"Manchester Arena blast - Several dead after explosion " Topic

… at Ariana Grande concert

"SEVERAL people have been killed following an explosion at an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena this evening Greater Manchester Police have said there have been a "number of confirmed fatalities".

People attending a pop concert by Ariana Grande fled the stadium after hearing the noises, which Twitter users have described as sounding like gunshots.

Emergency services have rushed to the scene…"
Main page
link

link

Amicalement
Armand

Death toll up to 19 already.

TMP link

Dan
link
link
link

59 Injured.

Looks to have been a nail bomb. I've been warning about the threat of suicide bombings in crowded areas for some time. It was only a matter of time before the tactic reached the West.

22 dead. Suicide nail bomb. I hope the killer was working alone, because that means they won't be killing anyone else.

SouthernPhantom "It was only a matter of time before the tactic hit the West" – sadly in the U.K. we suffered nail bombings for years, courtesy of the I.R.A.

Swiss News says that ISIS have claimed responsibility.

To be fair, given that the killer is in several bits, and unless any form of message was left, ISIS could claim it regardless of who they were affiliated with.

But.

It's almost certainly an Islamist of some description.

Suspected bomber identified, born in UK. He used nuts and bolts in his suicide vest. Personally I think people like this should never be called by name and just forgotten.

Concert suicide bomber is named as 'Manchester-born British-Libyan' jihadist Salman Abedi whose 22 victims include girl aged just EIGHT

link

Amicalement
Armand

While I'm happy that the police are chasing down leads (including the person(s) who incited the bomber to suicide), I think that the bomber should be left un-named. "The Bomber, who would really like me to mention his name, …" is all the identification that I am willing to give that waste of oxygen.

Oh God. Eight?

@Lion: "… I'm happy that the police are chasing down leads (including the person(s) who incited the bomber to suicide)"

I'm glad I'm not a cop. I don't know if I could arrest the accomplices (or the support group) of a child-killer in any kind of humane and professional manner.

Dan

my finger is pointed toward muslim arab/n african comunity in UK…a way should be find to force them to collaborate

Naming the culprit is in the hope that it will prompt someone who knew him to come forward with more information to help track down any associates. I have a bigger problem with the way that the BBC and ITV gave up most of the day to repeating the same thing on the main TV channels. Both have dedicated news channels which could have done this and put bulletins on the other channels when something actually happened. Just repeating the same news over and over again just gives publicity to the twisted minds who would carry out these atrocities in my opinion.

Italwars – what? Collaborate?

to colaborate means..collaborate with police..telling the names of those who helped the terrorists…denouncing everything which is against the law and ethic ..maltreatment of women ecc…referring to the police about every sermon suspect to spread violent ideas …..is it that very difficult for you to understand?

I think any attempt to "force" collaboration would backfire. What we need to do is encourage collaboration. We do need to show that the world knows that these lunatics have as much to do with Islam as the KKK does to Christianity. Perhaps the scale of this atrocity and the youth of the victims will make people say enough and stand up to these thugs.

Vigilant – the loonies are drawing directly from the Koran. They yell it from the rooftops. They refer to the Prophet in all things. They enact Sharia law just like Saudi Arabia. They are, in everything they do, attempting to be as Islamic as possible. It's like saying that Orthodox Greek Christians have nothing to do with Christianity because they're not Mormons. As for the age of the victims – well – given the appalling violence meted out by fundamentalists in, among other places, *deep breath* Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Somalia, Kenya, Indonesia and the Philippines… I wouldn't hold your breath.

Italwars – Collaborate suggests working with an occupying power, in this context. I think a better wording for what you are trying to say would be "perform civic duties" or "adhere to western liberal social-democratic norms and values in the public sphere".

I doubt that Italwars' first language is English, so perhaps he could be given a little leeway in his choice of words.

Yeah, I think it's long past time when stop telling other "this has nothing to do with Islam".

First off, if it has NOTHING to do with Islam, we are faced with explaining why these terrorist groups recruit exclusively from muslim populations and converts.

Second, the groups involved bend over backwards to tell us exactly how they are Islamic, very Islamic. We might not agree they have the "right" interpretation of Islam, but they think they do. Who are we to decide? I don't have a degree in Islamic theology, do you?

This scene never happened:

"Hello, I am nihilistic, angry, sociopathic and violent person and I would like to join ISIS, please. I can drive a truck, standard transmission, and I have suicidal tendencies if that helps."

"Welcome aboard, you are exactly what we need!"

"Oh good, I was afraid you wouldn't take me since I am a practicing Catholic. I even sleep wearing my confirmation medal."

