The Manchester Attacks Megathread

[Proctopeo]

What do you mean "subjective"? Britain First's leaders used to film themselves more or less invading mosques and shouting at the imams until they got prosecuted for it.

I said "potentially".
Also, proof, please.

[Galloism]

Arguing it was a gender-based attack is inherently a political statement, and was made for political gain.

It's a feel-good article about the writer's daughter for fuck's sake, Gallo.

Arguing it was a gender-based attack is inherently a political statement, and was made for political gain.

Like what.

If you read it as purely a feel good article, you didn't read it carefully.

The gain is obvious. It's once again supporting the notion that women are inherently targeted for violence because of their gender and that it's so hard to be a girl in comparison with anything else. The author even makes this statement:

Cowards love to target populations whose strength and dignity make them feel threatened — minorities, gay people, girls and women. Across the world right now, girls are gathering on playgrounds and in classrooms, trying to make sense of things that make no sense. Trying to reassure and comfort one another. Trying to not feel beaten and down and afraid. Like they do for one another most days.

Doesn't that just tug at your heart? Make you want to vote in people who will do more to help these poor oppressed girls?

It does for me. I want to stop terrorism. I want to protect these girls. It's a motivating statement. A political statement.

[Senegalboy]

A large minority dislike muslims and label all muslims terrorists so it's hard

Evidence for such a claim?

52% of Britons believe Muslims make trouble
55% of Britons would be concerned about building a mosque in their area
58% of Britons associate islam with terror
A guardian report sorry I can't put the link

[Austrasien]

Sounds dangerously like socialism. That would take us BACK TO THE 1970S, can't be having that.

No, the way forwards is the DYNAMIC... dynamic-ness of the GIG ECONOMY where workers are denied legal protections as employees through loopholes about "self-employment", and the very nature of stable employment itself.

Welcome to the post-national economy. Free movement of money, goods and people is incompatible with intranational equality.

Of course all thing run together and it was the desire to liberate the flows which brought all these Muslims to Europe in the first place, who become all these terrorists when things don't work out according to plan. The cohesive national society and national economy that existed before would almost certainly have been better at integrating them by providing them with a stable job and solid prospects for advancement. But they probably wouldn't be there in the first place.

[Proctopeo]

Evidence for such a claim?

52% of Britons believe Muslims make trouble
55% of Britons would be concerned about building a mosque in their area
58% of Britons associate islam with terror
A guardian report sorry I can't put the link

The guardian? I'd be skeptical even if I had the link in that case.

[Senegalboy]

52% of Britons believe Muslims make trouble
55% of Britons would be concerned about building a mosque in their area
58% of Britons associate islam with terror
A guardian report sorry I can't put the link

The guardian? I'd be skeptical even if I had the link in that case.

Well it is visible

[Gallia-]

Sounds dangerously like socialism. That would take us BACK TO THE 1970S, can't be having that.

No, the way forwards is the DYNAMIC... dynamic-ness of the GIG ECONOMY where workers are denied legal protections as employees through loopholes about "self-employment", and the very nature of stable employment itself.

Welcome to the post-national economy. Free movement of money, goods and people is incompatible with intranational equality.

Of course all thing run together and it was the desire to liberate the flows which brought all these Muslims to Europe in the first place, who become all these terrorists when things don't work out according to plan. The cohesive national society and national economy that existed before would almost certainly have been better at integrating them by providing them with a stable job and solid prospects for advancement. But they probably wouldn't be there in the first place.

In a decade or so it'll be happening to everyone equally. Then we can finally just blame it on poor people and liquidate them all I guess? Silicon Valley will make special police robots that liquidate anyone who can't present their past four years of tax returns in thirty seconds. "Giggers" will become the new slur for people without stable employment, and they'll be pushed to the margins of the increasingly small (geographically and humanly) and isolated wealth economy as squatters and slums expand.

I guess the only real hope is a backlash against it, but that would require people actually surrender their short-term earnings in exchange for long-term societal stability by paying proper amounts of taxes again.

Truly the next twilight of Western civilization.

Gibson_was_right.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's a feel-good article about the writer's daughter for fuck's sake, Gallo.

Like what.

If you read it as purely a feel good article, you didn't read it carefully.

Oh I did, I just took my conspiracy hat off, because the article's not about capitalism.

The gain is obvious. It's once again supporting the notion that women are inherently targeted for violence because of their gender and that it's so hard to be a girl in comparison with anything else.

No.

I also know that the Manchester attack didn’t only affect girls. But ... it’s impossible to ignore the targeted way that this was an act of violence at an event with a heavily female audience.

