Thread: Not again Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005684
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Fuck
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
quote:
Police have confirmed children are among the 22 people who were killed
Fuck again.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Scary times.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
Indeed, an hour is coming when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God.
From last night's lectionary reading, to which I turned when I heard the news.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
quote:
Indeed, an hour is coming when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God.
From last night's lectionary reading, to which I turned when I heard the news.
Indeed. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
quote:
Indeed, an hour is coming when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God.
From last night's lectionary reading, to which I turned when I heard the news.
Not sure how much help that is - many different factions in various conflicts we're involved in seem to think that they're offering worship to God.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Is it possible for you just once to refrain from gratuitously pissing immediately on other people's heartfelt comments, especially when expressed from the epicentre of a traumatic event?
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
It seemed too political to add such a 'lectio' word to an all-saints thread, and foolish also to add it here. You won't like the next verse either, I guess:
quote:
And they will do this because they have not known the Father or me.
But then that goes for Timothy McVeigh, PIRA, UVF...all of us, God save us.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
I'm going to leave this thread - sorry folks, I shouldn't have come. If anyone wants to follow the reading and reflect on it, I use this.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Heard it in the night on World Service, which I use to combat insomnia.
From the reports, it sounds as though some of the children there may be finding that their parent, or, God help them, parents, are among the victims.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Is it possible for you just once to refrain from gratuitously pissing immediately on other people's heartfelt comments, especially when expressed from the epicentre of a traumatic event?
I wasn't doing anything gratutiously, I was reflecting on the lextionary, which is rather the point of it.
The event is disgusting. The calls for internment in the wake of it are fascist.
How about you take your self-righteousness and put it away and allow people to reflect and come to terms with this event in their own way?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
We have all been shocked, sickened, appalled by this event. But isn't the fact that we have already descended to argument one of the responses that the terrorists are hoping to evoke?
I know this is Hell, and I know I'll get accused of junior hosting ... but please let's not go down this line.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I think Jesus was talking about the near future, not 2000 years away.
These things happened then, but the weapons were not as destructive ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
For every terrorist there are 50,000,000 good people helping in every way they possibly can. All strength to them.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I don't know yet who did this.
But to whoever it is: Fuck You.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Is it possible for you just once to refrain from gratuitously pissing immediately on other people's heartfelt comments, especially when expressed from the epicentre of a traumatic event?
I wasn't doing anything gratutiously
A piece of advice, that is probably true in almost all situations, if your first thought is "I'm not sure if this will help" then the best course of action is not to say anything. I say that as someone who would tend towards wanting to analyse and discuss things, recognising that most people at the moment don't find that helpful.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Fucking Hell
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Please stop giving me advice. I think that words matter and that various groups are using weapons as worship of God.
I think it is helpful to reflect upon that at this time.
If you don't like that thought, don't post in hell.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think that words matter and that various groups are using weapons as worship of God.
I think it is helpful to reflect upon that at this time.
Knock yourself out. I'm sure that could be discussed in Purgatory. Or, Kerygmania if you want to reflect on the lectionary passage. Whether anyone else is interested in discussing your sanctimonous twaddle is another matter.
quote:
If you don't like that thought, don't post in hell.
You don't get to make that decision. Even I don't get to make that decision.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think it is helpful to reflect upon that at this time.
Reflection isn't banned in Hell, but, you know, the fact that the pools of water keep evaporating makes it difficult.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
OK whatever.
I'm sorry for posting a thought that isn't acceptable and which caused pain.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Props to my dear friend and Mancunian Andrew Graystone for doing something helpful, recognised as such to the extent that the BBC upgraded his hastily-penned Prayer For The Day, requested at 2am, to today's Radio 4 Thought For The Day.
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
This magnificent city has faced assault before (the Manchester Blitz and the IRA bombing of 1996 for example) but we are a resilient folk in the North West. We were not cowed before and we will not be cowed now. We will weep but, supporting each other, we will stand again.
"Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted." Matt 5:4
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK whatever.
I'm sorry for posting a thought that isn't acceptable and which caused pain.
Growth is the best kind of change. Thanks for the gesture.
Know that it wasn't a matter of acceptability, but entirely about the immediate pain of grief.
It is so saddening to see how hatred and fear is self-perpetuating. We are not better than this. But that doesn't mean we can't strive to be.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
It is an appalling attack. Aim to kill and maim people enjoying an evening out. Thoughts and prayers with all those involved. We had an email around today at work saying that some of our staff are affected (I don't know how closely or any more). It brings it very close to home - the reality that other people I may have spoken to or met, in an office like mine, are impacted.
And I was so angry at Amber Rudd this morning - "this attack on the most vulnerable among us". No they are not - and you should know, as you seek to attack them. They were not the very vulnerable - they were families, with money and ability to get out to a concert. Dragging out the usual trite phrases at a time like this.
These were normal, ordinary people, ordinary families, enjoying a night out at a concert. May God hold them all.
[ 23. May 2017, 17:22: Message edited by: Schroedinger's cat ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Manchester. Dignified, defiant, kind. The taxi drivers. The hotels. The poor helpless stupid bastard Salman Abedi and the spiritually destitute moral cretins behind him. Love will yet save them. It's already won this battle in ... Manchester.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's Cat:
quote:
And I was so angry at Amber Rudd this morning - "this attack on the most vulnerable among us". No they are not - and you should know, as you seek to attack them. They were not the very vulnerable - they were families, with money and ability to get out to a concert. Dragging out the usual trite phrases at a time like this.
I hold no brief for Ms. Rudd. But I struggle to think of anyone more vulnerable than an eight year old child caught in the blast radius of a terrorist bomb.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Within the blast radius of a bomb everyone is equally vulnerable.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Within the blast radius of a bomb everyone is equally vulnerable.
I think this is what I meant - we are all vulnerable to a bomb blast. We are all at risk from this.
These were ordinary people, out for an evening. It was us, you and me, not "the vulnerable", which is "others".
I don't know, it just sounded wrong, victim-blaming, typical Tory keywords. I don;t want to make something political out of it, I just found it wrong.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Schroedinger's Cat, my hackles rose when I heard Amber Rudd too. Horrendous incident, targeting a concert attracting a young audience, all that is horrible and evil. But not the "most vulnerable in our society", I immediately thought of the children in poverty and homeless, the ones where schools are fundraising to fund food parcels home and clothes to put on the children's backs, not those who can afford £50 odd a ticket to see a pop star.
[ 23. May 2017, 21:13: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Callan.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK whatever.
I'm sorry for posting a thought that isn't acceptable and which caused pain.
Growth is the best kind of change. Thanks for the gesture.
Know that it wasn't a matter of acceptability, but entirely about the immediate pain of grief.
It is so saddening to see how hatred and fear is self-perpetuating. We are not better than this. But that doesn't mean we can't strive to be.
Manchester is.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Schroedinger's Cat, my hackles rose when I heard Amber Rudd too. Horrendous incident, targeting a concert attracting a young audience, all that is horrible and evil. But not the "most vulnerable in our society", I immediately thought of the children in poverty and homeless, the ones where schools are fundraising to fund food parcels home and clothes to put on the children's backs, not those who can afford £50 odd a ticket to see a pop star.
I'm sorry but this is just weird. With a hint, an edge of ... nasty. There will have been working class and underclass kids there. Fifty quid for birthdays chipped in by family members, saved up four FOUR YEARS, paid on credit cards. The undeserving 'rich'? Bollocks.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
No Martin, it's a reflection on the children I work with, who don't get to go to concerts and who we send home with food parcels to make sure they get an evening meal. Several of them we are also providing with clothes that aren't in holes. Three of them have been evicted this year due to parents not being able to cover the rent.
That's not considering the neglect and maltreatment.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Within the blast radius of a bomb everyone is equally vulnerable.
Can't argue with that.
Our bombs, their bombs, all bombs.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I don't know, it just sounded wrong, victim-blaming, typical Tory keywords.
Really not sure how you get to victim-blaming. To me, it was a fairly standard "this wasn't an attack on soldiers, it was an attack on a bunch of young girls" statement.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I don't know, it just sounded wrong, victim-blaming, typical Tory keywords.
Really not sure how you get to victim-blaming. To me, it was a fairly standard "this wasn't an attack on soldiers, it was an attack on a bunch of young girls" statement.
Can we halt this tangent - I think it is distracting. A couple of us found Rudds statement sounded wrong, but I don't think I am able to put into words exactly why.
But the read story is those killed and injured. And more so, those wonderful people who went in to help, who "pulled nails out of a childs face", who saved lives.
Manchester, you are amazing.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Within the blast radius of a bomb everyone is equally vulnerable.
Exactly ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Children in Manchester didn't deserve to be blown up any more than children in Syria deserved to die or children on the Med deserve to drown or countless others deserve lives of misery.
Victim-blaming and scapegoating isn't going to help. We are all simultaneously to blame and also not to blame - none of us here physically blew anyone up or gave any succor to those who did. Those kids at a pop concert were not harming anyone beyond the crazed gaze of the fanatics.
But we are also all to blame for living in a world where shit happens. Where homeless people live outside stadiums where others spend £50 for a night of entertainment. Where we feed the press sharks to intrude into the grief of others to satisfy our appetite for personal stories. Where the state which has such potential to do so much good so often does such damage. Where bad things go on beyond the horizon in our name in places we don't know and can't understand.
The question is then whether we're going to turn on our neighbours, whether we're going to tweet crap about interning people, whether we're going to cower in fear of the brown face, whether we're going to reach for the pitchforks.
Or whether we're going to stand in the ashes and say Father forgive - not Father forgive them.
Because we must be kind to one another, tender hearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave us.