"No problem! We have nothing to do with Islam, nothing at all. You'll probably want Christmas and Good Friday off, right?"

Deephorse – well, now he and I have both learnt something new!

BenFromBrooklyn – to be fair, there was the case of the atheist nihilist philosophy student who committed a suicide bombing in Israel during the Second Intifada. :P But otherwise, yep, absolutely, Islamic State is expressly an Islamic institution that seeks to harken back to the perfect time when the Prophet was alive and spreading Islam by the sword.

After all, that sword on the Saudi flag is the sword of Muhammed, placed above the shahada declaration of faith… it's not just there for a laugh.

PMC317 – fundamentalists of any religion or political view will take the most extreme version of those beliefs, and have done throughout history. That doesn't mean that they represent the majority of those who share the overall belief, and it is those people who need to be encouraged to help identify these delusional criminals. To keep tarring all Muslims with the same brush is just what the people behind these attacks want as it helps to recruit more to their cause under the claim that "they're all lout to get us". I don't expect the fanatics to care about the age of the victims, but hopefully some of those in the communities they come from might. The only way to defeat these people is to deny them support, and that won't happen if the whole community is alienated.

This guy was reported by Moslems several years ago.
They were concerned about the views he expressed.

One of the very sad effects of these attacks is the "backlash" against anyone who some idiot thinks look like they're Moslem and therefore somehow responsible. Despite the fact that the vast majority have nothing to do with suicide bombings and are as keen to see extremists stopped as the next law abiding citizen.

The best way to tackle this sort of thing is by including the Moslem community. They're the ones who are most likely to notice lunatics. Alienate them and they are less likely to report suspects.
Putting thousands of troops out on the street just reassures the public a bit. You need way more than that to stop bombers as they act. Northern Ireland demonstrates just how extreme you need to get with body and bag searches. Even then, that was far from 100% effective.

Looks like the only significant "backlash" comes in the form of more appeasement by the enablers, and in taking the focus away from the real targets in all this violence (the non-Muslims in the West), much like what the apologetics are trying to do now in this thread.

link

Dan

@Cacique: I'm glad I'm not an investigating officer, either.

On terrorism generally. We live in vast societies where anyone you associate with could take it into their mind to go on a killing spree. Some of those will be mentally ill.
On radicalised Muslims, often native to the country where they live. Recruiters are looking for people who are failures. They have failed to fit in and are probably disgusted with themselves. What they get offered is redemption for their past lives and (supposed) admiration for their act. Its an attractive offer. As was mentioned on BBC radio this morning, there are literally thousands of these people and the sheer number of them is going to overwhelm then police or indeed any branch of government. Possibly the only solution is to educate people that no one can make offers of what is going to happen to you in an after-life.

And pro-terrorism (Hamas) organizations like this don't help one bit. They are definitely NOT part of the solution.

Dan

Vigilant – Not saying 'all Mooslems are evil!'. Not even close. I am simply saying that to ignore the fact that the fundamentalists – all of them, from Al Shabab to Al Qaeda to the Algerian crazies of the 1970s-90s to Islamic State to the Taliban and all the other fanatics – are adherents of Islam.

I completely agree, the best way to provide a long-term solution is to back normal people to the hilt, and to listen to people like Ayaan Hirsan Ali, Sara al Iraqiya, other ex-Muslims, and to provide support for western leaning groups and individuals from the YPG/YPJ/SDF to Lebanese LGBTQ and Tunisian city dwellers and Iranian women and so on and so forth.

Better education (for women and girls in particular). Better access to amenities. etc etc.

Andy ONeill – thousands of troops on the streets is a sop to the press and utterly pointless. For this we need more actual police (and I note that Ms May, as Home Secretary and as PM, has presided directly over the loss of 10,000 serving police officers and a massive reduction in budgets) and better internal intelligence gathering. Troops are targets, no more and no less.

I also completely agree that better intelligence gathering requires better inter-community relations, and the frothing of rags like the Sun and the Mail combined with the rantings of knock-off imitation fascisits like Britain First really don't help.

"I am simply saying that to ignore the fact that the fundamentalists – all of them, from Al Shabab to Al Qaeda to the Algerian crazies of the 1970s-90s to Islamic State to the Taliban and all the other fanatics – are adherents of Islam."
Really. Let me respond by saying if I call myself a grapefruit, would that make me a grapefruit. Reckoning people as what they define themselves as is misguided. Far better to take the view of an unbiased observer.
So do they follow the Muslim principles of war for example:
link
Funny sort of people to be part of a religion, if they are not following the religions rules. You will know that I am not a grapefruit because I have none of the characteristics of a grapefruit, no matter what I call myself.

