British police says responding to serious incident at Manchester Arena

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

But it doesn't explain why Brit. or European born moslems turn to terrorism?

 

This case seems a little different insofar as it seems clear that his family were extremists, so less suprising that he became a terrorist - but its unusual to find out that the parents of Brit or European born suicide bombers were extremists?

 

I'm not trying to start an 'argument' here, as I'm the first to condemn the Brit establishment allowing his family into the first place!  As far as I can make out they entered the country as 'refugees' - fleeing Libya because of their extreme moslem beliefs.....

 

But we need to address why Brit or European born moslems with non-extremist parents turn into terrorists - and attacking communities (most of whom will have had nothing to do with these atrocities), can only result in even more considering themselves under attack and therefore turning to those who are promising to 'fight back'. 

Well, that is a good question indeed, and a complex one.

 

Sam Harris has some insights into it, (45 minutes)

 

 

Essentially, he says that the idea of fighting the good fight, actually being somebody, and knowing you're right and that you cannot lose (you either conquer the West or you go to Paradise trying), has a powerful attraction for teenage losers in the West.

 

It's a very simple philosophy, it doesn't require much thought, and it gives people a feeling of being indisputably right. You get to blame all your problems on somebody else, and are encouraged to see those people as evil.

 

It's an inviting philosophy to a young male loser.

[vogie]

7 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

But it doesn't explain why Brit. or European born moslems turn to terrorism?

 

This case seems a little different insofar as it seems clear that his family were extremists, so less suprising that he became a terrorist - but its unusual to find out that the parents of Brit or European born suicide bombers were extremists?

 

I'm not trying to start an 'argument' here, as I'm the first to condemn the Brit establishment allowing his family into the first place!  As far as I can make out they entered the country as 'refugees' - fleeing Libya because of their extreme moslem beliefs.....

 

But we need to address why Brit or European born moslems with non-extremist parents turn into terrorists - and attacking communities (most of whom will have had nothing to do with these atrocities), can only result in even more considering themselves under attack and therefore turning to those who are promising to 'fight back'. 

Dick, they might be born in Britain, but many young muslims don't consider themselves as British, I watched some young British born muslims on the news the other day ranting on about how their country is the Middle East.

[transam]

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

Dick, they might be born in Britain, but many young muslims don't consider themselves as British, I watched some young British born muslims on the news the other day ranting on about how their country is the Middle East.

Correct, they probably have been brought up from birth as Muslims living in a Christian country and DO NOT forget your routes...

[dick dasterdly]

12 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Well, that is a good question indeed, and a complex one.

 

Sam Harris has some insights into it, (45 minutes)

 

 

Essentially, he says that the idea of fighting the good fight, actually being somebody, and knowing you're right and that you cannot lose (you either conquer the West or you go to Paradise trying), has a powerful attraction for teenage losers in the West.

 

It's a very simple philosophy, it doesn't require much thought, and it gives people a feeling of being indisputably right. You get to blame all your problems on somebody else, and are encouraged to see those people as evil.

 

It's an inviting philosophy to a young male loser.

Know what you mean....

 

"simple philosophy, it doesn't require much thought, and it gives people a feeling of being indisputably right"/ "and are encouraged to see those people as evil."

 

- seems to apply to a few posters here - convinced that punishing everyone in the community is the 'way to go' .

[7by7]

9 hours ago, Grouse said:

You have deliberately distorted my post by adding your own name in brackets. The "you" was plural and my statement was not aimed at you specifically. That IS against the forum rules.

As it was in direct response to a post of mine, which you quoted, to whom was it addressed if not me?

 

The addition in parenthesis is accepted usage; but if you believe I have broken the forum rules you know where the report button is.

 

parenthesis

pəˈrɛnθɪsɪs/  

noun

noun: parenthesis; plural noun: parentheses

1. 1.

   a word or phrase inserted as an explanation or afterthought into a passage which is grammatically complete without it, in writing usually marked off by brackets, dashes, or commas.

 

9 hours ago, Grouse said:

The first quote on English usage was indeed specific. However, the second was aimed at apologists generally.

 

You wouldn't be trying to frame me while I was asleep would you?

As an 'expert' on English usage you should know the difference between 'you' (second person) and 'the' (third person). So who were you addressing?

 

If you are addressing people outside the forum, despite incorrectly using the second person, then can you explain the following?