[ 24. May 2017, 07:25: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
No Martin, it's a reflection on the children I work with, who don't get to go to concerts and who we send home with food parcels to make sure they get an evening meal. Several of them we are also providing with clothes that aren't in holes. Three of them have been evicted this year due to parents not being able to cover the rent.
That's not considering the neglect and maltreatment.
What's that got to do with this deliberate insane atrocity against innocent children, pretty young girls, by a helpless depraved loser unhinged by the worse suffering of his parental culture? Of which OUR shared culture, which almost helplessly allows the suffering you almost helplessly experience, is complicit. You are seeing the world through your MOST worthy glasses. There were similar voices after 9 11. Rowan Williams soared in my view by saying saying nothing was most appropriate.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Can I just say that I think it's pretty fucking appalling that the Home Secretary *has had to tell* the US government to not leak anymore information that may undermine the investigation.
You know what, sod lighting up monuments and picking the right words for your tribute, don't fuck up attempts to find the perpetrator's associates and prevent a second attack ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
mr cheesy.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
When was the last time soldiers were deployed on the streets? 2005?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I don't know, it just sounded wrong, victim-blaming, typical Tory keywords.
Really not sure how you get to victim-blaming. To me, it was a fairly standard "this wasn't an attack on soldiers, it was an attack on a bunch of young girls" statement.
Can we halt this tangent - I think it is distracting. A couple of us found Rudds statement sounded wrong, but I don't think I am able to put into words exactly why.
But the read story is those killed and injured. And more so, those wonderful people who went in to help, who "pulled nails out of a childs face", who saved lives.
Manchester, you are amazing.
That ended better.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What is wrong with the FUCKING Americans? Morons, utter FUCKING morons.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I'm sorry about both the bombing and the leak. Also the continued danger.
FWIW: I read the article to which Martin linked. I didn't see anything that specifically indicated it was someone in the US gov't who was the leak. (Especially with the current crew. The Keystone Cops (old comedy act in films) could do a much better job.) They may well have been. They seem to leak things all the time. But the major networks cited are quite capable of finding other sources.
*Not defending the leaker.* Just saying there may be more possibilities than the US gov't.
FWIW, YMMV.
I hope anyone else involved in what happened and/or any future plans is quickly caught and brought to justice.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
British newspapers said it was a US official who gave them the information.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Victim-blaming and scapegoating isn't going to help. We are all simultaneously to blame and also not to blame - none of us here physically blew anyone up or gave any succor to those who did. Those kids at a pop concert were not harming anyone beyond the crazed gaze of the fanatics.
But we are also all to blame for living in a world where shit happens.
How can each of us, as individuals, avoid living in a world where shit happens?
Moo
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
We can't avoid it.
Maybe as individuals we can choose to sit in it...or shovel it though?
[ 24. May 2017, 12:13: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
Re: Americans spilling the beans - they can just do one, as far as I'm concerned, the fucking simpletons; anything to distract from the train-wreck which is their current political situation. President Buffoon is trying to find out how they financed the Wailing Wall and struggling to do joined-up writing in the guest book..... ooh, look - an Ayrab Name in England - let's put that out there, it'll be out eventually anyway, and we'll be first - Yay, go us!
My son's a nurse in Manchester as it happens, and it took an hour on the phone last night to calm him down and try to clear his mind after what was a difficult day. The arrest made in association with the bomber was from an address not far from where he lives too. Whilst Mrs passer and I were in conversation with him, he made no reference to the perp, or the perp's religion, or the perp's ethnicity, which is no more than I would have expected. He was far more forthcoming about the positives he witnessed - the un-rostered staff coming in to help out (medical and others), the food and coffee donated by local businesses to the hospitals, and the cameraderie evident between all the emergency services.
I'm not looking forward to the creeping politicisation of this outrage over the next couple of weeks as Theresa Thatcher seeks to emulate her heroine.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I read this article yesterday which I thought was rather good.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Victim-blaming and scapegoating isn't going to help. We are all simultaneously to blame and also not to blame - none of us here physically blew anyone up or gave any succor to those who did. Those kids at a pop concert were not harming anyone beyond the crazed gaze of the fanatics.
But we are also all to blame for living in a world where shit happens.
How can each of us, as individuals, avoid living in a world where shit happens?
Moo
We can't. But we can avoid throwing it at one another.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Victim-blaming and scapegoating isn't going to help. We are all simultaneously to blame and also not to blame - none of us here physically blew anyone up or gave any succor to those who did. Those kids at a pop concert were not harming anyone beyond the crazed gaze of the fanatics.
But we are also all to blame for living in a world where shit happens.
How can each of us, as individuals, avoid living in a world where shit happens?
Moo
We can't. But we can avoid throwing it at one another.
I agree.
Moo
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Victim-blaming and scapegoating isn't going to help. We are all simultaneously to blame and also not to blame - none of us here physically blew anyone up or gave any succor to those who did. Those kids at a pop concert were not harming anyone beyond the crazed gaze of the fanatics.
But we are also all to blame for living in a world where shit happens.
How can each of us, as individuals, avoid living in a world where shit happens?
Moo
We can't. But we can avoid throwing it at one another.
We can also quit supporting policies which incresase the likelyhood of these events happening.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
We can also stop cutting police numbers. Oops, sorry, now I'm playing politics with Manchester.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
How can each of us, as individuals, avoid living in a world where shit happens?
Moo
We can't. But we can avoid throwing it at one another.
We can also quit supporting policies which incresase the likelyhood of these events happening.
Isn't supporting policies that increase the likelyhood of such events happening part of throwing shit at one another?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
British newspapers said it was a US official who gave them the information.
The Guardian says US officials leaked info, as did French officials. This makes the investigation more difficult and damages our security relationship with our closest ally. Those assholes. What part of "shut the fuck up" is so hard to understand?
And Alex Jones of InfoWars infamy says it was a bunch of "liberal trendies" who got bombed. Yeah, a crowd full of girls in England is your enemy, Alex. I hope to God you lose your custody battle.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
How can each of us, as individuals, avoid living in a world where shit happens?
Moo
We can't. But we can avoid throwing it at one another.
We can also quit supporting policies which incresase the likelyhood of these events happening.
Isn't supporting policies that increase the likelyhood of such events happening part of throwing shit at one another?
I think so. But I don't think everyone sees it this way.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
British newspapers said it was a US official who gave them the information.
The Guardian says US officials leaked info, as did French officials. This makes the investigation more difficult and damages our security relationship with our closest ally. Those assholes. What part of "shut the fuck up" is so hard to understand?
And Alex Jones of InfoWars infamy says it was a bunch of "liberal trendies" who got bombed. Yeah, a crowd full of girls in England is your enemy, Alex. I hope to God you lose your custody battle.
A bunch of working class girls as well, from what I can tell from TV. Many from M/c and Liverpool, and other towns, such as Blackburn. Liberal trendies, what a tosser.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Even if the audience were "liberal trendies" it doesn't make one jot of difference. Liberal trendies don't deserve to be ripped apart by bombs any more than anyone else. Tosser indeed.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The Guardian says US officials leaked info, as did French officials. This makes the investigation more difficult and damages our security relationship with our closest ally. Those assholes. What part of "shut the fuck up" is so hard to understand?
The NYT has published photos from the crime scene. I'm not exactly sure how you do crime investigation in the USA, but we don't tend to do it in public and in the media in real time.
Just in case you were wondering. If this means that somehow it affects a future prosecution and/or the safety of this nation, this is on you.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
That was **after** the Home Secretary had said they had asked them to make sure it didn't happen again.
What the fuck is wrong with them, have they not heard of the phrase no comment.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
Predictably, the Police have decided to stop sharing information with the US.
I hope whoever is behind the leaks is proud of not only interfering with an ongoing investigation, but of making their own country less secure.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
If John Le Carré novels are anything to go by, any cessation of intelligence-sharing between the UK and the US is likely to hurt the former far more than the latter.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Access to 'Five Eyes' intelligence material is supposed to be one of the aces up our sleeves in the coming Brexit negotiations. It's not going to be much cop if the other eyes decide that sharing with the US is just a roundabout way of getting stuff on CNN or handed to the Lubyanka.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
True but "not hurting ourselves as bad as our (supposed) ally" is a pretty low bar.
[x-post]
[ 25. May 2017, 09:07: Message edited by: Paul. ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
It's a bit awkward, isn't it?
On the one hand, everyone (here, at least) appears delighted when the US intelligence community (or the Filipino one, for that matter) reveals information that can damage Trump's presidency. On the other, everyone seems to be condemning these leaks.
As I said here: quote:
The intelligence community in particular needs to exercise the power its access and knowledge grants it in a restrained fashion.
That cuts both ways.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If John Le Carré novels are anything to go by, any cessation of intelligence-sharing between the UK and the US is likely to hurt the former far more than the latter.
IIRC John Le Carré's novels were written against the background of Burgess, Philby, Maclean and Blunt, which compromised our secret services no end. I'd like to think we are it more clued up now, and aren't using card-carrying Oxbridge Communist dons to recruit our spies.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Mr. Cheesy wrote:
quote:
The NYT has published photos from the crime scene. I'm not exactly sure how you do crime investigation in the USA, but we don't tend to do it in public and in the media in real time.
Well, the BBC apparently had no compunction about publishing these photos. (Scroll down for the corpse.)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If John Le Carré novels are anything to go by, any cessation of intelligence-sharing between the UK and the US is likely to hurt the former far more than the latter.
IIRC John Le Carré's novels were written against the background of Burgess, Philby, Maclean and Blunt, which compromised our secret services no end. I'd like to think we are it more clued up now, and aren't using card-carrying Oxbridge Communist dons to recruit our spies.