VVV reply – Did the Crusaders follow the Christian principles of war? Were the Irgun or Stern Gang not Jewish? Are the Buddhists that are currently ethnically cleansing the Rohingya Muslims not Buddhist?

Ridiculous. Shia or Sunni, Islamic fundamentalists are ISLAMIC fundamentalists, not Catholics, or Druze, or Yazidi, or Zoroastrians, or Copts, or anybody else.

With a moment's browsing you will find any number of videos of Sheikhs, Imams, and others calmly (or not) discussing the importance in Islam of, say, killing the unbeliever or stoning adulterers or whatnot.

Are these learned Imams not Muslim simply because they disagree in the – ha – fundamentals of the religion with other 'friendlier' Muslim Imams?

"VVV reply – Did the Crusaders follow the Christian principles of war?"
Indeed they did. They were told by the Pope – Christs representative on Earth – thats they were doing holy work for which all their sins on Earth would be remitted. So as far as they were concerned they were doing the right thing. There were some Christian rules of war but they only applied to killing other Christians.
These so called Islamic groups may call themselves Muslims, but does any Muslim religious organisation say that they are doing the right thing?
Remember that in the Crusades example above the Pope was the head of the official Western church.
Remember the rule is, you don't get to call yourself a grapefruit, you have to be a grapefruit to be one.
Your thought that internet videos prove that these terrorists are Muslims is the same circular argument. They are Muslims because they say that they are Muslims. Anyone else say that they are?

So lets see what the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar thinks of ISIS
link
He has strongly condemned the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and stated that it is acting "under the guise of this holy religion and have given themselves the name 'Islamic State' in an attempt to export their false Islam"
That seems clear enough.
Ali Khamenei (leader of the Shia in Iran) does not really say what he thinks about 'Islamic' terrorisim but rather I seeks to give reasons for it, but read it for yourself. He is against ISIS but then again ISIS are particularly against Sunnis (so you would expect no love to be lost there)
link

i really don't think that a goal of this kind of terrorism is to force us to think that the whole Islam is bad….is exactly the opposite..they aim is to revamping/enhance the coward/decadent aspect of our pwerless, corrupted, terrified western society dominated by criminal leaders that do not protect enough their citizens and wage war to nationalism..i'm sure those muslim terrorist are very happy when theiy hear us saying "those crimes have nothing to do with Islam" "Islam is a religion of peace"..that is exactly their goal..to sterilise our national identity and our culture and to let us feel a kind of Stockolm Syndrome…

"VVV reply – Did the Crusaders follow the Christian principles of war? Were the Irgun or Stern Gang not Jewish? Are the Buddhists that are currently ethnically cleansing the Rohingya Muslims not Buddhist?"

it's unbelievable to read such comparison ..a real nonsense..you dare to put on the same level the Crusades which had been in fact an armed pilgrimage to liberate persecuted christians and counter the Arab expansion and the terrorism of today?…more than that you compare today's muislim terrorism to the eroic actions of Irgun and Stern group which saved the borning of nation , more than that Their promised land, that was receiving , vs all odds and vs all possible ennemies, their people persecuted all over Europe?

"This regime- without ever being seriously and significantly censured by its influential allies or even by the so-called independent international organizations- everyday demolishes the homes of Palestinians and destroys their orchards and farms. This is done without even giving them time to gather their belongings or agricultural products and usually it is done in front of the terrified and tear-filled eyes of women and children who witness the brutal beatings of their family members who in some cases are being dragged away to gruesome torture chambers. In today's world, do we know of any other violence on this scale and scope and for such an extended period of time?" -- Sayyid Ali Khamenei

Really! There is nothing moderate or reliable about such rhetoric. Why would the MSM ignore such "violence on this scale"?

He is against ISIS but then again ISIS are particularly against Sunnis (so you would expect no love to be lost there)

Really? I thought that ISIS is against everyone else. Join the "caliphate" or die. Sayyid Ali Khamenei is Shia, so you would expect that if ISIS were beating particularly on Sunnis that he wouldn't mind too much………..

@Great War Ace: They're Shia, DAESH is nominally Sunni, no love lost. Why else would the Iranians be sending their best Special Ops teams to Syria?

Back to the Manchester bombing, it seems that the father of the bomber and an instigator tried to straighten them out, even reporting to his superiors on the police force.

I really feel sorry for that man. Can't imagine what it must be like to have your own sons murder children…

Again, we have to deal with the same nonsenses and misconceptions about Islam, The Koran and the Prophet.

Again, the triumph of ignorance and intellectual laziness.

Somebody has talked about ISIS as an ‘Islamic Institution': is it a joke?

