attack is expected to engender.

[reddal]

17 minutes ago, Alphonsox said:

 

Try

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2017/05/23/Saudi-Arabia-condemns-Manchester-bomb-attack-.html

http://www.arabnews.com/node/1103936/saudi-arabia

 

Anti-Muslim rhetoric is exactly the effect the response the attack is expected to engender.

 

The people that carry out these kinds of attacks believe that the saudi government is corrupted by western influence - but they think their religious leaders support their cause.

 

My point is not to be anti-muslim - the opposite in fact. I think most muslims agree with most humans that this kind of attack is madness. If the leaders of islam would say the same in no uncertain terms it would clarify for the whole world that this is not an islamic issue at all - and it might make it much more difficult to motivate future attackers. It is difficult for some islamic clerics to make such a statement precisely because there are factions of their communities that would strongly disagree - but I think they have to pick sides at this point.

Edited May 24, 2017 by reddal

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, reddal said:

The people that carry out these kinds of attacks believe that the saudi government is corrupted by western influence

They may have a point about how the West can corrupt.  We have been shafted by the New York Times already.

[Guest Alphonsox]

1 hour ago, reddal said:

If the leaders of islam would say the same in no uncertain terms it would clarify for the whole world that this is not an islamic issue at all 

 

"5 killed on M6 by self proclaimed lorry driver " - In response I hearby require all lorry drivers and states employing lorry drivers in any capacity to decry this appalling action to prove this is not a lorry driver issue at all.

 

I don't get the difference, either you're anti "lorry driver" or your not.

[reddal]

53 minutes ago, Alphonsox said:

 

"5 killed on M6 by self proclaimed lorry driver " - In response I hearby require all lorry drivers and states employing lorry drivers in any capacity to decry this appalling action to prove this is not a lorry driver issue at all.

 

I don't get the difference, either you're anti "lorry driver" or your not.

 

If the lorry driver had deliberately killed because he believed it was his sacred duty as a lorry driver - and there was a vocal subset of lorry drivers reinforcing this view - then yes - in that bizare world I would be surprised if everyone else involved in the lorry driving world didn't state very loudly that they condemned the killing.

Edited May 24, 2017 by reddal

[Nickfromwales]

I think this may be best left as a respectful thread, rather than a place to settle opinions. 

This is beginning to lose its purpose chaps