The Manchester Attacks Megathread

[Questers]

You didn't even try - you rationalised my thoughts for me. I don't respond to character assassination.

When you make a statement like, "modern feminism supports IS", you are going to be questioned. I'm sorry if you find your character to be dead as a result.

Although I'm not going to respond to anything you say on that subject, because of the reasons I outline below, I will explain:

(1) I already rationalised my point of view with IR and Sous. I am not a fan of repeating myself on-demand. You don't own my time.
(2) You made a half dozen assumptions about my point of view and then made arguments against those assumptions in your own post. This is not the behaviour of a person interested in hearing an expanded point of view.
(3) I don't waste my time trying to rebuild straw men. It's a character assassination, the content of which I don't respond to - if you want to rant, you're free to do so in your own time, but I'm not here to respond to your rants.

[Nakena]

Pretty much everything I read up on the matter in the past Years. The first generation of Al-Qaida terrorists (and islamists in general) were highly educated middle-class People, often comming from an engineering background and extensive knowledge of Theology and related matters. Which is also why their attacks were more sophisticated and devasting than the majority of the current ones.

The recent Generation of radical islamic terrorists got their indoctrination over the internet or are in some cases i'd say copycat attackers who look for opportunistic targets. They are often from a lower background, former street criminals who suddenly found a sense in life by islam. Thats a completly different thing than the Engineers.

The Manchester attack however, falls out of this pattern as it was definetively more sophistiacted and involved some planning. So this may not be true for this time.

Source?

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10656.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eu ... story.html

There some sauce for ya.

[Questers]

Even then they're only believing this interpretation because it's what's been preached to them by the crazy ones. Most of them probably haven't read scripture for themselves.

I'm sure that is easy to think, but Jihadist literature actually has a very strong tradition and in Islamic terms it isn't unsound. There is a reason a meek scholar became the head of the most successful jihadist group instead of a hardened fighter.

Deference to scholarship is pretty much a mainstream Islamic cultural thing I think. I think the Quran has a lot of stuff about how education and knowledge is the road to heaven and whatever. I'm sure there are people here who know more about it than I do.

[Uxupox]

Source?

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10656.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eu ... story.html

There some sauce for ya.

Those sources do not provide any sort correlation between education and extremism.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10656.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eu ... story.html

There some sauce for ya.

Those sources do not provide any sort correlation between education and extremism.

Correlation is always a tricky thing to prove, but it can be hilarious.

http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

[Mostrov]

Is it surprising? There are elements of Christianity which have some unusual debates. But yes, the Islamic world is a whole other place. From my POV it suffers the same problems as the other big spiritual and fatalist religions like Catholicism and Buddhism.

The Islamic world has been less stable than Christendom, the decadence of theology always struck me as a cause. However that withstanding, the sheer backwardness—Egypt didn't have printing presses until Napoleon's invasion!—points towards an ideology far more trapped in the 7th century than its alternatives. The scientific revolution at least began under Catholicism with ROger Bacon even if it flowered fully under Protestant trappings whereas Islamic science actually regressed, starting with the Greeks and then degenerated into occasionalism—cause and effect do not exist, merely God's direct intervention; ergo natural laws do not exist—which was received to considerable acclaim.

Mind I am heavily biased being born with colonial spectacles.

[Galloism]

Those sources do not provide any sort correlation between education and extremism.

Correlation is always a tricky thing to prove, but it can be hilarious.

http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

This site is fantastic.

[Mostrov]

Pretty much everything I read up on the matter in the past Years. The first generation of Al-Qaida terrorists (and islamists in general) were highly educated middle-class People, often comming from an engineering background and extensive knowledge of Theology and related matters. Which is also why their attacks were more sophisticated and devasting than the majority of the current ones.

The recent Generation of radical islamic terrorists got their indoctrination over the internet or are in some cases i'd say copycat attackers who look for opportunistic targets. They are often from a lower background, former street criminals who suddenly found a sense in life by islam. Thats a completly different thing than the Engineers.

The Manchester attack however, falls out of this pattern as it was definetively more sophistiacted and involved some planning. So this may not be true for this time.

Yet it is the from the former that the latter draw their leadership. al-Baghdadi knew al-Zawahiri, the new generation of jihadist's aren't the ones in charge of theology.

[Olerand]

A horrendous tragedy. Unfortunately, nothing done at or near the arena would have avoided this. Terrorist plots needs to be foiled before they come into action, or otherwise it's too late.
Hopefully this will urge the United Kingdom to tackle the core of terrorism more seriously, though I have my doubts. Religious fundamentalism is an issue that the UK has for ignored for far too long.

[Ethel mermania]

Correlation is always a tricky thing to prove, but it can be hilarious.

http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

This site is fantastic.

Seconded.

[Glamour]

When you make a statement like, "modern feminism supports IS", you are going to be questioned. I'm sorry if you find your character to be dead as a result.