Firstly, there is not a single word with the modern meaning of ‘state' in the Arabic language of Koran. Secondly, ISIS, and wahabbism/salafism, is considered heretical by all great religious authorities of Islam. In fact, ISIS is not Islam. ISIS is not a religious institution, it is a terrorist organization which use a kind of false doctrine, created artificially, with the intention of supporting its crimes. Every terrorist organization around the world, from the past until the present, has created false ideological justifications in order to support its real aims: political and/or economic interests, not religious ones.

And that false 'caliphate' is not recognized by any serious Islamic religious authority.

The forum's rules do not allow us to talk about religious matters, so I cannot answer deeply every absurdity about Islam written by other members. I have offered in previous topics a bit of real knowledge about Islam, including some reputed authors. If you want to learn something right on Islam (and any other religion) in order to have a respectable and accurate opinion about these matters, you must study hard. Otherwise you are only repeating false statements and despicable propaganda.

Thinking that Islam must disappear and be replaced by a sort of ‘western values' is: a fascist attitude, a colonialist attitude, an ignorant opinion, a narrow-minded mentality, a criminal ethnocentric approach, a miserable attitude, an impoverishing way of thinking.

Islam, Christianity, Ancient Judaism (and Kabbalah), Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and every authentic spiritual doctrine, are all Holy Religions and Doctrines. You cannot understand human being and human nature without them, even though the modern materialism/economicism tries desperately to destroy the spiritual roots of human being.

I believe VVV reply intended to write "Shia" instead of "Sunni"--the ISIS attitude towards Shia is well documented:

link

ITALWARS has it upside down. ISIS hopes to provoke a heavy backlash against Muslim communities in Western countries. This will enable them to say "See? The West hates and wants to destroy Islam. You have no choice but to join us!"

This should not be surprising--it is a tactic used by guerrilla movements throughout history.

There was an interesting interview with Gilles Kepel on the subject, this week on BBC HARDtalk, if you can find it.

Ruchel, the fact remains that the people murdering children are Muslims and they're doing it in the name of Allah. As you say, this is no place for a religious discussion. I'm just pointing out the facts. You might think they're misguided, but they don't.

I must partially agree with ruchel….ISIS is not easy to classify but it s nt necessary Islam….said that the disgusting guy responsible for the terrorist act is very easily associable to the islamic comunity in Europe which in is quasy totality is very happy when somebody attack their european hosts instead of integrate…you are also totally wrong ruchel in labelling Islam as a simple religion…is something more important similar to a political doctrine..

Foxweasel,

No, they are not Muslims. Killing children in the name of Allah is a horrible blasphemy. Real Muslims consider that as blasphemy.

Doing something in the name of Allah does not make you a Muslim. Real Muslims are very careful when they pronounce the name of Allah, especially because the names of Allah are of extraordinary importance in their spiritual doctrine, in rituals and in common life.

ISIS is not Islam. ISIS is heretical. ISIS is a false creation which uses erroneous religious ideas in order to justify its crimes and its political/economic aims.

Obviously they do not think that they are misguided, like every fanatical criminal who use every ideology or religion in order to carry out their aggressive aims. It is unavoidable, in the past and in the present. They believe in their own nonsenses.

Ruchel,

Real (aka original, "House of War", Shariah) Muslims, or do you mean modern "secular" Muslims?

"Doing something in the name of Allah does not make you a Muslim."

Yet doing something in the name of Christ always gets that person the automatic label. Ironic, isn't it?

Dan

ITALWARS,

All religions include their own political doctrine, and doctrines related to every sphere of human life as well. Every religion influences every aspect of human life, social and personal ones. It is the essence of the concept of religion, because sacred matters are superior to human matters. Sacred principles come from God (generally speaking) and, for this reason they must guide all human matters. It is evident and logical in all religions. The separation is not possible neither desirable. An agreement is necessary. You cannot be Christian in your personal life and brush aside your religion when you have to take part in political issues. It is a personal conflict. As Jesus said: ‘No one can serve two masters' (Matthew 6:24). And the same is said by all authentic religions.

Cacique Caribe,

There are no different types of Muslims. Being a Muslim necessarily implies a sacred way to perceive and live all aspects of reality. 'Modern secular Muslims' is a weird Western concept, and very difficult to understand from an Oriental or Eastern point of view.

No, doing something in the name of Christ does not make you a Christian. Doing everything following the way of Christ makes you a real Christian.

"There are no different types of Muslims"

Lol. That's always the convenient* standard reply.

So no Shia and Sunni then? :)

Dan
PS. Another one of those replies that doesn't work when applied to all equally. So if the Crusaders weren't behaving like Christians, then the Christians must be off the hook. That's awesome! No more reason for guilt, shame and accountability (or sense of urgency when members act similarly today).