Perhaps not, but my point was that the intelligence-gathering capacity of the US far exceeds that of the UK.
I understand the UK reaction to this apparently rather thoughtless publication, but from where I'm sitting it encapsulates the illusion in the UK that it is on some sort of an equal footing with the US in just about everything except possibly baseball.
Le Carré's books suggest this misperception is not a new thing.
[ 25. May 2017, 09:46: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I don't know of course, but my impression is that intelligence has always been a commodity that is traded rather than shared without restriction - even between close allies.
With reference to the US-UK, my guess is that the intelligence sharing has been lopsided for a long time, with far more going to the US than to the UK.
To some extent as a "smaller brother" this has been a natural cost of having the US as a protector and friend, but this becomes increasingly strained when it appears the US administration can't be trusted to shut up about fairly basic stuff.
They don't seem to give a shit about the safety of Israeli intelligence sources, they don't seem to care that they don't normally tell people about their own naval movements, they don't seem to even care about the potential impacts of telling the whole world about a British crime scene.
The point where I agree that there is hypocrisy is where the British press gleefully reprinted the photos yesterday and now are going all #crossface today about the US officials leaking them.
Once again, the press seem to think that they've got no responsibility for spreading things once they're out there in the wild.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, the BBC apparently had no compunction about publishing these photos. (Scroll down for the corpse.)
The problem is not whether or not graphic images are published, but whether sensitive information about the event (such as the type of detonator, identity of the perpetrator) is disclosed over-hastily and thus short-circuits police investigations by alerting co-conspirators.
Once it's out, it's out: it's fair game for everyone. That's standard nondisclosure rules in play.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
The problem is not whether or not graphic images are published, but whether sensitive information about the event (such as the type of detonator, identity of the perpetrator) is disclosed over-hastily and thus short-circuits police investigations by alerting co-conspirators.
Yes, I understand what the objection is.
But when the editors are making a decision about what to publish within hours or even minutes of the crime happening, do they really have the wherewithal to determine what is and isn't a hinderance to the investigation? Did the BBC know for a fact that nothing in the Turkish photos would compromise the police work?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Once it's out, it's out: it's fair game for everyone. That's standard nondisclosure rules in play.
This absolves newspaper editors from having to do any thinking or taking any moral decisions as to their own work. Just because everyone else is hassling victims and spreading photos of crime scenes doesn't mean that you have to.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Well it's well-known that "if it bleeds, it leads".
I think that historically there is a difference in how crime has been reported in the US and in the UK, with the UK being less immediately forthcoming/more attentive to police guidelines.
To my mind revealing the perpetrator's name early on, which US sources also did, was potentially more damaging and didn't really add anything to the story.
My personal guess is that the UK government was more upset by the photo leak because they are more sure that came from their own intelligence sources. (US sources were quoted as saying it was a suicide bomber well before anybody else was, which has made me wonder ever since this happened whether the US has not in fact had its own intel on this from the outset)
<secures tinfoil hat more firmly on head>
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Once it's out, it's out: it's fair game for everyone. That's standard nondisclosure rules in play.
This absolves newspaper editors from having to do any thinking or taking any moral decisions as to their own work. Just because everyone else is hassling victims and spreading photos of crime scenes doesn't mean that you have to.
We are talking about two different things here: intelligence-sharing and journalistic ethics.
I never said anything about hassling victims, but the rules on what counts as breach of confidentiality and what doesn't are clear.
The standard first exception is "any material that can be shown to have previously entered the public domain".
News organisations, especially TV news organisations, are increasingly being driven by only one thing: ratings. If they can publish without being sued (or sued for less than they will bring in in advertising revenue) they will.
The moral choice these days is more about which news organisations one chooses to consume and which photos one chooses to ogle at - or not.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Nope, not saying you were defending hassling victims, I'm just expressing annoyance at how it happens constantly in the British media.
I'm not disagreeing with you about how it happens, I'm just annoyed that it does and nobody seems to be even trying to buck the trend.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
On the one hand, everyone (here, at least) appears delighted when the US intelligence community (or the Filipino one, for that matter) reveals information that can damage Trump's presidency. On the other, everyone seems to be condemning these leaks.
I think there are problems because there are different types of leak, and probably different reasons for leaking. (here, "leak" meaning to pass information to the press or otherwise make it publically known - rather than passing secrets to the intelligence services of other nations)
There is information various people have that if leaked would lead to embarresment for politicians and other public figures, but without significant wider implications. If that info is in the hands of someone unhappy about their government then I can see why they might be tempted to leak it.
On the other hand, information about (say) the location of particular military assets could have much more significant implications. I'm not sure what someone would gain by leaking that sort of information. And, information relevant to ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions would be included in that category.
I basically don't understand what someone gained by passing this information to the press - unless the press paid for it (in which case, IMO, it becomes even more dispicable). If someone of interest to the investigation flees the country because of premature release of information, or if the defense in a criminal prosecution can have some evidence ruled inadmissible because it's been tainted by media reporting and discussion that the jury would be aware of, then this could have serious ramifications.
And, the media are not above reproach either. Someone decided that they would publish this information, that sales and circulation were more important than the integrity of an ongoing police investigation and respect to the bereaved and injured.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Eutychus wrote:
quote:
with the UK being less immediately forthcoming/more attentive to police guidelines.
Well, I'd be curious to know how these tactics conformed to the police guidelines.
Granted, the journalists in question got called out in that instance, but still, it was pretty apparent that they were accustomed to operating in an anything-goes atmopshere, with little or no regard for what either the police or the victims would have wanted.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Eutychus wrote:
quote:
with the UK being less immediately forthcoming/more attentive to police guidelines.
Well, I'd be curious to know how these tactics conformed to the police guidelines.
I was thinking, admittedly, in terms of terrorism and the like. But as you say, they were called out on it.
Am I right in thinking that in the US there is no equivalent body to the UK's Press Complaints Commission? First Amendment and all that.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
information about (say) the location of particular military assets could have much more significant implications. I'm not sure what someone would gain by leaking that sort of information.
As regards Trump's recent blunders, the leaks are about those leaks and clearly designed to embarrass the presidency. quote:
I basically don't understand what someone gained by passing this information to the press
My reading, Stetson notwithstanding, is more that here it is the result of a rather-too-cozy relationship between the intelligence services and the media in the US that has been nurtured by a mutual desire to bury the Trump administration.
quote:
unless the press paid for it (in which case, IMO, it becomes even more dispicable).
I suspect information is traded on a quid pro quo basis: journalists can be sources for the intelligence community as well as the other way around.
quote:
And, the media are not above reproach either. Someone decided that they would publish this information, that sales and circulation were more important than the integrity of an ongoing police investigation and respect to the bereaved and injured.
Again, I suspect mass-circulation media care little.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Eutychus wrote:
quote:
Am I right in thinking that in the US there is no equivalent body to the UK's Press Complaints Commission? First Amendment and all that.
According to what I read on wiki, the Press Complaints Commission was a vountary body and, as far as I can tell, independent of the government. So I don't think the US First Amendment would prohibit the establishment of such a group in that country.
I can't tell if the Independent Press Standards Organization, which replaced the PCC after the Murdoch scandals, is totally separate from the government. Wikipedia seems ambiguous on this.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Trump certainly seems to have lost no time capitalising on the condemnation of the latest "leaks" to cast those exposing him in a bad light...
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I can't tell if the Independent Press Standards Organization, which replaced the PCC after the Murdoch scandals, is totally separate from the government. Wikipedia seems ambiguous on this.
It's a bit of a mess. The long and the short of it is that a government inquiry - Leveson - made some recommendations as to what a regulator should look like.
A voluntary regulator was set up that met the recommendations, but most of the newspapers refused to join it, and instead set up their own body - which is said not to meet the standards set by Leveson.
So there is a bit of a standoff. They're voluntary bodies, but one is more official than the other, and that's the one which most of the media hasn't joined.
[ 25. May 2017, 15:41: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Trump certainly seems to have lost no time capitalising on the condemnation of the latest "leaks" to cast those exposing him in a bad light...
I think he's gas-lighting. I suspect these leaks actually came from him, he didn't even think for a second about the effect it might have in the UK (just like he didn't think about the effects it might have to tell the Russians secrets from the Israelis and he didn't think about what he was telling the Phillipinos) and now he's just repeating the mantra that leaks are really bad and he's going to catch and punish those who do such evil leaking.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Trump certainly seems to have lost no time capitalising on the condemnation of the latest "leaks" to cast those exposing him in a bad light...
I think he's gas-lighting. I suspect these leaks actually came from him
There's absolutely zero evidence for that. The BBC claim that the leak is from police sources rather than the White House.
I think what Trump is good at is not so much manipulating information through leaks but turning anything and everything that crops up to fit his own narrative, as he has done here. This fits with what I know about con artists.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
There's absolutely zero evidence for that. The BBC claim that the leak is from police sources rather than the White House.
I think what Trump is good at is not so much manipulating information through leaks but turning anything and everything that crops up to fit his own narrative, as he has done here. This fits with what I know about con artists.
Yeah, this strikes me very much as Trump jumping onto what he assumes is shaping up to be an anti-leak bandwagon, to suit his own purposes.
Right now, his own credibility is being damaged by leaks, so he's using the supposedly unpopular Manchester leaks to tarnish the entire concept of leaking.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
My theory is that Trump almost always parrots what he hears people talking about him, because he seems to think that attacking others takes the heat off his actions.
So he's attacking others for leaking.. because he's leaking. He attacked others for poor use of classified data because he's been told off for poor use of classified data.
