Manchester Bombing

[drivlikejehu]

 

I was intrigued enough to look this up. Please tell me this is based on something more than infowars.

 

Well, there's a BBC television show on right now about the most extensive series of abuses, in Rochdale, and then huge numbers of articles in all of the British papers. The police are on tape refusing to do anything about it.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3519066/rochdale-child-sex-abuse-ring-grooming-three-girls-victims/

 

There are literally thousands of articles about it in mainstream publications. And also coverage of similar outrages in Oxfordshire and other locations in the UK. And those are the only the ones that have been exposed.

[drjim]

 

Well, there's a BBC television show on right now about the most extensive series of abuses, in Rochdale, and then huge numbers of articles in all of the British papers. The police are on tape refusing to do anything about it.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3519066/rochdale-child-sex-abuse-ring-grooming-three-girls-victims/

 

There are literally thousands of articles about it in mainstream publications. And also coverage of similar outrages in Oxfordshire and other locations in the UK. And those are the only the ones that have been exposed.

 

I had heard that, I thought you were referring to something more recent.

[drivlikejehu]

 

I had heard that, I thought you were referring to something more recent.

 

Well then your post made no sense, I was referring to the well-known scandal in that area. If you already knew about it, why drop an Infowars comment?

[Mike Sixel]

Grande and team have offered to pay for the funerals. I believe. Nice touch by her and team.

[drjim]

 

Well then your post made no sense, I was referring to the well-known scandal in that area. If you already knew about it, why drop an Infowars comment?

 

Infowars was pushing a different story in the last week involving Manchester.

 

I do wonder if sex slavery from 10 years ago is all that related. Sex slavery seems to know no nation or race unfortunately.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Infowars was pushing a different story in the last week involving Manchester.

 

I do wonder if sex slavery from 10 years ago is all that related. Sex slavery seems to know no nation or race unfortunately.

 

It's obviously related and is almost certainly going on to this day. 

 

British authorities knew about the bomber in this case. They know about thousands of extremists who have a high likelihood of engaging in illegal/terrorist activity in various degrees. They just don't have the manpower to track every waking minute of their activities.

 

Nonetheless, the authorities believe that actually doing something about those people is a worse answer than letting young girls have their bodies ripped apart by nails. The real enemy is "Islamophobia." 

 

I guess you could say that at least the British left is non-discriminatory in terms of supporting terrorism, since Corbyn and his cronies like McDonnell were always supportive of the IRA.

[nicksaviking]

Well, there's a BBC television show on right now about the most extensive series of abuses, in Rochdale, and then huge numbers of articles in all of the British papers. The police are on tape refusing to do anything about it.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3519066/rochdale-child-sex-abuse-ring-grooming-three-girls-victims/

 

There are literally thousands of articles about it in mainstream publications. And also coverage of similar outrages in Oxfordshire and other locations in the UK. And those are the only the ones that have been exposed.

The Sun?

[Craig Arko]

The Sun?

Tabloid.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun_(United_Kingdom)

 

[ashbury]

Tabloid.

I did seek out a second or third source for myself, when Driv posted that link.

[PseudoSABR]

 

It's obviously related and is almost certainly going on to this day. 

 

British authorities knew about the bomber in this case. They know about thousands of extremists who have a high likelihood of engaging in illegal/terrorist activity in various degrees. They just don't have the manpower to track every waking minute of their activities.

 

Nonetheless, the authorities believe that actually doing something about those people is a worse answer than letting young girls have their bodies ripped apart by nails. The real enemy is "Islamophobia." 

 

I guess you could say that at least the British left is non-discriminatory in terms of supporting terrorism, since Corbyn and his cronies like McDonnell were always supportive of the IRA.

Are you really suggesting we deny people constitutional* due process (among other rights) because of their religion? A strict Constitutionalist, I see. 

 

*I imagine the British constitution has similar guarantees. 

 

[drivlikejehu]

 

Are you really suggesting we deny people constitutional* due process (among other rights) because of their religion? A strict Constitutionalist, I see. 

 

*I imagine the British constitution has similar guarantees. 