I guess that these militants who slaughter Coptics, or the Muslim clerics who fire them up to carry out these massacres and all the ines who cheer on, must not be real Muslims either:

TMP link

Dan

I mentioned an interview with the French Arabist Gilles Kepel above. For those interested, another will be featured tomorrow on PBS Newshour Weekend.

There are no diff… what?

WHAT?

Wikipedia lists at least seven different denominations: Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Ibadi, Quranic, Ahmadiyya, Black Muslim Movements, and Nondenominational.

That is of course not counting Wahhabi, Twelver Shias, Fiver Shias, and others.

Dearie me. There're different types of Muslims just as there are different types of Jews, Christians, Buddhists…

… and some of them say that it is the right, just and good thing to kill the unbelievers.

Just as, f'r ex, Arnaud Amalric, an abbot (no less!) advised the French first crusaders against the Albigensians to "kill them all and let God sort them out".

Cacique Caribe and PMC317,

If you knew the correct meaning of the word ‘Muslim', you would understand why different types of Muslims are not possible. But, again, if you want to discuss seriously on these matters you have to study hard.

Western culture likes to use short definitions in order to establish easy classifications and taxonomies, but this approach is absolutely useless when you try to understand complex philosophical or religious concepts from Eastern cultures. It is a childish and narrow-minded attitude. It is the typical Western ethnocentrism and the typical Western prejudice.

By the way, Wikipedia is not a serious source for these matters. You need to use specific academic bibliography.

There are no different types of Muslims. There are different ways to follow in order to become a real Muslim (different schools of thought in Sunni Islam, different schools of thought in Shia Islam, many Sufi ‘tariqas', etc.).
Do you understand the difference? It is easy. Different ways but only one conclusion: being a real Muslim.

People who take part in or support any kind of massacre cannot be considered real Muslims. They are just criminals and fanatical murderers.

And Christ was (and He is) very demanding regarding the concept of Faith and the correct ways which people must follow in order to live a Christian life. So, maybe it is not easy to be a real Christian.

If I may, in my own religion (Judaism) there are several movements, some of the most familiar (particularly to Americans, I'd suppose)-- Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform.

Just for the sake of analogy: Orthodox Jews do not consider the other movements to be paths to being a good Jew (although whether or not someone is Jewish is a bit more complicated, as it is defined ethnically as much as religiously). It isn't uncommon to hear "there is only one Judaism," meaning Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism.

But I've never met an Orthodox Jew who took offense, much less could not comprehend, the classification of Reform Judaism as a Jewish Religious Movement. It is heresy, perhaps, but taking a cultural point of view (rather than a frankly fundamentalist and dogmatic theological point of view) it is still readibly identifiable as a movement, which is religious, which sprung from the whole cultural entity we identify as Judaism (or, to be more balanced, were a twin development with the other extant movements).

True of the concept of "heresy" in general-- almost always, other religions are viewed a certain way, while the deeper accusation of heresy by religion X is for people/views that come from X. Its fine to say the heretic isnt a true X, but theyre still a heretical X, not a Y (there are exceptions but all that I can think of come from self-identification and/or many years of separation).

Of course things are even clearer when we're talking about crusaders or others who are not formally declared heretical but instead just seem to be contradicting religious teachinngs-- turns out religions have potentially contradicting messages, depending on interpretation, and very few religous aurhorities/communities have been so fundamentalist to excomunnicate antone who interprets one directive strong enough to sometimes fail another, especially when that involves conflict with other groups (as most religions are rather loose in those laws).

I really do get the desire to distance Islam from radical terrorists, and I'm also keen to the idea that strategically its best to not highlight the fact that the radical terrorist movements we're talking about do come from an Islamic cultural context (though the rate of converts being involved is interestinng and I'd like to see more thought on that). But that much is true, and getting caught up arguing that actually all religions are fundamental and are only followed by a miniscule handful of perfect believers is just creating a meaningless flame war.

EDIT: Feel bad just taking on one side in this post. But I'm tired and it seemed the easier path to getting back to making the real point, which is Ruchel's, and I agree with: "Thinking that Islam must disappear and be replaced by a sort of ‘western values' is: a fascist attitude, a colonialist attitude, an ignorant opinion, a narrow-minded mentality, a criminal ethnocentric approach, a miserable attitude, an impoverishing way of thinking."
(and yeah I also think its fair to compare the Stern Gang and crusaders who massacred civilians-- all exist in a religious cultural background where murdering civilians is wrong, all broke that rule, and all also believe actions are more important than intentions.)