Etc and so on.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(US sources were quoted as saying it was a suicide bomber well before anybody else was, which has made me wonder ever since this happened whether the US has not in fact had its own intel on this from the outset)
This is merely a rather obvious conclusion. Which almost anyone could draw. I could predict that there will be another attack by a suicide bomber and a shooter and I will likely be right. The social, economic and political conditions and decisions-making by governments in western countries where young middle easterners have come to be educated or to live, have bred this. For a new example, rather obvious, does anyone seriously think that trump signing a $110billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia will not piss off both some young Saudis and Iranians living in our countries?
[ 25. May 2017, 18:13: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Alan--
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, the media are not above reproach either. Someone decided that they would publish this information, that sales and circulation were more important than the integrity of an ongoing police investigation and respect to the bereaved and injured.
Pretty common here in the US, I'm afraid.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Alan--
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, the media are not above reproach either. Someone decided that they would publish this information, that sales and circulation were more important than the integrity of an ongoing police investigation and respect to the bereaved and injured.
Pretty common here in the US, I'm afraid.
Yes, re: "respect for the bereaved and injured", that horse left the barn a long long time ago. As long as I've been reading newspapers(ie. since the early 1980s), I've been seeeing photos of carnage and destruction, corpses included, splayed across the pages of even the most respectable outlets.
And I can't help but notice that images of First World victims(eg. the kids in Manchester) tend to elicit more hand-wringing than equally graphic photos taken from impoverished and war-torn venues.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
We have news outlets who are not above making scurrilous stuff up about the deceased, so as to drive conspiracy theories and therefore ratings. In the latest of these, only an opinion piece in the POST written by the bereaved parents got Faux News to stop.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
quote:
Indeed, an hour is coming when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God.
From last night's lectionary reading, to which I turned when I heard the news.
Not sure how much help that is - many different factions in various conflicts we're involved in seem to think that they're offering worship to God.
OK, a little time has passed, and I want to go back to this. I'm not sure it needs to be in Hell, but here we are. Mr Cheesy's rebuke to me was not at all hellish, and I don't want to be hellish in return, but:
If someone were saying today that 'those evil xxx and their evil actions this week are foretold in prophesy yyy, thus saith the Lord' - then yes, I could see such an approach a) entirely lacks balance and b) potentially mis-appropriates as being a 'word for today' something which biblical historians might well say referred specifically to some other time entirely - Nero's persecutions, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD - you know the sort of thing that enthusiastic prophesiers often overlook.
But when slaves in the US drew comfort from Psalm 137 (thank you
bible hub ) we don't look back and view their reading of the bible into their lives of the day, as an inappropriate mis-reading which disregards the specific historical events around which the psalm was actually written. This is just how we read the bible, isn't it?
In which case - "Indeed, an hour is coming when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God" seems to speak loudly to me of something happening here, and now.
If I were the victim of violence perpetuated by a professed Christian (Martin60 posted a link recently to particularly egregious examples from 1980s Guatemala - "the Lord wants me to kill you because you might be a communist sympathiser") I am sure I would draw something similar from the text.
[ 26. May 2017, 18:46: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Well said, mark, and FWIW I think you're right.
IJ
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
From Trump to Manchester, the reason to publish secrets is the same
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Does "not again" apply everywhere?
Almost 100 killed by bomb in Kabul, 450 injured.
[Geez, preview post much? Bad urls make the Baby Jesus cry. DT HH]
[ 01. June 2017, 15:43: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I was thinking about this too. I remember the days when hundreds would die on a very regular basis in bombings in Iraq or Israel or Afghanistan. I don't think I've ever felt the impact of these as much as when something happens nearer home.
I guess it can only be inbuilt forms of racism.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
It certainly should apply everywhere.
But, there are more factors at play when it comes to our reaction to such events than just the number of people killed and injured, or their age etc.
The big one is that the more like us the victims are the more easily we identify with them - it's much easier to think "someone I know and love could have been there". So, the Manchester bombing hits home because many of us have daughters of the same age as some of the victims (or, we have friends and family who do), maybe even with similar musical tastes. On the other hand, very few of us would know anyone even remotely likely to be anywhere in Kabul. And, like mr cheesy said, that identification with the victims may also be a form of unconscious racism.
Another factor is timing. I know I get affected much more by things on the morning news. So, waking up and putting on the TV to get a report on children killed at a concert in Manchester hits more than the same story would have had I got in from work, switched on the TV and seen it on the 10 o'clock news. That may just be me, of course. It may be that by 7am the TV news had a ton of information to give, had on the spot reporters etc, whereas if it's something that happens during the day you get fed a trickle of breaking news, and get a bit used to it before everything hits at once.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I was thinking about this too. I remember the days when hundreds would die on a very regular basis in bombings in Iraq or Israel or Afghanistan. I don't think I've ever felt the impact of these as much as when something happens nearer home.
I guess it can only be inbuilt forms of racism.
It's not racism, it's a function of how close the events are to us. Any one of us (in the UK) could have friends or family members at a concert in Manchester - or, indeed, could be there ourselves - but vanishingly few of us can say the same of Iraq, Israel or Afghanistan. It's only human nature that that makes an attack at a concert in Manchester more newsworthy than one in Iraq, Israel or Afghanistan.
Of course, there's also the sad fact that bombings in those countries aren't exactly rare, which makes them inherently less newsworthy in and of itself. News is about reporting something new (the clue is in the name), any the fact that the middle east is basically a war zone hasn't been new for a long time. It's the "Judy Takes Overdose" of global reportage.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Well, sad to say, I know people in warzones, so I don't have the excuse that they're "out there" miles away and in situations unknown to me.
I say it is racism because we only tend to have focus on very specific issues in very specific countries. I suggest that we in the UK are most likely to feel the pain of events in the USA, Ireland, France, Australia, Scandinavia etc. Mostly English-speaking places, mostly white people.
The further one goes from that norm, the less we tend to feel the pain. So we get to the situation where hundreds of non-white people are washing up on beaches in Greece - either bedraggled or drowned - and most of us couldn't give a shit.
I think it is also something where unconsciously we think "this stuff doesn't happen to us", so warzones and bombings and running-for-your-life and a whole heap of other experiences we try to not think about because we don't tend to personally have to deal with them. Because, to a large extent, most of us don't have to live through that kind of crap.
So it is kinda expected that people in Libya or Iraq are being blown up in their hundreds, that people in Sri Lanka are dying in thousands because of flooding, that many are dying in the Med. In our heads, we put all those kinds of thing in the "oh well, isn't that sad, now pass me the doughnuts" box.
But when a single person is killed by a crazed freak - or god-help-us children are blown up by a fruitcake outside a music stadium - the fact that it has happened in our country to our fucking children suddenly brings the experience that we never thought would happen here to our doorstep.
No disrespect intended to anyone, to be honest I'm most annoyed with myself for this attitude.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
No need to apologise - sounds perfectly reasonable to me. And true, sadly, perhaps.
IJ
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
It is unfortunately true.
Whatsmore it always will be true because no one person, well not one born of this world, can ever take on all it's woes.
Not possible and certainly not advisable.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
This makes the investigation more difficult and damages our security relationship with our closest ally. Those assholes. What part of "shut the fuck up" is so hard to understand?
There are some rumours that this occurred because the US services were severely pissed that they had warned the UK about former members of the LIFG in Manchester including Abedi, and they hadn't paid much attention.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
Tonight, it's London Bridge. Can hear the helicopters from here. Early aftermath now; I'm sure the fuller picture will become clear soon.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
So, where were the bollards?
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
Oh fuck. I woke up hoping to hear on the news of another Trump gaffe and got this...
for all.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Why can't these idjits stick to violent video games, or base jumping?
(Not wishing harm to other people who do those things.)
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So, where were the bollards?
Where is the specially trained and armed Civil defence force?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So, where were the bollards?
Where is the specially trained and armed Civil defence force?
In both cases, there will always be places which are not covered providing opportunities for criminals to cause mayhem. We can't put a ring of steel along every road. We can't have an armed bobby on every street corner.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
It is somewhat reassuring that armed police arrived at the scene within 8 minutes and took the necessary action.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
In truth, it is another horrendous attack, but it seems to have been contained quickly. Which is as good as can be expected.
Prayers for those who are affected.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Bollards, fully armed police, and BOLLARDS, and troops, and BOLLARDS, AND talking with our enemies as Thatcher's government did of course, and BOLLARDS, and surgical military action. And bollards.
Theresa May, right on having a full, open, difficult, embarrassing conversation with all sectors of society and above all on policing the internet. A 'braver' new world. On the long arc of the moral universe.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Armed police are not going to stop terrorists killing people using knifes and white vans.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
There have been armed police patrolling the south bank of the Thames since the Manchester terrorist attack, I met two pairs last weekend, patrolling as I walked from the National Theatre to St Paul's at 10pm. I suspect they were patrolling as far as Borough Market because all that section is busy at night.
Martin60 I don't think you realise what putting bollards in all the possible places there could be an attack in London would mean. It would narrow arterial routes which are already close to gridlock. Those bridges over the Thames are mostly main roads through the capital, London Bridge is incredibly busy.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think Martin is highlighting that the bollard talk isn't practical, CK.
When I was in Cardiff last week there were teams of armed police in the street, in the main shopping centres and I've heard even at the Eisteddod (that's an annual Welsh-language festival, in case anyone is interested).
The problem is that these armed police aren't actually very effective. Unless they're stopping people carrying large bags (of which there are a large number in central Cardiff because of gyms etc), how is this helping to stop bombings?
Sadly a person with a knife can cause a lot of damage even if there armed police nearby. In a crowded shopping mall or other crowed place, even very low-tech weapons are going to cause a lot of damage and if the terrorists aren't worried about death then the police aren't much of a deterrent.