Although I'm not going to respond to anything you say on that subject, because of the reasons I outline below, I will explain:

(1) I already rationalised my point of view with IR and Sous. I am not a fan of repeating myself on-demand. You don't own my time.
(2) You made a half dozen assumptions about my point of view and then made arguments against those assumptions in your own post. This is not the behaviour of a person interested in hearing an expanded point of view.
(3) I don't waste my time trying to rebuild straw men. It's a character assassination, the content of which I don't respond to - if you want to rant, you're free to do so in your own time, but I'm not here to respond to your rants.

i am fucking flabbergasted that you think feminism isn't against the literal slave rape army

So am I.

In an abstract of course they will all say they are against it. But they are relatively less against it than they are against "domestic patriarchy" or whatever. In practice - in a non-academic sense - this translates to being pro IS.

It's self-proving. Look for one modern feminist - as in, an accepted member of the movement - who thinks we should strike IS. If you can find a prominent western feminist who is actually against Islamic State I will eat my words.

i am fucking flabbergasted that you think feminism isn't against the literal slave rape army

So I have found where you claim to have rationalised your thoughts that modern feminism supports IS. You have not done so.

1. "It's self proving" that "modern feminism supports IS" because there are no feminist women or men in the entire Western world who believe we should strike IS. Well, firstly, as I have said and to which you have not responded, the conclusion that modern feminism as a globular entity, because of absence of evidence, is therefore evidently in support of IS is unsound. To say that I should be "careful" when coming from a feminist perspective because of that is therefore a non-sequitur. Well, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I believe we should strike IS. So I suppose you should eat your words. But I anticipate an ad hominem about how I am not "prominent" instead. But in fact, even to "strike IS" is not as simple as you purport it to be, because as I have already said in this thread, ISIS is the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria by name only. They are internationally based guerilla fighters more concerned with hatred for everyone of Western culture, and in the case of this specific attack, women, girls and the LGBT community, than they are with religion other than using it as a mask to make the horror of their true face more attractive to potential recruits. Recruits who, if they understood even on a basic level the value of feminism among many other things, would never join IS and become the losers that they are.

2. Feminists will "say they are against" IS, but secretly support the downfall of the liberal world order because they hate "domestic patriarchy". No. They do not appreciate patriarchy, foreign or domestic. This means that they don't agree with the blind acceptance of an aggressive and emotionally unstable and intellectually unsound man who poses a danger because of his temperament to international intelligence sharing and cultural cooperation and perhaps even democracy itself, which may come to light or may not if he accepts that he should be investigated for treason and espionage if the democratic process (which does not end at the point of election but incorporates protest; the two other branches of government, the judiciary and Congress, the latter of which which is supposed to cooperate because it is not a parliamentary system) calls for such an investigation. They don't agree with this especially when the most experienced candidate in history, who happened to be a woman, lost to him, and yet he was filmed talking about sexually assaulting women, literally citing his privilege in his ability to do so, but this was ignored because the "domestic patriarchy" should be upheld by default. Feminists don't like the idea of "Christian Sharia" domestically, and it should go without saying that they don't like the extreme fascism based on extreme patriarchal elements that is IS. It should also be noted that IS are not refugees and refugees are not IS, in a cut and dry sense, because, as someone already pointed out to you, the Manchester bomber was English. But regarding your claim that feminists focus on the domestic patriarchy and not IS, maybe that is why they don't actually talk about hating IS: it should be completely obvious. After all, we have people like you talking plenty about IS, and people like Katie Hopkins as well, who you mentioned, but the issue is that you are simultaneously attacking every idealist in your own society and even equating support for feminism with support for IS. Essentially, you inferred that I support IS, because I am a modern feminist. I'm sure you can see how that could be particularly inflammatory, especially in this thread. But I can see that you have missed that and instead have indulged in quite spectacular mental acrobatics. To suggest that any man or woman who is a feminist is walking around hoping that their government collapses and their country fails because they hate the fact that a man won and meanwhile they would happily accept IS running rampant and raping women all over the Middle East and blowing up women and children in the West - that is ludicrous and it is cognitive dissonance. When I asked you if you believed everyone was against you I had not seen this post, but to believe that feminists denounce IS and at the same time are less against it than their own nation is just "not the behaviour of a person hoping to hear an expanded point of view".

3. In the age of clickbait and soundbites it is easy for an actual expanded point of view to be classed as a "rant", especially a pro-feminist, anti-IS point of view, when the one classifying it as a rant is someone who believes that "modern feminism supports IS". I don't seek to own your time or even at this point engage you in discussion because clearly that is not something we mutually seek to do. You don't have to respond and I don't expect you to, at least not in any way that would develop any points. But I'm not here to speak for your benefit or avoid addressing the garbage that you're posting, even if it is to you that I am speaking directly. So feel free to ignore what I am pointing out to you, but it will be pointed out.

[Senkaku]

Is it surprising? There are elements of Christianity which have some unusual debates. But yes, the Islamic world is a whole other place. From my POV it suffers the same problems as the other big spiritual and fatalist religions like Catholicism and Buddhism.

