Manchester bombing

[Hangarshuffle]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-failed-terror

Best article yet about the bombing outrage that I've read. PM May has a lot of thinking to do about the decisions she took, as do many.
"By bombing Libya we did not enrage or radicalise young Muslims such as Abedi: we simply gave them space to operate in".
This is why the war on terror fails time and again.

[engineer(retard)]

"The "blowback theory", which blames Islamist terrorism directly on western expeditionary warfare, is both facile and irrelevant in this case."

As we have heard from Abbott this morning, the solution to an intractable problem is to change your hairstyle.

[ShotOne]

Whichever side you take on that, to explicitly link the argument to this horrific attack while they're still mopping up the blood as Mr Corbyn did shows wicked opportunism or, at best, callously poor judgement.

As for Ms Abbot telling us she no longer supports the IRA...and she's changed her Afro hairstyle too. How much do you have to loathe Britain to hold such views then (allegedly) discard them so flippantly?

[[email protected]]

Best article yet about the bombing outrage that I've read.

Really????? It starts out well and then becomes another Socialist Worker's piece.

[Danny42C]

Can we not see that all the outpouring of grief which has dominated the media over the past few days is exactly the reaction that the terrorist hoped to produce ? - and that we are doing his work for him ?

This was a terrible business. But in 2013 (the last year that I read [Wiki] "Annual road fatalities - GOV.UK"):

"1,713 people were killed in reported road traffic accidents in Great Britain, 2% (41) fewer than in 2012. This is the lowest number of fatalities since national records began in 1926".

That averages 33 per week. Are we downhearted ? - No ! And in the "Blitz" (which many of us remember) the nightly toll was far worse.

The only proper answer is to report the outrage, then to ignore it. It may sound callous, but the best thing to say is (with Clark Gable in the final words of "Gone with The Wind"): "Frankly, my dear - I don't give a damn !"

If there is no reaction, then it is pointless for them to continue doing it.

Unrelated: was it really a good idea to have that huge, packed rally in St.Anne's Square ? How did we know that No.2 or No.3 was not waiting in the wings for a second bite at the cherry ?

Danny42C.

[yellowtriumph]

Originally Posted by Danny42C

Can we not see that all the outpouring of grief which has dominated the media over the past few days is exactly the reaction that the terrorist hoped to produce ? - and that we are doing his work for him ?

This was a terrible business. But in 2013 (the last year that I read [Wiki] "Annual road fatalities - GOV.UK"):

"1,713 people were killed in reported road traffic accidents in Great Britain, 2% (41) fewer than in 2012. This is the lowest number of fatalities since national records began in 1926".

That averages 33 per week. Are we downhearted ? - No ! And in the "Blitz" (which many of us remember) the nightly toll was far worse.

The only proper answer is to report the outrage, then to ignore it. It may sound callous, but the best thing to say is (with Clark Gable in the final words of "Gone with The Wind"): "Frankly, my dear - I don't give a damn !"

If there is no reaction, then it is pointless for them to continue doing it.

Unrelated: was it really a good idea to have that huge, packed rally in St.Anne's Square ? How did we know that No.2 or No.3 was not waiting in the wings for a second bite at the cherry ?

Danny42C.

For what it's worth I agree with you. We say that the best response is to carry on as normal and then do the complete opposite. I do not wish to seem heartless, I really do have nothing but immense sorrow for this tragedy because it has truly driven families to a dark and despairing place, but it is not normal to have mass rallies, mass vigils, mass balloons, mass flowers mass this, that and the other. The families should grieve in private, and neither do I think they should put themselves forward to the media.

All of this is what the terrorists want - mass anguish at their demonic work. To quote Mrs Thatcher in a previous 'war on terrorism', they should be denied the oxygen of publicity. I know this won't be a popular view, sorry about that.

[West Coast]

Can we not see that all the outpouring of grief which has dominated the media over the past few days is exactly the reaction that the terrorist hoped to produce ? - and that we are doing his work for him ?

