Loud Bangs heard in Manchester UK

a reply to: Power_Semi

well its a start in damage mitigation , ensuring that our foreign cousins know that we arent without reason and can show compassion when we know we have committed wrongs , its where the diplomatic process should begin, but have our governments collectively apologised in any official capacity?

I think not , at least I havent heard it

This is the first step in repairing damaged relations with foreign democracies it lets their people know we arent complete monsters so that if they saw how sorry we are they would maybe with a small bit of hope think twice about joining a terror cell to get revenge .

At the same time , the nation of Islam should carry out a inquisition on the scale where they leave no mosque or small town dwelling unchecked and rid their religion of fanatics and radicals
but how willing are they to even do that has their been any Mullah or cleric that has spoken out so directly against radicals ?

Its a global problem and requires everyone to do their part
it's time we started acting like one human race and sorted our # out

a reply to: UKTruth

Again and hopefully for the last time , I have never stated we should apologise to terrorists
only to the countries where foreign intervention and interference in their affairs has taken place which has then given rise to terror cells directly opposed to the west

There seems to be a marked difference between what so-called "Islamist militants" do in Europe and what they do in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq and perhaps Syria. In Afghanistan for example, they attack the police and the army for the most part. In Europe they attack the populace.

I'm suspicious of this. Are these the same people?

In Northern Ireland, the IRA and its splinter groups attacked the police and the British Army, for the most part. I believe that at least one of their attacks on a British pub was not done by them, and in Northern Ireland the bombing of one pub was blamed by authorities on the Provos when It was actually done by the Ulster Volunteer Force.

Have the "islamists" in Europe taken a crack at a head of state? The Provisional Irish Republican Army tried to take out Margaret Thatcher when she was staying at a hotel in Brighton.

What I am trying to say is that "real terrorists", who mean business, seem to target the police, the army and important political figures. The Taliban in Aghanistan mow down politicians and their relatives regularly and are targeting the police and army most often. The IRA are not shy of going after the British Army and took a run at one Prime Minister.

In contrast, in Europe, the so-called "Islamists" consistently choose very soft targets of no strategic value.

Coincidentally, this was what was done by the right wing paramilitary units controlled by secret branches of NATO country secret services, and the CIA, during the period when Operation Gladio was active. With the exception of the left leaning Aldo Moro of Italy, I can't think of the so-called "red brigades" targeting a head of state, and then it came out that Moro was actually killed by right wing paramilitary operatives involved in Gladio.

The only use of soft target attacks is to mold public opinion. That was their purpose during the wave of fake terror perpetrated by Gladio and blamed on leftist militants. In the case of the Manchester attack, opinion is being turned against Muslims (very probably).

Bottom line, I'm suspicious of this "soft target" attack.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: UKTruth

Again and hopefully for the last time , I have never stated we should apologise to terrorists
only to the countries where foreign intervention and interference in their affairs has taken place which has then given rise to terror cells directly opposed to the west

I see your point. It would do nothing other than ridicule the apologizing country. Radical islam terrorizes the West because the West is not muslim. The West bombing their countries is just oil on fire but not the basic issue.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I could explain that what the US and UK governments are doing in the Middle East countries just breeds more terrorists...but you wouldn't believe that is the cause...you keep believing that its a religious issue.

There is a solution, but narrow minded people only sees the "keep bombing the Muslim countries" as a solution....do you see the viscous circle that creates?

Stop interfering in countries that have no business of yours.

Do you think Trump's friendship with Saudi Arabia and Israel will create less "terrorists" or more? Obama didn't maybe do enough, but at least he distanced himself a bit from these terrorist nations who continue to terrorize innocent people.

This incident was a despicable act by a deranged person/s who most likely was radicalized by whoever knows, and I condemn them absolutely.

a reply to: ipsedixit

The easiest answer is that in the Middle East countries it is Sunni/Shia conflicts that have been going on since 700 AD. Add in the additional 'sects' and you have multiple factions of Islam within the same ideology who hate each other. They are at war and it is not terrorism.

a reply to: ipsedixit

Maybe you have a point.

But why would they attack the heads of state if they are currently ggetting what they want.

Who would they attack, Merkel? The very lady who has allowed them a foothold into Europe? That makes no sense at all for the strategically.

The same with armed forces. Why risk bringing the hammer down? They know that right now that one of the first reactions to the country they attack will be many of that countries higher ups immediately almost before thinking of the victims will be to lecture people on not blaming Islam.

This makes it a total victory for them. They believe that their religion says to wipe out the infidels (not all Muslims I mean Isis and other terrorists groups), so they attack soft targets, bring fear to a country that causes them to give up rights, and then those people fight among themselves if they are even allowed to fight back, and welcome in more "refugees".

What would you think if you were in Isis? Certainly would seem like God was looking out for you, wouldn't it?

a reply to: celticniall

Interference and bombing of countries does make the problem worse. But this problem would exist even without that.

And for you to then claim that somehow Obama didn't do enough and distanced himself from terrorists, belittling his war mongering regime changing behavior, how dare you then attempt to belittle other by saying you would explain things to them but they wouldn't understand.

How many terrorists did Obama arm in Libya and Syria in an attempt to overthrow those countries? But you are right, he was a nobel peace prize winner, he just didn't do enough.

a reply to: ipsedixit

The IRA were murdering, terrorist scumbags.
Yes, they targeted innocent 'civilians' on numerous occasions.

Which bombing attributed to the IRA was allegedly carried out by Loyalists?

A terrorist is a terrorist - pretty simple really.

I could go on at length about The Troubles etc but this isn't the time or place.

originally posted by: auroraaus

She goes on to say the lady disappeared a few minutes before the end of the show and bags weren't checked before the show.