You've made me defend the daily Fail, so you've made me angry, but this falls exactly in line with the line of argument in their article - the free expression of women, sexually or otherwise, is a possible and even likely motive for the attack. The bomber was believed to be a "mule" for a cell with a proficient bombmaker, suggesting the location and event was targeted and just needed an impressionable local boy to actually do the deed.

I want to remind you what a refuge pop music is — music that speaks to you, without judgment. That makes you feel safe and joyful in a culture that seems to purposefully and ceaselessly try to tear you down. One that seeks to punish you for how you dress, that trivializes your interests and your icons, that obsesses over guarding your purity.

Are you denying that this is widely done, to a much different extent to men, in the west and elsewhere? And that women are repressed in manners distinct from men by Islamist groups like IS?

Doesn't that just tug at your heart? Make you want to vote in people who will do more to help these poor oppressed girls?

It does for me. I want to stop terrorism. I want to protect these girls. It's a motivating statement. A political statement.

Are you that scared of feeling empathy for women that this is how you're reacting to a female writer saying "I took my daughter to see Ariana once, girly pop music that makes girls feel good has been attacked".

I mean the blunt statement "this was an attack on girls" is almost exactly the same statement as "the Westminster attack was an attack on democracy", or "an attack on England".

[Eastfield Lodge]

52% of Britons believe Muslims make trouble
55% of Britons would be concerned about building a mosque in their area
58% of Britons associate islam with terror
A guardian report sorry I can't put the link

The guardian? I'd be skeptical even if I had the link in that case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36346886/uk-attitudes-towards-islam-concerning-after-survey-of-2000-people

[Galloism]

If you read it as purely a feel good article, you didn't read it carefully.

Oh I did, I just took my conspiracy hat off, because the article's not about capitalism.

No. No it isn't.

It's about gender.

The gain is obvious. It's once again supporting the notion that women are inherently targeted for violence because of their gender and that it's so hard to be a girl in comparison with anything else.

No.

I also know that the Manchester attack didn’t only affect girls. But ... it’s impossible to ignore the targeted way that this was an act of violence at an event with a heavily female audience.

Yes. I read that. It was a targeted attack on girls which incidentally might have killed a guy or two. It's normal tokenism in media.

You've made me defend the daily Fail, so you've made me angry,

I giggled.

but this falls exactly in line with the line of argument in their article - the free expression of women, sexually or otherwise, is a possible and even likely motive for the attack. The bomber was believed to be a "mule" for a cell with a proficient bombmaker, suggesting the location and event was targeted and just needed an impressionable local boy to actually do the deed.

Or it could be that pop music is an abomination (which it is, though not bomb-worthy by any stretch) or that this is how we make people afraid so we target a concert, or any one of a hundred other reasons. This is a political assertion lacking evidence made for political purposes.

I want to remind you what a refuge pop music is — music that speaks to you, without judgment. That makes you feel safe and joyful in a culture that seems to purposefully and ceaselessly try to tear you down. One that seeks to punish you for how you dress, that trivializes your interests and your icons, that obsesses over guarding your purity.

Are you denying that this is widely done, to a much different extent to men, in the west and elsewhere? And that women are repressed in manners distinct from men by Islamist groups like IS?

Yeah, I'll agree with that.

Men are usually tortured to death by ISIS or tortured followed by a public beheading, or force them into various forms of slavery, while women are either sent home or pressed into sexual slavery. Those are distinctly different.

However, I'm not trying to make this about gender - there's plenty of other threads for that (clearly). Please let's not do that. I was merely remarking on the hypocrisy of Salon moaning about making something political, and then immediately making it political. Nothing more, nothing less.

Doesn't that just tug at your heart? Make you want to vote in people who will do more to help these poor oppressed girls?

It does for me. I want to stop terrorism. I want to protect these girls. It's a motivating statement. A political statement.

Are you that scared of feeling empathy for women that this is how you're reacting to a female writer saying "I took my daughter to see Ariana once, girly pop music that makes girls feel good has been attacked".

That's not what the article was about, and I wasn't scared of feeling empathy. I actually DO feel empathy. I remarked, nonsarcastically, that this article made me feel empathy. It makes me want to stand up and do something to enact political change.

Because it was a political statement.

I mean the blunt statement "this was an attack on girls" is almost exactly the same statement as "the Westminster attack was an attack on democracy", or "an attack on England".

Yeah, those are political statements too.

[Imperializt Russia]

Then I question your use of the term "politicised".
Really, I'm depressed that we're using the term "political" to describe feminism (which this isn't even explicitly about) as though it's an insult.