That's asking humans to forego natural reactions to such an emotional event. An attempt to do so would also be a reaction to the event and equally obvious.

[yellowtriumph]

Originally Posted by West Coast

That's asking humans to forego natural reactions to such an emotional event. An attempt to do so would also be a reaction to the event and equally obvious.

I can't agree with you, in the uk at least it was rare, but not unknown, to see such public displays of emotion prior to say the death of Princess Diana 20 odd years ago. At the time the events we saw unfolding were largely unseen in the uk, a term was even coined for it at the time - 'recreational grieving'. That sounds very crass I know.

I saw a scene on the tv news a couple of nights ago, a mother and young daughter placing flowers at some Manchester memorial site. Mum places her flowers down, young daughter then places her flowers down, steps backs and looks at Mum with an expression that says - Why am I doing this Mum? A totally meaningless gesture. I'm sorry to sound so cruel, but I do not believe these things are a natural reaction, I do believe they are a modern media driven reaction.

[langleybaston]

The "mass" reactions described are, I suppose, a corollary of Andy Warhol's famous 15 minutes.

Digressing slightly, what I see as excruciatingly bad taste is the media microphone: "how does it feel to know that your ............... has been ................ ?

Does nobody say "sod off!" Or are they edited out?

And when it is a bereaved couple, why is it almost always the wife who answers, while the poor lumpen sod sits there in glum silence?

And why do all replies begin with "Well" or even "Wuh" ?

Just asking.

[Herod]

The Great Manchester Run today showed the spirit of the people. Thousands of runners and supporters, raising a metaphorical two-fingers to the "losers".

It reminds me of the lady who confronted one of the murderers of Lee Rigby with the words "You can't win, you know"

[West Coast]

I can't agree with you, in the uk at least it was rare, but not unknown, to see such public displays of emotion prior to say the death of Princess Diana 20 odd years ago. At the time the events we saw unfolding were largely unseen in the uk, a term was even coined for it at the time - 'recreational grieving'. That sounds very crass I know.

I sure seem to recall a pretty elaborate ceremony for Mountbatten's funeral. Either way, you're not going to stiff upper lip yourself out of a mass murder, especially of children. Yes life goes on, but to expect the nation to move past with little or no ceremony is unrealistic.

I saw a scene on the tv news a couple of nights ago, a mother and young daughter placing flowers at some Manchester memorial site. Mum places her flowers down, young daughter then places her flowers down, steps backs and looks at Mum with an expression that says - Why am I doing this

I'd say you're filtering that through your beliefs. The child could equally have been non verbally conveyiing she needed to use the bathroom.

[air pig]

According to NHS England there are still 19 people in critical care units in the NW of England. The majority will have undergone multiple surgeries to inspect and repack wounds until they are clean and healthy to close. The general public have no idea of the effects of an IED blast and the devastating injuries caused by all the shrapnel, once the casualties are in hospital the initial horror is forgotten.

https://www.smacc.net.au/2016/11/les...e-battlefield/

The police and ambulance crews will have attended the bombing site and been confronted by such scenes, politicians will have only been presented with a sanitised view of the situation. I did try to get a member of a political party to view this with their love is all, and not to blame certain groups. Did they watch it, did they hell, but their head was firmly pushed back into the sand.
Am I angry, damn right I am! Do I want something done, yes the time has come to deal with the situation without fear or favour.

[Heathrow Harry]

and do exactly what?

Most "Lets Do SOMETHING" plans make things worse in the long run - I'm afraid - like ETA, the IRA & FARC the only realsitic solution is to wait them out

[air pig]

HH:

Do something, how about pull all ex-pats out of certain states as they keep them functioning. Go all out to find alternative energy suppliers such as fracking and crash build nuclear whatever the costs.

But to be really radical and I'm sure there will opprobrium, all of the main nuclear nations face the same problem, all fire 1 nuclear weapon into a deserted area of the main supporter states with the warning that the next ones will hit their main cities and holy sites.