The Islamic world has been less stable than Christendom

Well, that's wrong. Read up on European history, my dear.

However that withstanding, the sheer backwardness—Egypt didn't have printing presses until Napoleon's invasion!

And said printing presses were only invented at all thanks to the enhancement and dissemination of papermaking from the Muslim world to Europe.

whereas Islamic science actually regressed, starting with the Greeks and then degenerated into occasionalism—cause and effect do not exist, merely God's direct intervention; ergo natural laws do not exist—which was received to considerable acclaim.

Science in the Muslim world certainly ceased to be a driving innovative force as European science came to the forefront, but it's simply inaccurate to describe it as regressing and just mindlessly copying the Greeks. Here, educate yourself a little.

[Mostrov]

The Islamic world has been less stable than Christendom

Well, that's wrong. Read up on European history, my dear. [1]

However that withstanding, the sheer backwardness—Egypt didn't have printing presses until Napoleon's invasion!

And said printing presses were only invented at all thanks to the enhancement and dissemination of papermaking from the Muslim world to Europe.[2]

whereas Islamic science actually regressed, starting with the Greeks and then degenerated into occasionalism—cause and effect do not exist, merely God's direct intervention; ergo natural laws do not exist—which was received to considerable acclaim.

Science in the Muslim world certainly ceased to be a driving innovative force as European science came to the forefront, but it's simply inaccurate to describe it as regressing and just mindlessly copying the Greeks. Here, educate yourself a little.

[1] How many medieval Islamic states can you name that survived until the present day? And how many coups have occurred in western countries in the last century?

[2]Disseminating a chinese invention and improved through Persian craft. I am impressed.

[3]And didn't it regress? There certainly was little in the way of innovation, if at all. What little—and it really was quite inconsequential—,was mirrored and furthered by developments in the west. Their main contribution was transmission of the ancients.

The Islamic Golden Age is a revisionist myth perpetrated by Marxists who can't accept western historical superiority, so seek to undermine its history by showing how the west 'stole' it all—which I imagine you sympathize with from your direction. The same be can said Islam stealing Persian and Greek accomplishments, but it is the truth as well!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fowler%26fowler/Did_Britain_piggyback_on_India#Did_Britain_piggyback_on_India.3F
If you can see the equivalence, I could likewise do one for the near-east, but I am not here to rectify your lack of education.

If it were so grand, where did it all vanish to? Why was it that the west conquered the world instead of the islamic civilization?

I would ask you to read about the history of western scholasticism but that might require more reading than simply what is on wikipedia. As is, I gather, where your understanding of the Islamic golden age has come from.

[Pope Joan]

I hear that Manchester United and their opponents wore black armbands today.

That is appropriate.

Some inspiring vulgar language like that shared by David Ortiz after the Boston Marathon attack would also be appropriate.

[Senkaku]

The Islamic Golden Age is a revisionist myth perpetrated by Marxists who can't accept western historical superiority

whew lad i'm out

[The Alma Mater]

I hear that Manchester United and their opponents wore black armbands today.

That is appropriate.

Some inspiring vulgar language like that shared by David Ortiz after the Boston Marathon attack would also be appropriate.

Will "stick your f*cking Isis up your arse" do ? It was chanted a lot

[Frank Zipper]

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

What utter horseshit.

[Frank Zipper]

Greater Manchester Police have stopped sharing information with US Authorities because they keep leaking stuff to the American media. Just can't trust the Trump administration with intelligence material.

[Donut section]

Greater Manchester Police have stopped sharing information with US Authorities because they keep leaking stuff to the American media. Just can't trust the Trump administration with intelligence material.

Yeah because people worldwide don't deserve to know which Muslims are blowing people up this time....

[The Alma Mater]

Greater Manchester Police have stopped sharing information with US Authorities because they keep leaking stuff to the American media. Just can't trust the Trump administration with intelligence material.

Yeah because people worldwide don't deserve to know which Muslims are blowing people up this time....

Not during an investigation, no. Unless you like killers getting away ofc.

[Donut section]

Yeah because people worldwide don't deserve to know which Muslims are blowing people up this time....

Not during an investigation, no. Unless you like killers getting away ofc.

I don't like them leaving their countries in the first place...

[Imperializt Russia]

I would just like you to find one modern feminist who published something that is about something happening in Islamic State that doesn't make some kind of inert reference to how we are actually worse here

If they are actually talking about IS, then no, they will not say "well we have it worse here", on the basis of as Sous put it, "literal rape slave army".

[Alvecia]

Police still hanging around here at the airport. Got a three car checkpoint set up at one of the roads in. Can see it from my office window.

[Eastfield Lodge]

Not during an investigation, no. Unless you like killers getting away ofc.

I don't like them leaving their countries in the first place...

This guy was born in Britain???

[Aelex]

Even then they're only believing this interpretation because it's what's been preached to them by the crazy ones. Most of them probably haven't read scripture for themselves.

The contrary is actually more likely. :^)