I'd call this about as butchered as "Godwin's law". You're using it as a trap card, rather than a serious debate point.
Or you think it's a serious debate point, while I can only see it as a really fucking weird trap card.

I would also question your assertion that it is "about gender", since you could easily correct and I might agree with you, but the term "gender" has several connotations, a bunch of them legitimate and non-contradictory, and several bullshit.

[Aelex]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36346886/uk-attitudes-towards-islam-concerning-after-survey-of-2000-people

So after numerous terror attacks committed in the name of Islam and the Muslim population getting itself an horrible reputation because of its shit behavior, the general populace in the U.K is starting to dislike more Islam and Muslims.
How so very freaking surprising. Tots couldn't have seen this coming.

[Galloism]

Then I question your use of the term "politicised".
Really, I'm depressed that we're using the term "political" to describe feminism (which this isn't even explicitly about) as though it's an insult.

I would also question your assertion that it is "about gender", since you could easily correct and I might agree with you, but the term "gender" has several connotations, a bunch of them legitimate and non-contradictory, and several bullshit.

I'm not sure why you think the observation that someone is making a political statement is an insult. We make political statements on this forum all the time. Recognizing them isn't an insult to the person speaking them.

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of decrying someone for making a political statement and then immediately making one, literally within seconds. That's all.

[Questers]

Salman Abedi was English.

So was Lord Haw Haw.

[Gauthier]

Salman Abedi was English.

So was Lord Haw Haw.

Lord Haw Haw wasn't denounced as a kraut.

[Questers]

But he was hanged for serving them.

Salman Abedi was in the service of a foreign power. The idea he was some nutter who did this for no reason, totally without connection to this country's enemies, is nonsense.

[Vassenor]

But he was hanged for serving them.

Salman Abedi was in the service of a foreign power. The idea he was some nutter who did this for no reason, totally without connection to this country's enemies, is nonsense.

So we don't recognise IS as a sovereign nation but we still consider it serving a foreign power.

[Questers]

But he was hanged for serving them.

Salman Abedi was in the service of a foreign power. The idea he was some nutter who did this for no reason, totally without connection to this country's enemies, is nonsense.

So we don't recognise IS as a sovereign nation but we still consider it serving a foreign power.

We don't recognise it as a sovereign nation for political reasons, but it fulfills all the criteria to become a country. Similarly, Britain did not recognise the USSR until 1924, but it was clearly an extant foreign power until that date.

[Gauthier]

But he was hanged for serving them.

Salman Abedi was in the service of a foreign power. The idea he was some nutter who did this for no reason, totally without connection to this country's enemies, is nonsense.

But nobody demanded all upper class Brits be rounded up and expelled because of him, unlike what happens every time a Muslim is implicated in an attack.

[Questers]

But he was hanged for serving them.

Salman Abedi was in the service of a foreign power. The idea he was some nutter who did this for no reason, totally without connection to this country's enemies, is nonsense.

But nobody demanded all upper class Brits be rounded up and expelled because of him, unlike what hapoens every time a Muslim is implicated in an attack.

Nobody serious is demanding all Muslims be rounded up and expelled.

This is a non-mainstream view.

"Don't you dare touch IS, western terror attacks are totally unconnected to them," however, is a mainstream view.

[Glamour]

Oh yes, I forgot any mention that women don't have it rosy was "political".

Arguing it was a gender-based attack is inherently a political statement, and was made for political gain.

Of course it was gender-based. It was designed to attack our women and children. How is that not obvious to you? ISIS themselves said that the concert was one of "prostitution". Their entire outlook hates the way that Western women dress, act, operate without male supervision, are free to some degree to do what they like, and celebrate themselves. They hate people like Ariana Grande because she facilitates this. They hate pop music, they hate pop culture, they hate Western culture and the emancipation of women. And apart from that their tactics of warfare are meant to be as demoralising as possible, so whereas (at least in some rose-tinted view of the past) it was always about men going to war and women and children being shielded, now it is about trying to horrify the West by totally attacking everything about our way of life - it is women and children first, in a sense, in this specific attack. But the aim is to attack as many different niches of our culture as possible so as to convince us that nothing is sacred and our entire culture is under attack in every way. This particular attack was about women and children, and that is not hard to see unless you have some kind of misguided, lost-little-boy, useless, sad hang-ups about feminism.

This explains it.

In November 2015 members of an Isis network killed more than 150 people in a concert hall, bars and on the streets outside a football international in Paris. In Germany, it was Berlin’s Christmas market that was attacked.