 

9 hours ago, Grouse said:

The none (sic) stop posts from apologists is beginning to bore.

 

[dick dasterdly]

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

Dick, they might be born in Britain, but many young muslims don't consider themselves as British, I watched some young British born muslims on the news the other day ranting on about how their country is the Middle East.

And that's the point!  Why do so many young moslems born in the UK turn to extreme moslem beliefs?

 

Is it the parents?  In this case, it appears the answer is 'yes'....  But IIRC more often than not this is not normally the case.

[7by7]

7 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

From what I have read you are very clever with the wording you use and never ever condemn the causes of terror, which are the violent passages in the Quran and the terrorist actions of the prophet which encourage terror attacks today. He is quoted in the haddith as saying he was victorious by terror, Muslims need to denounce the bad in their scriptures and the conduct of the terrorist prophet, but like you never will.

 So you cannot find such a post.

 

But as you are such an expert on my posting history you must have seen the many posts i have made linking to and quoting from the multitudinous condemnation of ISIS and other Islamic terrorists by Muslims all over the world. from the fatwa issued by 30,000 Muslim clerics to the individual posts on Facebook and the like.

 

Why do you ignore that condemnation?

[transam]

7 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

And that's the point!  Why do so many young moslems born in the UK turn to extreme moslem beliefs?

 

Is it the parents?  In this case, it appears the answer is 'yes'....  But IIRC more often than not this is not normally the case.

In my opinion it probably isn't the parents, it is being brought up as a Muslim and youngsters looking down on an "infidel" country that mum and dad are happy with...

[7by7]

2 hours ago, vogie said:

Ex SAS soldier says it as it is.

 

 

 

 As ex military, you must be familiar with ARRSE.

 

You should read what members there think of Campion; they consider him a self aggrandising walt who uses tragedies such as this to publicise his books.

 

I can only assume Sky News interviewed him because as a 24 hour news channel they have time to fill and no one else was available.

[MaxYakov]

1 hour ago, MaxYakov said:

 

------------------------ Snipped Unneeded Paragraph ------------------

Anyway, the third party leaves us only two choices - hyper regulation of chemicals (actually, a totalitarian/police state because, like gun control, the bad guys will get the chemicals) or perpetual attacks using (what I call) IWMDs (Improvised Weapons of Mass Destruction).

 

My point was that there have to be more alternatives to these two. But maybe not. Maybe we'll be in a perpetual war with the suicidal psychopaths.

 

33 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"Maybe we'll be in a perpetual war with the suicidal psychopaths."

 

Funnily enough I thought briefly about the 'psychopath' angle (edit - mainly because I'm convinced there is a frighteningly large percentage of sociopaths in the population!) - but psychopaths enjoy killing others, whilst always ensuring that they are not hurt.  Not the case with suicide bombers.

So you think my diagnosis/hypothesis of 'psychopathy' is an 'angle', huh?

 

I've always used the torture/kill analogy for sociopaths vs psychopaths: sociopaths torture you, psychopaths will kill you. Crude, but it works for me. Another cute one is that sociopaths fantasize about castles in the air while psychopaths move into the castles (or some such).

 

In my view, just because these suicide bombers are killing others as well as themselves, it meets my criteria for psychopathology. From the Wiki entry on psychopathology [link]:

 

1. Danger: this term involves dangerous or violent behaviour directed at the individual, or others in the environment. An example of dangerous behaviour that may suggest a psychological disorder is engaging in suicidal activity. Behaviors and feelings that are potentially harmful to an individual or the individuals around them are seen as abnormal.
   
   Note: This is actually the fourth of "four Ds" that define psychopathic abnormality, and the highest, most dangerous level. Wiki may not be the best reference for studying psychopathology, but this entry at least doesn't seem to indicate that suicidal behavior and harmful behavior others are mutually exclusive.

[RickBradford]

16 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

And that's the point!  Why do so many young moslems born in the UK turn to extreme moslem beliefs?

 

Is it the parents?  In this case, it appears the answer is 'yes'....  But IIRC more often than not this is not normally the case.

Social media is a big force these days, and ISIS is very cunning with its use of it.

 

One of the most notable aspects of ISIS is its technological capability; there are some very good IT people working for them whose sole aim is to attract "disaffected youth" in the West.

[7by7]

1 hour ago, Flustered said:

Hundreds of thousands of people watched a football game and enjoyed themselves without fear of Muslims. What utter crap. Security was massive at these events, the vast majority would have been on the look out for anything suspicious. You are making a mockery of the Manchester tragedy.