 

The cited cases are common knowledge, you can pull the same information from whatever British sources you deem most legitimate.

 

And actually the British don't have an equivalent to due process guarantees, but even if they did, the Muslim extremists are already guilty of various offenses under British law. There are all kinds of speech-related laws that clearly ban the sorts of messages spread by the radicals. And a number of them aren't British citizens, which means they can be deported without criminal convictions or charges under all existing British and international legal doctrines.

[PseudoSABR]

 

The cited cases are common knowledge, you can pull the same information from whatever British sources you deem most legitimate.

 

And actually the British don't have an equivalent to due process guarantees, but even if they did, the Muslim extremists are already guilty of various offenses under British law. There are all kinds of speech-related laws that clearly ban the sorts of messages spread by the radicals. And a number of them aren't British citizens, which means they can be deported without criminal convictions or charges under all existing British and international legal doctrines.

If authorities had probable cause (or whatever) to arrest, they would have.  There isn't some conspiracy to protect extremist Muslims, if there's no arrests, it's because they don't have probable cause under the law.  

 

Making the law harsher--lowering the standard of proof for arrest/deportation--would have widespread effects if it survived constitutional scrutiny as it would not target just Islam but any radicalized institutional violence.   Arguably, there's far more domestic, non-Muslim terror enacted within our borders. 

[Bark's Lounge]

Religion ruins everything. Religion creates hate, it is anti-educational, it is a device to keep people dumbed down. In more than a few places, it restricts people's rights to be who they want to be.

 

There is no fictional character who is going to save our asses. There never was and there never will be.

 

I question my faith everyday. Is it worth it or is it not? I have a different answer everyday.

[drjim]

Religion ruins everything. Religion creates hate, it is anti-educational, it is a device to keep people dumbed down. In more than a few places, it restricts people's rights to be who they want to be.

 

There is no fictional character who is going to save our asses. There never was and there never will be.

 

I question my faith everyday. Is it worth it or is it not? I have a different answer everyday.

I would be careful not to mix religion and culture.

 

And while all that say may be true about religion (I'm a little skeptical), it needs to be balanced, at least somewhat, with the great acts of charity and mercy it inspires.

[twinsnorth49]

 

It's obviously related and is almost certainly going on to this day. 

 

British authorities knew about the bomber in this case. They know about thousands of extremists who have a high likelihood of engaging in illegal/terrorist activity in various degrees. They just don't have the manpower to track every waking minute of their activities.

 

Nonetheless, the authorities believe that actually doing something about those people is a worse answer than letting young girls have their bodies ripped apart by nails. The real enemy is "Islamophobia." 

 

I guess you could say that at least the British left is non-discriminatory in terms of supporting terrorism, since Corbyn and his cronies like McDonnell were always supportive of the IRA.

 What connection are you making here? None of those cases had to do with Muslim extremism. Are child exploitation cases perpetrated by Muslim men now to be considered as such? If the connection is law enforcement lacks the resources to track every element of criminal activity in society, well I guess you have a case there. 

 

I'm not sure where you get them not doing anything about it from however. British intelligence has intercepted hundreds of British Muslims travelling to Syria alone in recent years, have thwarted over 40 terrorist plots since the London bombings, arrested close to 300 people for terrorist related offences in the last 3 years and refer many people weekly to de-radicalization programs.

 

Islamaphobia can be a problem, it's not the problem by any stretch.

[drivlikejehu]

 

If authorities had probable cause (or whatever) to arrest, they would have.  There isn't some conspiracy to protect extremist Muslims, if there's no arrests, it's because they don't have probable cause under the law.  

 

Making the law harsher--lowering the standard of proof for arrest/deportation--would have widespread effects if it survived constitutional scrutiny as it would not target just Islam but any radicalized institutional violence.   Arguably, there's far more domestic, non-Muslim terror enacted within our borders. 

 

This a confusing post because it seems to conflate the US and UK. You refer to "our" borders, but I at least am not a UK citizen - are you? 

 

Nor does the UK have any such thing as "constitutional scrutiny," so this concept would only apply in the US, not the UK.