I'm thinking it might have been a lady with mental health/intellectual issues or someone making a mountain out of a molehill. I would hope anyway.

Are you trolling?
If we weren't talking about the death of innocent people, I'd give you a star and be rolling around the floor in laughter.

a reply to: Grambler

if terrorists wanted to come here to kill our systems of governance they would merkel or no!

every terror attack in the west is always on civilian populations , if they hate the western governments so much they do very little to destabilise our systems of government or our armed forces.

I no longer believe in coincidence but how strange a bomb attack on civilians , near a general election
when parties look to solidify power they turn to the public who vote for them
a public who is very much afraid and will want any form of protection or any agreement or promise of safety
including any rights they are so willing to lose in order to feel safe

lets just see how many parties start pulling out the " we will increase spending on public safety" we will hunt down terror cells with increased spending on security and armed forces etc etc !
we need to ensure our armed forces are strong enough to deal with any challenge
few months later after general election we are invading some poor middle eastern country
and spending billions on weapons , while our people live in food banks and their people live in destroyed houses
and drink polluted water

and that is just how sad this whole #ing show is , where they can use the death of children to further their own agenda to satisfy their own lust for power to benefit them and their families only

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

To end western foregin policy and interference in sovereign democracies which is directly related to the creation of terror cells which attack and kill innocent people to damage the public opinion of governments at home and to spread terror and fear

and also to end the mass production of arms and ordnance world wide

that is what Id call a good start

Wanna' throw "World Peace", "ending World Hunger" and "boiling the oceans" in there anywhere?

Just checking; now would be a good time.

So let's break down your statement, shall we?

To end western foregin policy and interference in sovereign democracies...

How exactly would you propose this be done? Foreign policy is based upon trade, so should the west just stop trading with non-western nations? How about the reciprocal trade agreements (where these nations wish to purchase goods and services from the west)? Define "interference"; does this mean turning a blind eye when innocent citizens are killed INSIDE the borders of your own country?? Where (and how) exactly do you propose to start this notion of "ending foreign policy and interference" in so called "sovereign democracies"? Just ignore these non-western countries and their deeds, ignore them and look the other way???

... which is directly related to the creation of terror cells which attack and kill innocent people to damage the public opinion of governments at home and to spread terror and fear.

Blah, blah...blah. No, what is directly related to the creation of terror cells is "ideology". It has nothing (or little) to do with foreign policy and interference. Sure, they use this as an excuse for context, but if you study your history you'll see it's been going on for a hell of a lot longer than any foreign policy and interference!

and also to end the mass production of arms and ordnance world wide

Now this one is laughable! In case you hadn't noticed, ideological wars (religious wars) have been going on for thousands of years...since the time of rocks and sticks, swords and fire. A weapon is just a tool. Oh, and by the way, countries like Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Pakistan make MILLIONS of AK-47's (and all their derivatives) and literally TRILLIONS of rounds of ammunition. So how, exactly, would you propose this be stopped??? Oh yeah...through stopping 'foreign policy and interference', right?

And lastly, if it wasn't painfully obvious already...there is exactly zero evidence to suggest the "terrorist" bomb which went off in Manchester last night was made from any "mass production" of "ordnance", but rather likely made from common materials which are readily available to anyone. Oops!

that is what Id call a good start

I think not, and would further suggest you're just living in fantasy land.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: UKTruth

Again and hopefully for the last time , I have never stated we should apologise to terrorists
only to the countries where foreign intervention and interference in their affairs has taken place which has then given rise to terror cells directly opposed to the west

So how would you go about apologising to Iran, for example? They sponsor terrorism. What gifts would we give them to stop them financing radicals to kill us? Be specific.

a reply to: Freeborn

McGurk's Bar in Belfast.

www.theguardian.com...

A report by Northern Ireland's police ombudsman is expected to expose the role the RUC played in providing false information about who was responsible for the McGurk's pub bombing in 1971. The attack on the north Belfast bar was carried out by the Ulster Volunteer Force but unionist politicians initially tried to blame the Provisional IRA.

Yes, the IRA did attack civilians, but not only civilians. they attacked the army, the police and Margaret Thatcher.

I'm not trying to paint them as heroes but simply saying that most of what the "islamists" have done in Europe matches the Gladio paradigm and doesn't match the modus operandi of the IRA or the Taliban.

a reply to: sapien82

But none of what you describe as a reaction proves that this was a false flag.

Is it not possible that leaders use tragedies to their benefit, AND those tragedies actually happened?

I am not saying false flags have never happened or that it is wrong to be skeptical and heavily look into any incident.

But surely not every incident is a false flag and their is terroristic acts outside of the control of these governments.

a reply to: UKTruth

Why, a 747 load full of cold hard CASH, right???

Gee, that worked, huh?

(THUD!)

a reply to: ipsedixit

Whilst initially being primarily politically motivated both the Nationalist and Unionist terrorists ultimately became more concerned with gangsterism and racketeering.

The vast majority of Muslim terrorists are ideologically motivated by one radical viewpoint or another and passionate belief in their religious superiority and justification.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: UKTruth

A plane load of cold hard CASH???

Gee, that worked, huh?

(THUD!)

Indeed. I am very keen to hear new ideas about the proposed apology and gifts for Iran that will stop this...

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk





People will blame these heinous acts on any and every thing but what it is: religious ideology that preaches a radical hatred of anything that doesn't embrace their version of Islam.

a reply to: Freeborn

That's right. I was in Ireland in 1975 and an Irish lady from one of those very troubled neighborhoods in Belfast told me that the IRA were gangsters who collected "taxes" and ran protection rackets. Typically Irish, she debunked several other Irish myths. I had to chuckle when he said she thought Brazil was greener than Ireland.