Without having a total lockdown, it is hard to see how they could be - indeed, the only effective system known to prevent terrorism is via intelligence not guns.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Yes, I agree totally. Even if you have a "ring of steel", there is still the possibility of an outrage taking place during bag checks etc.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Perfect physical defences are impossible.
The better defence is to stop people getting it into their heads to commit these acts in the first place.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
There are also reports that the armed police are stretched to the limit. Presumably the current situation with armed police being seen on the streets is not one which can physically continue indefinitely.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Well, no, it can't. But how can people who, for whatever reason, are prepared to die be prevented from perpetrating these simple, low-tech attacks?
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
IJ
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There are also reports that the armed police are stretched to the limit. Presumably the current situation with armed police being seen on the streets is not one which can physically continue indefinitely.
It seems that the current generation of terrorists isn't particularly bright. They keep going for targets that, though prominent, are relatively well defended. The police would probably not have been able to respond with such speed and force if the targets had been in Guildford, Leamington Spa or Blackburn.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
It seems that the current generation of terrorists isn't particularly bright. They keep going for targets that, though prominent, are relatively well defended. The police would probably not have been able to respond with such speed and force if the targets had been in Guildford, Leamington Spa or Blackburn.
I suspect this is because of bragging rights - look what we can do in central London, right under the noses of the armed police and in one of the most heavily defended cities in the world. There would be less propaganda value in attacking Leamington Spa.
This might also suggest that there aren't too many people who are prepared to do this and that they're choosing very specific high profile targets.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I'm afraid I do mean it about the bollards.
And why are the BBC being witless or worse in making no comment that in all three recent attacks the 'Love For All, Hatred For None' banners at the front of memorial events and spoken by an Imam today are not of the Muslim community?
I've asked them twice. No comment of course. I don't want to raise this on Facebook, but it needs to be part of May's difficult, embarrassing conversation.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm afraid I do mean it about the bollards.
WTF are you on about? What bollard and where? How exactly are bollards protecting people against knife-wielding murderers?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm afraid I do mean it about the bollards.
But you can't put bollards down both sides of every city street in Britain. Apart from anything else, there may not be space ... and how would people get in and out of vehicles, passengers get on and off buses, vans make deliveries?
Mind you, Lisbon manages it on some streets - but that's to stop people parking on the tram tracks!
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And why are the BBC being witless or worse in making no comment that in all three recent attacks the 'Love For All, Hatred For None' banners at the front of memorial events and spoken by an Imam today are not of the Muslim community?
It is a phrase from the Ahmadiyya, a pacifist Muslim sect. Not sure what your point is.
Are you saying that somehow the Quakers shouldn't put slogans up at peace rallies?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suspect this is because of bragging rights - look what we can do in central London, right under the noses of the armed police and in one of the most heavily defended cities in the world. There would be less propaganda value in attacking Leamington Spa.
True; but I was fairly recently in Bury St. Edmunds at a time when the lawyers, judges and police were due to hold a Civic Service in the Cathedral, and I can tell you that security was pretty tight.
I think the real problem with all this is that, even if you vatly increase surveillance (an idea which I abhor anyway), you are going to end up with far too much material, most of which is irrelevant. Quite apart from folk who may be completely off the security "radar", decisions are always going to have to be made about who to keep an eye on and who to leave alone. And the last hing we want is for the entire Muslim community to be alienated because the police are constantly carting off suspects who prove to be totally innocent.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And why are the BBC being witless or worse in making no comment that in all three recent attacks the 'Love For All, Hatred For None' banners at the front of memorial events and spoken by an Imam today are not of the Muslim community?
It is a phrase from the Ahmadiyya, a pacifist Muslim sect. Not sure what your point is.
Are you saying that somehow the Quakers shouldn't put slogans up at peace rallies?
They are not Muslim. Not according to Muslims. They do not represent the Muslim community by 1%
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
hey are not Muslim. Not according to Muslims. They do not represent the Muslim community by 1%
So what? I don't understand your point.
[ 04. June 2017, 14:38: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I know mate. That's the point. Your analogy is nothing like the reality. The Ahmadiyya have LESS credibility with Sunnis than Quakers or Hare Krishna. They are persecuted heretics.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I know mate. That's the point. Your analogy is nothing like the reality. The Ahmadiyya have LESS credibility with Sunnis than Quakers or Hare Krishna. They are persecuted heretics.
Martin, please stop talking in riddles and tell me what the problem is.
A religious minority has put up posters at memorial events. So what?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And why are the BBC being witless or worse in making no comment that in all three recent attacks the 'Love For All, Hatred For None' banners at the front of memorial events and spoken by an Imam today are not of the Muslim community?
It is a phrase from the Ahmadiyya, a pacifist Muslim sect. Not sure what your point is.
Are you saying that somehow the Quakers shouldn't put slogans up at peace rallies?
They are not Muslim. Not according to Muslims. They do not represent the Muslim community by 1%
That still makes them more representative than the terrorists are.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
On BBC Radio 4's Sunday this morning there was a long interview with Dr Ibrar Majid, the lead Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgeon at Royal Manchester Children's Hospital talking to Martin Bashir about treating the victims of the Manchester attack. He was asked how he squares attending a mosque as did the suicide bomber. He said he didn't think his religion lead to murdering children or anyone (he's also volunteered to help in the aftermath of earthquakes). Are you going to say he is not a Muslim too?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Indeed. By several orders of magnitude.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
On BBC Radio 4's Sunday this morning there was a long interview with Dr Ibrar Majid, the lead Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgeon at Royal Manchester Children's Hospital talking to Martin Bashir about treating the victims of the Manchester attack. He was asked how he squares attending a mosque as did the suicide bomber. He said he didn't think his religion lead to murdering children or anyone (he's also volunteered to help in the aftermath of earthquakes). Are you going to say he is not a Muslim too?
Sorry?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
You are complaining that mosques with peace banners are saying something that is not Islamic. So is the surgeon who treated many of the Manchester victims also not Islamic because he thinks his religion stands for peace?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Martin60, if you haven't worked this out yet, you have dug yourself into a hole. Stop, before it caves in on you.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
mr cheesy. A religious minority that everyone assumes to be part of the Muslim minority is accepted as that by the BBC, who MUST know better, to the point of being interviewed as such. It isn't part of the Muslim minority.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
mr cheesy. A religious minority that everyone assumes to be part of the Muslim minority is accepted as that by the BBC, who MUST know better, to the point of being interviewed as such. It isn't part of the Muslim minority.
BBC TV crew interviews an Ahmadiyya imam who tells them what he believes. Most of audience is unaware of the intricacies of Islam and associated sects.
I still don't see the problem here. This is only like the BBC interviewing a free church minister and the audience being unaware of the differences between him and the Anglican church.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
The BBC and the wider British public are fairly ignorant about Islam - but I suspect almost nobody believes that Islam has a figure like the Archbishop of Canterbury who (at least in the public imagination) speaks on behalf of all Christians.
As long as the BBC has correctly identified this Imam, I can't see the problem. Clearly nobody thinks he speaks on behalf of all of Islam given that he is saying something very different to the ideology of IS. So at the crudest level, the BBC is showing that there are people who self-identify as Muslim who are different to IS.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Perfect physical defences are impossible.
The better defence is to stop people getting it into their heads to commit these acts in the first place.
Do you have any suggestions as to how this can be accomplished?
Moo
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
And that hole is what Sioni Sais? We need to see and hear what the ACTUAL - broad and deep - Islamic community really thinks. To have the conversation with them. Or not? To include them. I think they are being EXCLUDED, as well as excluding themselves, keeping their heads down.
I find it fascinating that Muslims identify as more British than the British and that Muslim youth is more tolerant than non-Muslim youth.
Yet they are part of a highly patriarchal, homophobic and OFFICIALLY, theoretically, formally 'hateful' community. Christians are guilty of unforgivable blasphemy as are atheists. Of course Christians are the biggest haters and damnationists of all, so may be there's no issue, it's a balance of ... terror ... Christianity seems to embody both Salafist and Ahmadiyya rhetoric.
There needs to be a grown-up conversation that acknowledges all of this and more. The Ahmadiyya ARE significant as an indicator of the deep, sub-surface issues going on here.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The BBC and the wider British public are fairly ignorant about Islam - but I suspect almost nobody believes that Islam has a figure like the Archbishop of Canterbury who (at least in the public imagination) speaks on behalf of all Christians.
As long as the BBC has correctly identified this Imam, I can't see the problem. Clearly nobody thinks he speaks on behalf of all of Islam given that he is saying something very different to the ideology of IS. So at the crudest level, the BBC is showing that there are people who self-identify as Muslim who are different to IS.
I think the problem then becomes one of people thinking that there are only two groups of Muslims: nice ones and terrorists. They may be aware too that there are Sunnis and Shias who seem intent on blowing their brains out. But that's as far as it goes.
There is also a difficulty in that (a) any Imam who speaks will say that ISIS are not "real Muslims" and (b) ISIS members will say that the Imam and his colleagues are not "real Muslims". I'm afraid that neither lot can get away with saying that (but does).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Perfect physical defences are impossible.
The better defence is to stop people getting it into their heads to commit these acts in the first place.
Do you have any suggestions as to how this can be accomplished?
Moo
Number one on my list would be to stop playing into the radicals script. When the radicals say that "the West is the enemy of Islam" don't treat muslims as potential enemies. Stop putting up barriers to muslims living ordinary decent lives - so, no travel restrictions based on religion for a start. Don't talk about internment, or restricting what people can wear. Treat immigrants as valued citizens, not undesirable temporary residents. Open our borders to accept those in desperate need of refuge. Be who we aspire to be, not who the radical islamists tell their followers we are - prove the radicals wrong.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
And what about our foreign policy?