 

The UK has no doctrine of "probable cause" or anything equivalent. But even if they did, there was more than enough evidence to act:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/father-brother-manchester-bomber-arrested-libya/

 

It's not so much that there's a formal, detailed "conspiracy" to enable would-be terrorists, as there is a broad ideological aversion to taking the necessary steps to address the issue. Those ideological reasons are closely related to the refusal to act in the cases of sexual abuse of children by Muslim pedophiles.

 

To be fair, this is a cross-party issue. It is absolutely not a legal issue. Authorities in the UK have broad discretion to act under their existing police and sovereign powers.

[Bark's Lounge]

 

I would be careful not to mix religion and culture.

And while all that say may be true about religion (I'm a little skeptical), it needs to be balanced, at least somewhat, with the great acts of charity and mercy it inspires.

That is me just venting my frustration Jim. This world is good at wearing out a person a helluva a lot. Sometimes you just see the bad and ignore the good, when in some cases it should be the other way around.

[twinsnorth49]

 

This a confusing post because it seems to conflate the US and UK. You refer to "our" borders, but I at least am not a UK citizen - are you? 

 

Nor does the UK have any such thing as "constitutional scrutiny," so this concept would only apply in the US, not the UK.

 

The UK has no doctrine of "probable cause" or anything equivalent. But even if they did, there was more than enough evidence to act:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/father-brother-manchester-bomber-arrested-libya/

 

It's not so much that there's a formal, detailed "conspiracy" to enable would-be terrorists, as there is a broad ideological aversion to taking the necessary steps to address the issue. Those ideological reasons are closely related to the refusal to act in the cases of sexual abuse of children by Muslim pedophiles.

 

To be fair, this is a cross-party issue. It is absolutely not a legal issue. Authorities in the UK have broad discretion to act under their existing police and sovereign powers.

Seriously, you're conflating a sex abuse case involving Muslims and the Manchester bombing into an ideological aversion to address extremism based on religion? This despite countless examples over many years  that indicate otherwise? One doesn't have to look far to find that authorities in the UK have used their broad discretion to act, many times. 

 

None of these stories even come close to detailing how all of this played out. The Telegraph has become a rag,  not as bad as The Sun but not nearly what it used to be.

[nicksaviking]

 

The cited cases are common knowledge, you can pull the same information from whatever British sources you deem most legitimate.

 

And actually the British don't have an equivalent to due process guarantees, but even if they did, the Muslim extremists are already guilty of various offenses under British law. There are all kinds of speech-related laws that clearly ban the sorts of messages spread by the radicals. And a number of them aren't British citizens, which means they can be deported without criminal convictions or charges under all existing British and international legal doctrines.

 

So how does one go about protecting the rights of the non-Muslim extremists, or the Muslim extremists who have not committed any offenses?

 

Seems to me the problem usually stems from people or a government deciding it's easier to just assume all Muslims are extremists and all extremists have committed crimes. It further seems to me that by generalizing an already marginalized group, we're then actually encouraging otherwise law-abiding people to act out and become what we assumed they were all along.

[twinsnorth49]

 

So how does one go about protecting the rights of the non-Muslim extremists, or the Muslim extremists who have not committed any offenses?

 

Seems to me the problem usually stems from people or a government deciding it's easier to just assume all Muslims are extremists and all extremists have committed crimes. It further seems to me that by generalizing an already marginalized group, we're then actually encouraging otherwise law-abiding people to act out and become what we assumed they were all along.

Bang on Nick, pretty much the issues the actual lawmakers are facing.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/29/theresa-may-counter-terrorism-bill-sinking-without-trace-extremism-british-values

[drivlikejehu]

 

Seriously, you're conflating a sex abuse case involving Muslims and the Manchester bombing into an ideological aversion to address extremism based on religion? This despite countless examples over many years  that indicate otherwise? One doesn't have to look far to find that authorities in the UK have used their broad discretion to act, many times. 

 

None of these stories even come close to detailing how all of this played out. The Telegraph has become a rag,  not as bad as The Sun but not nearly what it used to be.

 

The issues are basically identical between the situations. Of course if the police detect an advanced plot, they will intervene - but some of the time they obviously fail to detect the plot.