 Yes, hundreds of thousands of people attended two football cup finals, an international cricket match and other events yesterday. Many of them Muslims. More will be taking part in or watching the Great Manchester Run today. Plus other events over the holiday weekend.

 

That you can believe doing so makes a mockery of the Manchester tragedy is beyond belief. In fact it's the opposite; we are showing the terrorists that we will not be defeated by them; just as we did with the Luftwaffe and the IRA before them.

 

But of course security is tightened. There are more armed police on our streets, and even armed soldiers. That is to be expected and I, for one, would be demanding to know why if it hadn't been.

[dick dasterdly]

4 minutes ago, transam said:

In my opinion it probably isn't the parents, it is being brought up as a Muslim and youngsters looking down on an "infidel" country that mum and dad are happy with...

In this case it appears that his parents were extremists (and presumably considered Brits as "infidels") - and yet still allowed into the country as 'refugees'....

 

In the absence of extremist parents, why would their children turn to extreme moslem beliefs?

 

Again, I'm not trying to start an argument - just trying to work out 1) why this happens and 2) the best way of solving the problem.

[AGareth2]

8 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Social media is a big force these days, and ISIS is very cunning with its use of it.

 

One of the most notable aspects of ISIS is its technological capability; there are some very good IT people working for them whose sole aim is to attract "disaffected youth" in the West.

this must be addressed

[7by7]

 

 

 

[transam]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

In this case it appears that his parents were extremists (and presumably considered Brits as "infidels") - and yet still allowed into the country as 'refugees'....

 

In the absence of extremist parents, why would their children turn to extreme moslem beliefs?

 

Again, I'm not trying to start an argument - just trying to work out 1) why this happens and 2) the best way of solving the problem.

To me a simple case of Muslims with their antiquated stuff just doing THEIR stuff against folk in a Christian country, even kill their own cos they live in a Christian country....Think we must look at all avenues of thought..

[dick dasterdly]

6 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Social media is a big force these days, and ISIS is very cunning with its use of it.

 

One of the most notable aspects of ISIS is its technological capability; there are some very good IT people working for them whose sole aim is to attract "disaffected youth" in the West.

But if they didn't already have a 'grievance' - they wouldn't be interested in these extreme views.

 

Which brings me back to why we need to address the cause, rather than just attack the 'symptoms'.

[dick dasterdly]

30 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Social media is a big force these days, and ISIS is very cunning with its use of it.

 

One of the most notable aspects of ISIS is its technological capability; there are some very good IT people working for them whose sole aim is to attract "disaffected youth" in the West.

 

21 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

this must be addressed

Which part?

 

The "disaffected youth" - or social media?

 

Addressing the "disaffected youth" problem makes sense, whilst blaming the problem on "social media" is more likely to turn into a version of Orwell's  '1984'?

[AGareth2]

4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Addressing the "disaffected youth" problem makes sense

the world is not a Utopian |Paradise

I am concerned with the message and how it spreads

[simple1]

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

It's fairly pointless studying an analysis from 2015 when we have the raw information direct from the source in 2016. 

 

The analysis doesn't make any surprising points: we know from ISIS's own propaganda that this is a medieval Islamist sect which hates the modern West and all its values.

 

And what's the Daily Mirror got to do with this? Or the Management of Savergy? Is that some Green renewable scheme?

Have a go at doing some basic research - The Managment of Savagery was written by an Egyptian Islamist and used as the template for the strategy and tactics by the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq (policy not supported by Bin Laden) and then subscribed to by ISIS.

 

To make it easier for you to understand...

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2016/07/shiraz-maher-isis-management-savagery

 

I reference the Daily Mail as it was the source publication a few days ago which quotes info that been known for years as though it's some form of recent revelation.

 

[RickBradford]

3 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Have a go at doing some basic research - The Managment of Savaerygy was written by an Egyptian Islamist and used as the template for the strategy and tactics for Al Qaeda in Iraq and then subscribed to by ISIS.

 

To make it easier for you to understand...

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2016/07/shiraz-maher-isis-management-savagery

 

I reference the Daily Mail as it quotes info that been known for years as though it's some form of recent revelation.

 

Well, if you'd written Management of Savagery rather than Savergy or Savaerygy, it might have been easier to do "some basic research". I have better things to do than try to decipher incoherencies.