Not just intervention in places like Libya or Iraq, but continued relations with Saudi?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
It would probably be helpful to hear from moderate imams in the public sphere more often. For example, the Rev Richard Coles turns up on Have I Got News For You and has a show on LBC (or some other radio station). In these situations he's not preaching per se, he's just participating in public life.
When it's Christmas and Easter, the news covers the archbishops' messages in some detail, maybe they could do the same for prominent moderate imams at the Eid.
Soap operas often take on current issues as storylines, perhaps something suitable could be done there.
I am sure there are other possibilities.
[ 04. June 2017, 16:12: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think the problem then becomes one of people thinking that there are only two groups of Muslims: nice ones and terrorists. They may be aware too that there are Sunnis and Shias who seem intent on blowing their brains out. But that's as far as it goes.
I don't see why there is a problem with believing that there are (a) Muslims who want to destroy the country with acts of mindless violence and (b) Muslims who want to be part of a pluralist, secular society.
quote:
There is also a difficulty in that (a) any Imam who speaks will say that ISIS are not "real Muslims" and (b) ISIS members will say that the Imam and his colleagues are not "real Muslims". I'm afraid that neither lot can get away with saying that (but does).
This makes no sense. Why wouldn't you want Imams on TV saying that IS don't represent them or their community?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I think it would be helpful to understand why terrorist organisations call for these actions, and why a small number of people carry them out.
It is not senseless, or mindless, or madness - the constant repetition of these ephithets is very misleading.
This one explanation: https://www.juancole.com/2015/11/daesh-actually-want.html. This another https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ which is I think somewhat prejudiced about Islam - in that if a Jewish group suddenly started slaughtering their enemies and cutting their genitals off as a tribute gift, we'd probably not see them as representing the pure form of Judaism.
Then there is, very different, account: https://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prisoners/
I suspect the dynamics behind homegrown IS inspired attackers maybe different again. In some ways their biographies seem very similar to non-deological spree killers, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-how-and-why-sex-differences/201212/running-amok-why-are-virtually-all-spree-killers- men There are some similarities with family annihilators http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/anatomy-of-family-murder-killing-spree-home-invasion-a7639966.html.
All these explanations are partial, but if we could develop a good synthesis, it would improve intelligence led responses to suspects - it would help to know from a potential pool of thousands, who really is the critical risk.
[ 04. June 2017, 17:51: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Jack Monroe on twitter suggested:
Stop terrorism:
1. Stop arming the Middle East.
2. Stop bombing their kids.
3. Stop cutting Police.
4. Stop cutting mental health services.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Stop terrorism:
1. Stop arming the Middle East.
2. Stop bombing their kids.
3. Stop cutting Police.
4. Stop cutting mental health services.
If, as suggested by the first two recommendations, the underlying issues are political, then how relevant are mental-health issues?
I guess maybe if we're including things like Prevent as "mental-health services", it makes sense, though from what I've read about that program, it's more about social integration than mental-health treatment.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The need for mental health services ties into Doublethink's point that the ideological killers have similar profiles to the non-ideological killers.
Prevent is all about identifying people at risk of radicalisation - and informing the relevant authorities to ensure support, in theory. It's not a brilliant piece of legislation as it was drawn up in a hurry to address Islamicisation and not the other radicalisation opportunities which are more likely in much of the country.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Stop terrorism:
1. Stop arming the Middle East.
2. Stop bombing their kids.
3. Stop cutting Police.
4. Stop cutting mental health services.
If, as suggested by the first two recommendations, the underlying issues are political, then how relevant are mental-health issues?
Because there are multiple underlying issues. The first two address one of the reasons why some muslims are unhappy with the West. But, it takes more than that to drive people to commit murderous acts. One of those things may well be mental health.
Of course, the first two are also not essential. There are plenty of examples of people committing murderous acts who are not influenced by events in the Middle East. So, we also need to look at other forms of radicalism that endanger our society - and, in the case of the far right nutters since they (at present) are particularly focussed on angering the islamic communities.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Hostpost
Doublethink. FFS. The url function is there for a reason. You managed the correct tags once (on your fourth link) out of five tries.
On the assumption that your excuse will be simply lame and entirely without merit, you should probably strive to do better next time.
DT
HH
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
And just trying to be helpful, not shadow-modding or anything, but if you absolutely can't get the url function to work, you can go to tinyurl.com to make your link shorter.
I use that service a lot; it's very user friendly. And their preview function is good for posting NSFW stuff in accordance with the Ship's double-click rule.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Hostpost
Doublethink. FFS. The url function is there for a reason. You managed the correct tags once (on your fourth link) out of five tries.
On the assumption that your excuse will be simply lame and entirely without merit, you should probably strive to do better next time.
DT
HH
Now I am really confused, as I don't remember typing any URL tags.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Doublethink: In your post dated "04 June, 2017 17:48", there are a bunch of links that show up unshortened. I think what the mods wanted you to do is post something like, for example...
Here is a link to the Atlantic article
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Okay, we're not discussing this here. I'll post in Styx.
DT
HH
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
It doesn't take long for our sense of humour to re-emerge. Note the man saving his pint 🤣🤣
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
Re stopping terrorism, I doubt you can. Sorry. I'd love to live in a world where everyone can be healed and looked after and feel a sense of belonging, but unless some major changes happen to us as a species I don't see it happening. Ghastly people bent on destruction will always exist.
That's not to say we should do nothing. As has been mentioned, better mental health and support services, better engagement with each other and in the world's "trouble spots" rather than drones bombing children to kingdom come, etc. may prevent some people turning to terrorism. But I fear they'll always be with us.
And it always amazes me how London picks itself up and goes on. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
And because this is Hell, FU Trump and your tweets referencing London's mayor.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
And an article showing a politician (Australian) fit for hell.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Hey doublethink. Never mind the URLs, feel the width. Good takes. The apocalyptic crap is obvious, brought on by the US destruction of Iraqi society and the underlying psychology of 'useless' males.
What amazes me is despite the explicit violent extreme patriarchy of Islam's founding story, its adherents are less of a problem than those who are violently patriarchal Christians. Muslims seem to want to live in peace despite their religion and Christians want to be violent in the name of theirs.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Sparing a thought for those caught up in trouble in the Philippines. Sounds utterly horrendous.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Cameron's former advisor, Hilton, calls for May's resignation, as she was Home Secretary for 6 years. Rather surprising, but perhaps if there wasn't an election, this would be more widespread. Of course, May will do her giant squirrel act - look over there, large squirrel doing something strange.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
There is also a difficulty in that (a) any Imam who speaks will say that ISIS are not "real Muslims" and (b) ISIS members will say that the Imam and his colleagues are not "real Muslims". I'm afraid that neither lot can get away with saying that (but does).
This makes no sense. Why wouldn't you want Imams on TV saying that IS don't represent them or their community?
You misunderstand me. All I'm saying is that both moderate Imams and ISIS terrorists take the argument down to "the others aren't real Muslims" - which doesn't lead to a helpful discussion.
Same as Fundamentalist Christians saying the Roman Catholics aren't "real Christians" and vice-versa - not that we kill each other (but we did ...).
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Some stories that Corbyn is supporting the calls for May to resign. I think this would be unwise, as the election is supposed to be when you get rid of her. Still, her 'enough is enough' is pretty ironic, as if somebody else was in charge of security and police numbers.
Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on
:
Hey, been a while
For the record, I have lived, worked and played soccer with Muslims. Until recently, I had a job which included Halal food preparation. I know Muslims can be good people. I know how cautious some are feeling in Brisbane.
In the article London attacker: Khuram Butt showed his extremist colours :
"The police turned up and Anjem, Khuram Butt and two other men were escorted away. I am not surprised that Khuram Butt carried out the terrorist attack and there are serious questions for the authorities."
While I want a peaceful world and #truelove and all that, it seems like moderate Islam combats extreme Islam by asking extremists to leave the mosque. They then go on to be the police's problem, whether they are reported or not.
Police don't police religion. They police against provable criminal activity.
That only leaves moderate imams to police Islam. Am I the only one seeing a rift in responsibility here? Am I racist for doing so?
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
I'm not sure I can (or want to) answer your last two questions, Highfive, but put the same problem another way 'round, and I think you can answer for yourself.
Should we rely on Christian clergy to "police" extremist members of their flocks -- that is, somehow stop individuals who might possibly shoot a doctor who does abortions or blow up clinics where these are performed?
Should we expect clergy to somehow keep track of and stamp out racism, classism, sexism, etc. in those who espouse these views and might act on them in extreme or violent ways?
What should clergy do about the homophobes in their pews who might assault the LGBT deacon some Sunday at Communion?
How would these clergy go about this, exactly?
I live in New England, where the local culture is to keep potentially controversial views to oneself, limiting church conversation to the weather and "what a nice sermon," etc.
IME, most mainstream Protestant ministers only know about their congregants what those congregants choose to share. I have no way of knowing, but suspect the average imam is in much the same boat.
Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Should we rely on Christian clergy to "police" extremist members of their flocks -- that is, somehow stop individuals who might possibly shoot a doctor who does abortions or blow up clinics where these are performed?
Should we expect clergy to somehow keep track of and stamp out racism, classism, sexism, etc. in those who espouse these views and might act on them in extreme or violent ways?
No, you're right. That is not the clergy's responsibility. If those sorts of individuals interrupted a sermon to speak their views, they would be escorted off the premises the same way.
That's what I needed to understand.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
Today: Notre Dame.
Very early reports, I hasten to add. Picture very unclear.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Today: Notre Dame.
Very early reports, I hasten to add. Picture very unclear.