 

The question is whether they should intervene sooner in high-risk cases, where there is plenty of legal basis to do so. If a non-UK citizen, for instance, repeatedly declares his intent to conduct jihad in the UK, he should be deported. Failing to do so can only be explained by a fear of offending radicals and their sympathizers. This is a straightforward example of favoritism towards those radicals over the interests of UK citizens.

 

I don't see the relevance of your opinion of the Telegraph - all the pertinent information originated from the wire services. 

 

 

So how does one go about protecting the rights of the non-Muslim extremists, or the Muslim extremists who have not committed any offenses?

 

Seems to me the problem usually stems from people or a government deciding it's easier to just assume all Muslims are extremists and all extremists have committed crimes. It further seems to me that by generalizing an already marginalized group, we're then actually encouraging otherwise law-abiding people to act out and become what we assumed they were all along.

 

I don't accept the premise that non-UK citizens that are handed generous welfare benefits while advocating the destruction of their host country are a "marginalized group." It seems like they are being treated with an almost unbelievable level of tolerance, because any rational actor would say they clearly do not deserve to be there at all.

 

For extremists that are UK citizens, the question is harder, but that's a country that arrests people for offensive posts on Facebook. If they are going to do that, surely they could arrest an imam who advocates for the mass murder of UK citizens and/or others. It's safe to say that no authority in that country has even considered such a step, despite the clear authority to do so.

 

To put it another way, UK law provides no right to advocate Islamic extremist views. In fact, it's already banned under statutes that prohibit "hate speech." But UK authorities do not act against these individuals for the same reasons they permitted child sex abuse - they either fear being labeled as bigoted for taking action against Muslim criminals, or justify their illegal actions on the grounds that they are a "marginalized group."

[nicksaviking]

 

I don't accept the premise that non-UK citizens that are handed generous welfare benefits while advocating the destruction of their host country are a "marginalized group." It seems like they are being treated with an almost unbelievable level of tolerance, because any rational actor would say they clearly do not deserve to be there at all.

 

For extremists that are UK citizens, the question is harder, but that's a country that arrests people for offensive posts on Facebook. If they are going to do that, surely they could arrest an imam who advocates for the mass murder of UK citizens and/or others. It's safe to say that no authority in that country has even considered such a step, despite the clear authority to do so.

 

To put it another way, UK law provides no right to advocate Islamic extremist views. In fact, it's already banned under statutes that prohibit "hate speech." But UK authorities do not act against these individuals for the same reasons they permitted child sex abuse - they either fear being labeled as bigoted for taking action against Muslim criminals, or justify their illegal actions on the grounds that they are a "marginalized group."

 

 

Perhaps it's not fear causing them to refrain from acting, but a realization that prohibiting Islamic views is a terrible way to fight the problem. From the start, the Sedition Act of 1918 was viewed as unjust and just about everyone convicted of such offenses were soon commuted. It was an awful folly and repealed 2 years later

 

And we realized it was ridiculous a century ago.

 

Even so, do we know that the people doing the actual bombings take part in this public "extreme speech" which is prohibited? There is basically no way to actually identify an "extremist" until after he or she has done something terrible. People and governments know this, so it's just easier for people to just assume all Muslims are the problem. Not everyone, but if you're the group being marginalized it really wouldn't feel much different if 100% of the population is treating you poorly or if was only 20%. The disparate treatment they receive due to this prejudice is not the only, but surely one large reason this stuff keeps happening.

 

This isn't new, the Espionage and Sedition Acts 100 years ago occurred because of extreme acts by Bolsheviks, Anarchists and Galleanists. These terrible acts will pass, but it will take a generation or so for the children and grand children of the extremists to prefer the benefits of our culture to the one their parents preach. The assimilation would probably happen sooner if half of our population didn't point fingers and label all of them as terrorists.

 

[drivlikejehu]

 

Perhaps it's not fear causing them to refrain from acting, but a realization that prohibiting Islamic views is a terrible way to fight the problem. From the start, the Sedition Act of 1918 was viewed as unjust and just about everyone convicted of such offenses were soon commuted. It was an awful folly and repealed 2 years later

 

And we realized it was ridiculous a century ago.