 

And I still don't understand these tabloid references - first, the Daily Mirror, now the Daily Mail, neither of which I read. What are you trying to say?

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

As it was in direct response to a post of mine, which you quoted, to whom was it addressed if not me?

 

The addition in parenthesis is accepted usage; but if you believe I have broken the forum rules you know where the report button is.

 

parenthesis

pəˈrɛnθɪsɪs/  

noun

noun: parenthesis; plural noun: parentheses

1. 1.

   a word or phrase inserted as an explanation or afterthought into a passage which is grammatically complete without it, in writing usually marked off by brackets, dashes, or commas.

 

As an 'expert' on English usage you should know the difference between 'you' (second person) and 'the' (third person). So who were you addressing?

 

If you are addressing people outside the forum, despite incorrectly using the second person, then can you explain the following?

 

 

Actually, I am going to report you for several matters. You've had it coming for a while now.

[simple1]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

Well, if you'd written Management of Savagery rather than Savergy or Savaerygy, it might have been easier to do "some basic research". I have better things to do than try to decipher incoherencies.

 

And I still don't understand these tabloid references - first, the Daily Mirror, now the Daily Mail, neither of which I read. What are you trying to say?

If you have no interest why do you attempt to present yourself as knowlegeable on Islamists. Pointing out mis-spelling, not forgetting it would be picked by  a search engine,. is childish, Apologies for incorrectly referencing the media source, but the message is obvious.

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, simple1 said:

If you have no interest why do you attempt to present yourself as knowlegeable on Islamists. Pointing out mis-spelling, not forgetting it would be picked by  a search engine,. is childish, Apologies for incorrectly referencing the media source, but the message is obvious.

When people post incoherent nonsense on this forum, I am not going to spend my time trying to figure out what they mean. I'd have to have a whole team working with me full-time.

 

The message is not obvious - in fact, I have no idea what the "message" is supposed to be.

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

But it doesn't explain why Brit. or European born moslems turn to terrorism?

 

This case seems a little different insofar as it seems clear that his family were extremists, so less suprising that he became a terrorist - but its unusual to find out that the parents of Brit or European born suicide bombers were extremists?

 

I'm not trying to start an 'argument' here, as I'm the first to condemn the Brit establishment allowing his family into the UK in the first place!  As far as I can make out they entered the country as 'refugees' - fleeing Libya because of their extreme moslem beliefs.....

 

But we need to address why Brit or European born moslems with non-extremist parents turn into terrorists - and attacking communities (most of whom will have had nothing to do with these atrocities), can only result in even more considering themselves under attack and therefore turning to those who are promising to 'fight back'. 

They are islamists. And so are their parents. RickBra'ford explained the motivations nicely

[onthesoi]

10 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Actually, I am going to report you for several matters. You've had it coming for a while now.

 

<deleted>, dry your eyes, you sound about 14yo.

 

You have a cheek reporting anyone after the catalog of shameful Islamaphobic comments you've made in this thread, banning halal food and demolishing entire muslim communities to name just a few.

 

 

[simple1]

Just now, RickBradford said:

When people post incoherent nonsense on this forum, I am not going to spend my time trying to figure out what they mean. I'd have to have a whole team working with me full-time.

 

The message is not obvious - in fact, I have no idea what the "message" is supposed to be.

Up to you if you're not interested, but Managment of Savagery is not irrelevant, it's a crucial document to understand the strategy of ISIS and cross referenced by many professional security analyists who study ISIS.

[Grouse]

2 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

 

<deleted>, dry your eyes, you sound about 14yo.

 

You have a cheek reporting anyone after the catalog of shameful Islamaphobic comments you've made in this thread, banning halal food and demolishing entire muslim communities to name just a few.

 

 

OK, you join him

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

Up to you if you're not interested, but Managment of Savagery is not irrelevant, it's a crucial document to understand the strategy of ISIS and cross referenced by many professional security analyists who study ISIS.

It was the incoherent nonsense you posted earlier about "Savergy" which instantly switched me off doing any research. If you want people to go and look at suggested documents, it might be worth getting their name as nearly right as you can manage, so that they can follow up on it.

 

Plus there's the stuff about the Daily Mail or Mirror, which we still haven't got to the bottom of.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

 

Look, some Muslims are responsible and apologetic; but you should understand that there are 1.8 billion Muslims, you can't accuse them all of apologising for the atrocities committed in their name