Why this shift, and why are such targets so apparently attractive to a terrorist?

One reason is that the more obvious targets – the military bases, embassies, government offices, airports and so on – are better protected than they were a decade ago. Terrorist targets are often determined by what is feasible, not by what fits a master plan.

Another reason for the shift is that al-Qaida, now relatively weaker than before, and Islamic State, which has become pre-eminent among jihadis, differ on tactics and strategy, even if their aims coincide. The veterans of al-Qaida prioritise building support for their extremist project and try to strike targets that they believe potential sympathisers will regard as legitimate. They may justify some attacks as being in line with their reading of Islamic law which calls for fair retaliation – in their case for Muslim casualties of western military actions. Others can be justified by deeming citizens of western nations collectively responsible for the acts of their governments. But even al-Qaida would probably consider killing teenagers at a concert to be beyond the pale.

Not Isis however. The group relies on escalating brutality to terrorise target populations, whether in the west or the Middle East.

One factor behind the focus on “lifestyle” targets is longstanding. Isis described Monday night’s concert as “shameless”, much as it described victims of its murderous attack in Paris in 2015 as “hundreds of pagans gathered for a concert of prostitution and vice”.

As you can plainly see there, they have a problem with Western culture because they believe that the emancipation of women is "prostitution" and that music in general is "vice". Their view towards music is like that of the puritans. I understand if feminism is not something that you particularly like, and I don't really care whether you think that pointing out the demographic of this attack or of an Ariana Grande concert as being predominately women and children is a political statement, but this event was centred mainly around women and children (and might I also add, the LGBT community, to a lesser degree).

But if you flat out deny that this particular attack was meant to kill and maim women, children and families - mostly the females in families and particularly the young ones - then you either have no idea who Ariana Grande is, which is fine, but I suspect that by now at least you probably do have some idea, or you are wilfully denying something that is plain as day and accusing those who point out the attackers' intentions of making an attempt at "political gain". I think I know what world you live in, and it has to be discarded out of mind when women and children are being blown up. To make denying that female victimisation is an element to this a central point is really misdirected and quite inappropriate and pointless. Someone has to tell you that there is a time for this type of point scoring and there is a time to get real. And that is a sad indictment on society and those in OUR societies who have the audacity to ignore the victimisation of women and girls even as they are being deliberately targeted and blown into oblivion in a Western country because of how they live and celebrate their lives. If we all want to harken back to the good old days of the '50s, for example, when not only the President, but actual Elvis, had Elvis hair, and women were all in the kitchen and so on and so forth - well, we can also harken back to a time when the men had the conviction and the self-respect and the dignity to actually stand up for their women when people, anyone, decided to attack them in an organised way for who they are.

To summarise what I am saying with logic, because, you know, feminism is so hormonal and is not actually a philosophy of sociology (it is the latter), I could say, "Pointing out your view that someone who says it was a gender-based attack constitutes a political statement, when indeed it was a gender-based attack, is, in effect, arguing that it is debatable as to whether it was a gender-based attack, and that is inherently a political statement, and was made for political gain. And it is you who has turned this mass murder into a political statement about gender in doing so."

[Questers]

Be careful - modern feminism is actually pro IS.

[Aelex]

But nobody demanded all upper class Brits be rounded up and expelled because of him, unlike what hapoens every time a Muslim is implicated in an attack.

Except most of those people only exist in your delusions, Gauthier. You're the only one here who constantly thinks that everyone want to ethnic cleanse muslims to the point it almost sounds like you're merely displaying your own fantasies.

[Luminesa]

Lack of accountability.

What? How on Earth does your post express that?

This kid clearly did not act in a vacuum. An interesting quote came from his Imam, who said he "saw hate in his face", when he preached.

Maybe his milkman should be have to pay for these funerals as well. Certainly his neighbours. His schoolteachers. Every adult he knows should be on the hook for Salman Abedi's actions, because I guess he wasn't responsible for them himself.

If you look at the kids family, terroism seems to be its business

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/br ... 0a23a3e516

And therefore the parents and sister of these men should be punished?

Orrr...perhaps the atmosphere around him was a very poisonous one, and that can be acknowledged as the background to why this person was as hateful as they are? But you know, carrying into bathos when you're questioned works too.

[Galloism]

<snip>

I am not going to take part in making a bombing thread about feminism and men and women and gender issues.

I will happily debate you on this, but you need to take it to either the male movement thread, MRA thread, or feminism thread - your choice.

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of Salon. That's all.

Your strawman is noted, however.