 

Even so, do we know that the people doing the actual bombings take part in this public "extreme speech" which is prohibited? There is basically no way to actually identify an "extremist" until after he or she has done something terrible. People and governments know this, so it's just easier for people to just assume all Muslims are the problem. Not everyone, but if you're the group being marginalized it really wouldn't feel much different if 100% of the population is treating you poorly or if was only 20%. The disparate treatment they receive due to this prejudice is not the only, but surely one large reason this stuff keeps happening.

 

This isn't new, the Espionage and Sedition Acts 100 years ago occurred because of extreme acts by Bolsheviks, Anarchists and Galleanists. These terrible acts will pass, but it will take a generation or so for the children and grand children of the extremists to prefer the benefits of our culture to the one their parents preach. The assimilation would probably happen sooner if half of our population didn't point fingers and label all of them as terrorists.

 

This is just incorrect thinking that results from not understanding the roots of Islamic extremism. Many leading terrorists and radical figures are highly educated and from middle class or even wealthy backgrounds. They articulate their rationales very clearly and there is no indication that they are insincere about those reasons. 

 

It's also factually wrong to claim that extremists are never apparent beforehand. If you would do a minimum of reading on the subject, you would see for instance that the Manchester bomber openly talked about committing a suicide bombing for years and that authorities knew about him and his family being radicals.

 

Your views about it are patronizing towards Islam & Muslims, because you assume that they are basically going through an adolescent-like phase after which they will become entirely Westernized. That is a possibility that the extremists are fighting against, and no amount of goodwill could ever change their strategy of using violence against non-believers.

 

Regardless of whether that ideology will vanish sometime in the future, for whatever reason(s), it still doesn't really do much for people with children blown into pieces. I have a 7 year old daughter, and I struggle to come up with a rationale for why being extra sensitive to a hateful radical is more important than my daughter's life. 

[drjim]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/security-services-missed-five-opportunities-stop-manchester/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

Another interesting fact on the bomber, he was booted out of his Mosque and the local community had reported him to authorities multiple times.

[drivlikejehu]

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/security-services-missed-five-opportunities-stop-manchester/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

Another interesting fact on the bomber, he was booted out of his Mosque and the local community had reported him to authorities multiple times.

 

It is an important point - moderate Muslims are also victims of the UK government's pro-extremist policies.

[nicksaviking]

 

This is just incorrect thinking that results from not understanding the roots of Islamic extremism. Many leading terrorists and radical figures are highly educated and from middle class or even wealthy backgrounds. They articulate their rationales very clearly and there is no indication that they are insincere about those reasons. 

 

It's also factually wrong to claim that extremists are never apparent beforehand. If you would do a minimum of reading on the subject, you would see for instance that the Manchester bomber openly talked about committing a suicide bombing for years and that authorities knew about him and his family being radicals.

 

Your views about it are patronizing towards Islam & Muslims, because you assume that they are basically going through an adolescent-like phase after which they will become entirely Westernized. That is a possibility that the extremists are fighting against, and no amount of goodwill could ever change their strategy of using violence against non-believers.

 

Regardless of whether that ideology will vanish sometime in the future, for whatever reason(s), it still doesn't really do much for people with children blown into pieces. I have a 7 year old daughter, and I struggle to come up with a rationale for why being extra sensitive to a hateful radical is more important than my daughter's life. 

 

I got kids, and they'll have kids. How does that matter? One culture trying to live with another culture while both try to keep their ideals has been going on for millennia. We've had the blue print for how to handle this forever but always disregard it because the infringed upon culture wants to take a pound of flesh from the entire ethnic group even when violence was perpetrated by a few. The violence isn't going to stop because of archaic ideas of quashing and suppressing the ideas of a group of people, history shows us that always emboldens them. On the other hand, people don't tend to enact violence on other people they know and trust.

 

Want to prevent this stuff and accelerate the peace? We can just look at the first Red Scare and WWI for answers.