[t43562]

Originally Posted by Danny42C

Can we not see that all the outpouring of grief which has dominated the media over the past few days is exactly the reaction that the terrorist hoped to produce ? - and that we are doing his work for him ?

My qualifications for disagreeing are not great - only that I lived in a Muslim country for a couple of years which doesn't mean all that much but FWIW I think it's nothing to do with making us sad.

The aim is to make everyone "pick sides."

The people I stayed with and met had had to live with terrorism all their lives and their attitude is an intolerance that is more bitter, if anything, than I notice in the UK. I was associating with engineers and middle-ish class people like myself who were both kind and unkind, decent and grasping in the same proportions you'd find in the UK. Such people are biased a little towards reason but propaganda works on them too in the end especially if someone can make them scared of being victimised. They should be our allies and someone wants them not to be.

The point of terror is to activate a response and provoke an overreaction which will make reasonable people on "the other side" feel less reasonable and so start a spiral.

It's an attempt to generate support.

[Pontius Navigator]

Or weaken the resolve of your opponent.

The weak point of a dictatorship is the leader. Of a Western power it is the public abhorrence of terror, hence the exhortation for business as usual. Initially business as usual will work so the level of terror is ramped up.

[Danny42C]

West Coast (#31),

Mountbatten's Funeral was a State Occasion, and apart from the family, few would've been emotionally concerned. Diana's was admittedly a special case; it was the first time when something close to an unhealthy mass hysteria gripped the British people.

"Recreational Grieving" - what a good expression ! - is a comparitively new phenomenon, but now seems to becoming the norm here. I can only recall one occasion when a similar tragedy evoked such grief on a national scale: the Aberfan Disaster of 1966, where a colliery waste tip landslide buried alive 116 children and 28 adults in slurry.

"Either way, you're not going to stiff upper lip yourself out of a mass murder, especially of children". True, but you have to consider what lay behind it. "Don't get mad - Get even ", should be our watchword.

ISIL make no bones about it, they consider us "infidels", and as such wish to kill us. Unable to do so on any scale, they determine to terrify us out of our normal lives, to disrupt them in order to break our morale. This Hitler attempted, and failed. This our War Cabinet attempted (it is shameful to try to shuffle it off onto Harris) on the Third Reich - and failed. ISIL must also fail - and be seen to fail.

They openly declare a Holy War on us, very well, "C'ést la Guerre". If their "terrorism" interrupts our normal concerns to any extent, then they will have succeeded - they have "won" - and are emboldened to try again and again. On the contrary, if we merely report their attack, and then make no song-and-dance about it, but just get on with our normal lives, then their "terror" has achieved nothing. If we continue in that way, they may very well give up, as "the game is no longer worth the candle".

Danny42C.

[West Coast]

Either way, you're not going to stiff upper lip yourself out of a mass murder, especially of children". True, but you have to consider what lay behind it. "Don't get mad - Get even ", should be our watchword.

I have no issue with that.

Trying to suppress the emotions associated with a Manchester type event simply isn't going to happen. I have my doubts that pre Diana that the public was devoid of emotion, the difference being the 24 hour news cycle with lots of air time to fill that the viewer is inundated with coverage they didn't have 25 years ago.

[Cazalet33]

Gaddafi was instrumental in acting as quartermaster to the IRA bombing campaign.

Yes, but that was subsequent to, and a consequence of, British complicity in the murderous bombings of the two principal cities of his country and the attempted assassination of the de facto Head of State of a Sovereign country and the actual murder of his very young adopted daughter.

His subsequent support for the Republicans, augmenting much more massive financial and materiel support from the US, together with his financial support for the NUM in its struggle to overthrow Thatcher, is just another example of the splashback from our aggression against some Middle Eastern countries.

[engineer(retard)]

Which of course was preceded by the murder of Yvonne Fletcher, the Libyan support to the Red Army Faction and the Red Brigades and the nightclub bombing in Berlin.