Ah bollocks, this isn't going away is it.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Let's wait to hear about Paris. The attack is not comparable in terms of method, nor damage to others. It may be terror, it may be something else.
I am coming to believe more over time, that violence is the greatest evil.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
On the subject of "who promotes/polices what" there's a potentially interesting tangent on this twitter thread.
If you click through the linked tweet to the Dave Gorman thread and read that, at the end it then links into a thread by "Jammy Dodger" regarding Anjem Choudry which is all too sadly plausible.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
The irony in the CV of London attacker Khuram Butt is astounding:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40173157
"Proven track record of a motivated, zealous and trusted individual with the drive to make a difference and improve, in any given environment. Fights tooth and nail to achieve the best results for the business, while keeping himself balanced and focused. Ability to work under intense pressure whilst managing multiple tasks. A strong team player with extensive communication skills. Adept at communication with a variety of people effectively and relaxed in tentative situations."
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
The irony in the CV of London attacker Khuram Butt is astounding:
Well, pretty much everyone writes boilerplate self-flattery on their CV, so the discrpeancy you note is likely present most times that someone with a CV does something sociopathic.
[ 06. June 2017, 17:27: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Today: Notre Dame.
Very early reports, I hasten to add. Picture very unclear.
Ah bollocks, this isn't going away is it.
Not for a season. How can it?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Just days after the terrorist attacks in London, followed by pleas from all and sundry for people to "Keep calm and carry on", Theresa May comes out with a willingness to abridge human rights legislation.
Does anything more clearly say "You win" to terrorists? We haven't made best use of intelligence and our police are overstretched thanks to this very government own stupid policies.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
The irony in the CV of London attacker Khuram Butt is astounding:
Well, pretty much everyone writes boilerplate self-flattery on their CV, so the discrepancy you note is likely present most times that someone with a CV does something sociopathic.
Yeah, sounds like the standard 3/4 BS for resumes. Here's a sample resume from the Monster.com job-hunting site. Granted, maybe UK resumes have a different style.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Just days after the terrorist attacks in London, followed by pleas from all and sundry for people to "Keep calm and carry on", Theresa May comes out with a willingness to abridge human rights legislation.
Does anything more clearly say "You win" to terrorists? We haven't made best use of intelligence and our police are overstretched thanks to this very government own stupid policies.
Policies which have only existed since last July?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Just days after the terrorist attacks in London, followed by pleas from all and sundry for people to "Keep calm and carry on", Theresa May comes out with a willingness to abridge human rights legislation.
Does anything more clearly say "You win" to terrorists? We haven't made best use of intelligence and our police are overstretched thanks to this very government own stupid policies.
Policies which have only existed since last July?
The Conservative government has, since 2010, been cutting police numbers. That's one of the policy I was on about. Encouraging known members of a proscribed organisation (the LIFG) to come and go was another. For a substantial part of that period Theresa May was Home Secretary, in other words law & order was on her watch.
I'm not sure what is more disappointing: her irresponsibility or your ignorance.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Sounds like the Iranian parliament is under siege now. I'm not sure what to think - something about our enemy's enemy..?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
YES! The poor bloody Shia Iranians. With hands blood guilt in the Yemen. Ganged up on by antidemocratic Western consumerist interests exporting terror every which way. Ah well, at least we're back to the bi-polar Soviet era world with the same players.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Sounds like the Iranian parliament is under siege now. I'm not sure what to think - something about our enemy's enemy..?
1. We need to know who is our enemy to know who is our enemy's enemy.
2. Experience shows that it's unusual for our enemy's enemy to be a friend - especially after our enemy is defeated.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Jim Bakker weighs in on the Manchester attacks.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Jim Bakker weighs in on the Manchester attacks.
Jim Bakker? What rock did he crawl out from after all these years? And why doesn't he crawl back under it?
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
'They cursed themselves with this concert'.
Fuckwit.
IJ
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Wow. Someone in the comments invites him to Manchester. I'd like to show him around and introduce him to a few people.
The woman to his right, who ever she is, starts at about 0:55 saying something about 'the deaths of those little girls...this takes it to a new low...' But then Bakker cuts in to ask the name of the show ('Dangerous Woman Tour', Grande in rubber bunny mask) and by 1:20 is saying that the concert goers? promoters? brought the 'curse' on themselves, moving quickly into 'God is not mocked'.
This seems to give the woman somewhere to go - she is shaking her head at Bakker. In disbelief? In agreement that God is not mocked? In an unconscious attempt to dislodge the massive cloud of cognitive dissonance in which she suddenly finds herself engulfed?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Jim Bakker weighs in on the Manchester attacks.
Jim Bakker? What rock did he crawl out from after all these years? And why doesn't he crawl back under it?
Hopefully a big rock. One that descends at high speed onto his head.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
For some reason I have felt unable to make much comment on the latest attacks in Britain, but after watching the grainy footage of the moments in which armed police put an end to the London Bridge attack I found this, and firsthand accounts, to be strangely compelling.
Voyourism yes, to my own greater shame yes, but nevertheless powerful stuff.
Not that any 'good over evil' narrative or sense of poignancy at the courageous efforts of ordinary folk will be of much help to those who have lost loved ones, or others who fall to the inevitable survivor's guilt and PTSD.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The fuckers tried to hire a truck and had petrol bombs and blow torches.
Bollards.
Background checks on all truck, van and car hires. I know. Bollards. They'll hijack including coaches. Bollards. Terrorist alert on all truck thefts and BOLLARDS.
Mobile armed police on highest foot traffic intersections.
And dialogue with the other. I expect Steve Chalke to take the lead in this. There is no other who can.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Martin, you don't know what you're asking with bollard in central London, having walked down the Thames past London Bridge yesterday afternoon. There's already a lot of street furniture, lots of bollards on the north bank around the new cycle route. Any more bollards and those roads will not be accessible.
I spent last week dodging the cordons around the Barking sites. Tuesday* there was a cordon around the flat that was in the news, huge police presence plus broadcasters (that's the quick way from work to the shops at lunchtime). Wednesday there was an additional cordon around a college which blocked the quick route to the station and another huge police presence. Thursday Barking Station was crawling in journalists and police and there was a huge search going on around the back of the block of flats that continued to be cordoned off all week, plus circling police helicopter.
And inevitably, a work colleague was in bits because one of the terrorists was a neighbour, someone they'd known since he was 12. Inevitably because I suspected someone I worked with would either know a victim or a terrorist.
* I was at a different site on Monday and Friday. Lots of police presence at the other site on Friday too.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Terrorist alert on all truck thefts and BOLLARDS.
1. There is nothing to stop someone hiring a truck quite legitimately and using their real name, if they're going to kill themselves. It doesn't have to be hijacked.
2. Here in Cardiff we had loads of security barriers around the city centre for the Champions' League final. They worked OK because a lot of roads were closed to vehicles (as per usual for big matches at the Principality Stadium), but they would be totally impractical on a "normal" basis. Plus, I was concerned that, if there had been a panic, fleeing people would have been crushed on the barriers (as per the Ibrox Stadium disaster or Hillsborough).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
It seems our esteemed PM has found a new solution to the terrorist threat. Invite the terrorists into government.
Forget bollards, BOLLOCKS.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The fuckers tried to hire a truck and had petrol bombs and blow torches.
Bollards.
Background checks on all truck, van and car hires. I know. Bollards. They'll hijack including coaches. Bollards. Terrorist alert on all truck thefts and BOLLARDS.
Mobile armed police on highest foot traffic intersections.
Apart from hyper vigilance, and the belief that fully armed security personnel will arrive at an incident in the shortest possible time, there isn't much the public can do apart from avoiding crowds, (which is neither practical nor desirable for most).
There is though quite a lot that can be done behind the scenes in terms of prevention, and given that several of these characters are already on watch lists the calls will grow louder for them to be intercepted before they carry their deadly acts.
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on
:
The Grauniad has an article on 'how to detect potential terrorists'. While there is no perfect and one-fits-all answer, there appear to be some clues:
quote:
Research tells us that more than 70% of Islamic militants who operate alone tell someone of their plans. The first line of defence against Islamic militancy is not our crash barriers or covert operations, nor armed cops or MI5, it is a potential terrorist’s brother, mother, partner or friend.
So again, it seems that everyone's vigilance, calm and common sense are what is being asked for.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It seems our esteemed PM has found a new solution to the terrorist threat. Invite the terrorists into government.
Forget bollards, BOLLOCKS.
Ohhhh Sinn Fein could have a seat at the table if it wanted. The Taliban in Afghanistan, IS in Syria can all be brought in from the cold if we persist whilst keeping our very powder dry.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
And, the litany of terrorist attacks in London continues. Though even if the number of casualties had been larger I doubt there will be as much news coverage of this attack compared to the Westminster and London Bridge attacks. Or, as vocal calls for bollards outside places of worship.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Redirect:
So some bastard has driven a truck through a group of people outside Finsbury Park Mosque. At least the government is calling it what it is, terrorism.
Almost exactly a year to the day since Thomas Mair murdered Jo Cox.
The security services are going to have to start taking the threat of far right terrorism a lot more seriously.
The gentleman from the Muslim Council on the BBC was calling for people to be more careful of their language and for purveyors of hate speech to be challenged. He is right.
[Edited to remove name of really fucking obvious example]
[ 19. June 2017, 07:01: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Muslim worshippers at Finsbury Park mosque appear to have been attacked in a terrorist incident. At least one is dead, run over by a van.
I suppose it is symptomatic of these times that this is fairly minor news compared to other shit that's going on at the moment; however it seems fairly stark that the news/events seem to be conspiring to show that British Muslim Lives Don't Matter.
Van drives into crowd in central London causing loss off life and the guy is killed immediately by a policeman. Man stabs people in a market and police get there within 8 minutes.