- Stop meddling in foreign affairs. 2017: Fail. WWI: Fail

- Contain the ethnic fear mongering to the minimal lunatic fringe. 2017: Fail. WWI: Fail

- Promote diverse urban environments and premier education because the best way people learn tolerance AND assimilation is to learn about and interact with the people they previously didn't know and feared. 2017: Fail. WWI: Hey, way to go WWI, it worked!

 

So that stuff isn't going to happen now, so I guess we're just going to have to wait it out and just live with the extra security demands and law and order afforded to us by the constitution in the meantime. Those doing bad things will be punished and jailed if they are not already dead, which is how it is supposed to work. Unless we thought Minority Report was a good idea that is.

[drivlikejehu]

 

So that stuff isn't going to happen now, so I guess we're just going to have to wait it out and just live with the extra security demands and law and order afforded to us by the constitution in the meantime. Those doing bad things will be punished and jailed if they are not already dead, which is how it is supposed to work. Unless we thought Minority Report was a good idea that is.

 

If someone isn't even in the country, it's much harder for them to conduct an attack. Immigration laws of every country on Earth allow for considering risks of that nature in issuing and renewing visas, residency permits, etc.

 

Obviously there's no short term path to completely eliminating Islamic terrorism, certainly not worldwide. But in the West, the number of incidences could easily be reduced.

[twinsnorth49]

This is just incorrect thinking that results from not understanding the roots of Islamic extremism. Many leading terrorists and radical figures are highly educated and from middle class or even wealthy backgrounds. They articulate their rationales very clearly and there is no indication that they are insincere about those reasons.

 

It's also factually wrong to claim that extremists are never apparent beforehand. If you would do a minimum of reading on the subject, you would see for instance that the Manchester bomber openly talked about committing a suicide bombing for years and that authorities knew about him and his family being radicals.

 

Your views about it are patronizing towards Islam & Muslims, because you assume that they are basically going through an adolescent-like phase after which they will become entirely Westernized. That is a possibility that the extremists are fighting against, and no amount of goodwill could ever change their strategy of using violence against non-believers.

 

Regardless of whether that ideology will vanish sometime in the future, for whatever reason(s), it still doesn't really do much for people with children blown into pieces. I have a 7 year old daughter, and I struggle to come up with a rationale for why being extra sensitive to a hateful radical is more important than my daughter's life.

Sorry, this is just a whole lot of vague generalizations.

 

Yes, most Islamic extremist leaders are highly educated and are sincere about ther views. I don't see many of them doing that wihin Western countries which they oppose. What I do see is their exploitation of marginalized and poverty stricken youth to carry out their goals subversively. Odd how Osama never blew himself up in the name of Allah.

 

Some people saying "hey, that guy is a terrorist", isn't exactly ground most countries want to lay as passable for arresting and deporting people. You have no idea as to what any police investigation on the subject was and neither do I. I highly doubt any inaction was due to a fear of offending someone however.

 

Does anyone really believe you change extremists by Westernizing them? You don't change extremism, you try to prevent it. It's far too political to ever be able to truly change.

 

I have young children as well, I have trouble explaining to them why someone would want to blow up children, and that isn't reserved for Islamic extremists. Nobody is being extra sensitive to extremists, your simplifying of the issue is extremely patronizing. You seem smarter than to believe this issue doesn't effect everyday Muslims, which is really at the heart of any sensitivity that exists, as well as any percieved legal foot dragging.

[twinsnorth49]

If someone isn't even in the country, it's much harder for them to conduct an attack. Immigration laws of every country on Earth allow for considering risks of that nature in issuing and renewing visas, residency permits, etc.

 

Obviously there's no short term path to completely eliminating Islamic terrorism, certainly not worldwide. But in the West, the number of incidences could easily be reduced.

Easily?!

 

Now we've definitely hit the patronizing zenith, surely.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Easily?!

Now we've definitely hit the patronizing zenith, surely.

 

The Manchester bomber should have been deported, along with his entire terrorist family, pursuant to his open declarations of support for and intent to commit terrorist acts. That would have been a major reduction in life lost to terrorism.

 

It would have been quite easy.