Man runs over a crowd of Muslims and police take so long to get there that the crowd have to sit on the attacker to stop him getting away. And the news gets second headline billing.
I'm not blaming the police, by the way - presumably there were good reasons why this happened including the location, time of day etc.
But the optics are terrible.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
It also depresses me that we basically need a perma-thread for terrorist attacks.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I suspect the police took longer to get there because it wasn't right next to parliament or another heavily guarded location.
The account the BBC give¹ suggests to me an appropriate response from the emergency services and the government. Also, the BBC are running this as their main headline, with a live update thread and regular briefings throughout their morning coverage.
---
¹ BBC News
[ 19. June 2017, 07:14: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I've got no reason to think that the police response wasn't appropriate, I'm really talking about the optics. And the optics are that if you happen to be poor, black and/or Muslim when terrible things happen you don't really matter.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Meanwhile, of course, we'll be expecting Justin Welby to disown the (likely) white extremist and apologise for him. Pretty sure that's not going to happen.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I'm so sorry this happened.
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on
:
Please, can't everybody just stop fucking killing other people?
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
It's not clear whether the chap who died was actually killed by the van driver - it seems he had collapsed, was being given first aid, but subsequently died.
It may also be that the van driver is mentally ill, operating on his own, though that makes the incident no less of a 'terrorist attack'.
IJ
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Apparently, police were close to the scene and some officers were present fairly quickly. Reinforcements arrived within about 5 minutes or so. Yes, the crowd overpowered the alleged attacker and handed him over to the policrn. The police have praised them for their 'restraint under the circumstances.'
This is a live investigation so I imagine the usual caveats apply.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Meanwhile, of course, we'll be expecting Justin Welby to disown the (likely) white extremist and apologise for him. Pretty sure that's not going to happen.
From the Archbishop:
quote:
The freedom to worship without fear is a right we cherish as a nation and was won at great human cost over many years.
The appalling attack on Muslims in Finsbury Park is an attack on us all and on the culture and values of our country.
At a time when we are all grieving the loss of so many precious people in London and Manchester, this brutal attack can only compound the trauma. Violence only begets more violence - it serves only the interests of those who would terrorise others.
This wanton and cruel act can produce no good and cannot be justified or excused. In exactly the same way as previous recent attacks it is a crime against God and against humanity.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Not remotely an apology.
Fair play to the ABoC, but Christian leaders are never expected to immediately disown and condemn terrorists in the way that Muslim leaders are.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
It may also be that the van driver is mentally ill, operating on his own, though that makes the incident no less of a 'terrorist attack'.
IJ
I do not subscribe to the view that in the medical sense the people behind Manchester Arena and London Bridge were mentally ill. I, therefore, do not subscribe to the view that the individual behind the Finsbury Park attack was mentally ill. To label them as having mental health problems stigmatises people with real mental health problems.
I would have thought you knew better.
Jengie
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
WTF?
I didn't say the van driver has mental health problems, I only suggested that he might , and that that might go some way to explaining what he did, if he turns out to be a 'lone wolf'. At present we just don't know his motives, state of mind, or whatever.
I certainly did not suggest that 'all' terrorists are mentally ill - that is clearly not the case.
And, FYI, I have suffered mental health issues myself in the past.
IJ
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
And now someone has driven a car into a police van two minutes round the corner from the office...
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
....which the police appear to have dealt with very quickly:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40332532
IJ
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Not remotely an apology.
Am I being dumb, but what does the ABoC need to apologise for?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Meanwhile, of course, we'll be expecting Justin Welby to disown the (likely) white extremist and apologise for him. Pretty sure that's not going to happen.
Do we know the perpetrator was a Christian?
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Do we know the perpetrator was a Christian?
That's rather an interesting question. The context for anybody brown-skinned is to have significant assumptions about them being muslim - as opposed to, say, Sikh, or whatever. Digging deeper into the meta - why does it even matter? He can claim whatever religion he might like; would that change 99.99% of humanity's correct repudiation of his actions?
ETA: mssr. fromage's point basically still stands.
[ 19. June 2017, 19:09: Message edited by: RooK ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Am I being dumb, but what does the ABoC need to apologise for?
Every time there is a terrorist incident what is in some way connected to Islam, almost every Muslim leader is expected to disown and basically apologise for it. Mosques are seen to be hotbeds of radicalism (even mosques that are totally unrelated to the extremist), programmes are set up to help them identify and deradicalise people, governments and other agencies put them under various kinds of official pressure.
But isn't it funny that when there is a white guy doing the terrorising, suddenly everyone says how awful it is, but nobody blinks when Christians question whether this guy claimed to be a Christian and there is no sense that Christian leaders are expected to talk as if these elements are parts of their religion that they're supposed to disown and apologise for.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Which still doesn't answer what he needs to apologise for.
It just says that there's pressure on others to apologise for things they don't need to apologise for. Besides which, I'm not aware of any call for muslim leaders to apologise - to condemn the actions, to root out the minority who are advocating criminal acts etc, certainly. But, apologise?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I don't think he does need to apologise. I don't think Muslim leaders constantly need to apologise.
The different standards that different religious leaders are expected to meet is astounding.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Some Muslim terrorists shout out the name of Allah as they set off the bomb, or whatever, leaving no doubt as to their religion.
Mr. Osborne does not appear to have shouted out 'I'm a communicant member of the Church of England, and I want to kill all Muslims', so WTF does +Justin have to do with it? If Osborne had self-identified as Christian, well, mr. cheesy might have a point.
IJ
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Oops - x-posted with mr. cheesy.
ISWYM. Fair comment.
IJ
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Some Muslim terrorists shout out the name of Allah as they set off the bomb, or whatever, leaving no doubt as to their religion.
Mr. Osborne does not appear to have shouted out 'I'm a communicant member of the Church of England, and I want to kill all Muslims', so WTF does +Justin have to do with it? If Osborne had self-identified as Christian, well, mr. cheesy might have a point.
IJ
At least he didn't yell out "Cry God for Harry, England, and Saint George!"
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I am very shocked by this incident as, although I don't know him, this man only lives about a mile from me.
There are two interesting points here.
1. There's no Mosque in this part of Cardiff and only a few Muslims (as ever, most are in the inner city). Indeed, just a couple of weeks ago I approached by a Muslim gentleman about the possibility of hiring a room in our church for prayer. However I had to explain that, apart from any other considerations, there was no way that we could offer them exclusive use of any space.
2. Why did the man hire a van from a company 15 miles away?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Or 'Cymru am Byth!' as he was from Cardiff ...
Or Weston Super Mare originally.
It remains to be seen whether he was linked with any racist groups etc and I feel sorry for the Pontyclun van hire firm - they are a respected and reputable company who must be horrified that someone has hired one of their vans for such a purpose. But bloody hell fire ... what was the guy thinking?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
15 miles from Pentwyn or 150 miles from London?
I can only speculate that it's simply because it's a well known van hire company in that part of South Wales.
Or perhaps he thought it'd be easier to trace him had he used a van hire company closer to where he lived.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Yes, I wondered that ... but he must have given ID to hire the van, and the company's name is plastered all over it! Even Inspector Clouseau would have found it easy to track him down.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
The reports of his behaviour after he got out of the van suggest he was trying to provoke bystanders to kill him, if he intended to die he may not have cared about the risk of being arrested.
I am going to make a wild guess, his life was falling apart and he'd recently left his wife - probably over domestic violence issues.
I note this comment from someone who knew him, courtesy of the metro:
"He had lived on the estate for a few years. He's always been a complete cunt, but this was really surprising."
[ 20. June 2017, 07:11: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
According to the "Daily Mirror" (I hope I can quote this):
Shocked neighbours said he had recently been kicked out by his girlfriend — and was forced to live in a tent.
Others claim that he was ejected from the town’s Hollybush pub on Saturday night for drunkenly cursing Muslims.
A neighbour said that he had previously moved out of the address, but had been living back with his partner and children there over the “past couple of months”. The man’s partner added: “He is always arguing in the street with his missus. They usually shout and swear at each other".
How true this is we don't, of course, know.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I wonder if he was actually drunk and that driving into a crowd of Muslims was a spur of the moment decision. It seems an incredible amount of effort to go to hiring a van and driving hours only to do limited damage outside a London mosque.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
WTF?
I didn't say the van driver has mental health problems, I only suggested that he might , and that that might go some way to explaining what he did, if he turns out to be a 'lone wolf'. At present we just don't know his motives, state of mind, or whatever.
and the difference is?
Jengie
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Do we know the perpetrator was a Christian?
That's rather an interesting question. The context for anybody brown-skinned is to have significant assumptions about them being muslim - as opposed to, say, Sikh, or whatever. Digging deeper into the meta - why does it even matter? He can claim whatever religion he might like; would that change 99.99% of humanity's correct repudiation of his actions?
ETA: mssr. fromage's point basically still stands.
No, it doesn't change the need for all humanity to deplore his action. I was just wondering why Justin Welby was being particularly singled out to bear that burden - unless it's in the context of him being a civic (through being de facto head of the Established Church) as opposed to being a religious leader; as others have pointed out, it's not as if the perp shouted "I subscribe to the 39 Articles, the Lambeth Quadrilateral and Book of Common Prayer!"
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I wonder if he was actually drunk and that driving into a crowd of Muslims was a spur of the moment decision. It seems an incredible amount of effort to go to hiring a van and driving hours only to do limited damage outside a London mosque.
He's clearly the white nationalist version of the half-wits who tried to damage an airport and only succeeded in setting light to themselves.
I'm guessing he went after the Mosque at Finsbury Park because he'd heard of it on the telly.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0