Manchester Arena 'explosions': Two loud bangs heard at Ariana Grande gig as emergency services rush to scene

First topic message reminder :

Manchester Arena 'explosions': Two loud bangs heard at Ariana Grande gig as emergency services rush to scene

People attending the concert fled in panic on hearing the noises - some in tears and some bleeding

Emergency services are rushing to reports of two loud bangs described as 'explosions' at Manchester Arena tonight.

People attending the concert by pop star Ariana Grande fled in panic on hearing the noises - some in tears.

Greater Manchester Police have tweeted to people to "stay away from the area".

At least 10 police cars, five ambulances and two riot vans have been spotted rushing to the scene.

Twitter users are reporting that they thought it was a 'gun shot' or 'bomb' - but sources say that it might be a speaker that blew during the performance.

The noises were heard at the end of the show.

One Twitter user, Riona, said: "Just got out of Manchester arena after seeing Ariana perform. There was a loud bang when the lights came on & everyone ran out screaming."

MirrorOnline has contacted Greater Manchester Police and the Arena for comment.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/manchester-arena-explosions-two-loud-10478734

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Rags I'm not sure anymore way your point is? Everyone is affected by things differently. Suffering and grief have no timescale that I'm aware of.

My point is that it annoys me when people say that "Manchester" is suffering, or the "people of Manchester" are suffering, or even that the "people of the UK" are suffering. They are not - the people who lost close relatives or friends are suffering. They might not even be from Manchester.

Well clearly Manchester is suffering, based on the real reality that many people will know people who were there that night. Thousands were there when this attack happened.
Clearly the reaction of the people of Manchester shows they are suffering.
Its not down to you to decide who is suffering and who is not suffering.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Rags I'm not sure anymore way your point is? Everyone is affected by things differently. Suffering and grief have no timescale that I'm aware of.

My point is that it annoys me when people say that "Manchester" is suffering, or the "people of Manchester" are suffering, or even that the "people of the UK" are suffering. They are not - the people who lost close relatives or friends are suffering. They might not even be from Manchester.

I think everyone in Manchester, if they could choose, would be happy not to be in the spotlight in this way.

Rags is it the term "suffering" or similar, that you object to?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

My point is that it annoys me when people say that "Manchester" is suffering, or the "people of Manchester" are suffering, or even that the "people of the UK" are suffering. They are not - the people who lost close relatives or friends are suffering. They might not even be from Manchester.

Well clearly Manchester is suffering, based on the real reality that many people will know people who were there that night. Thousands were there when this attack happened.
Clearly the reaction of the people of Manchester shows they are suffering.
Its not down to you to decide who is suffering and who is not suffering.

Are you really trying to claim that someone who might know someone who might have been there that night is suffering? Get real.

eddie wrote:Rags is it the term "suffering" or similar, that you object to?

I think it's the way they attribute the same feelings to a whole city of people - like they did with Hillsborough. It's just geography isn't it? Like I said, I lived in London for some years, but I don't think London suffered collectively when there was a bomb.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well clearly Manchester is suffering, based on the real reality that many people will know people who were there that night. Thousands were there when this attack happened.
Clearly the reaction of the people of Manchester shows they are suffering.
Its not down to you to decide who is suffering and who is not suffering.

Are you really trying to claim that someone who might know someone who might have been there that night is suffering? Get real.

Yep, because you have no idea, how they would feel

That is where your reasoning falls apart, because you simple have no idea and again proven even more so how people have been seen to be suffering

I think you are the one that needs to get into the real world.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Rags is it the term "suffering" or similar, that you object to?

I think it's the way they attribute the same feelings to a whole city of people - like they did with Hillsborough. It's just geography isn't it? Like I said, I lived in London for some years, but I don't think London suffered collectively when there was a bomb.

When lots of people feel the same thing - and grief is a strong emotion - it can be quite catching. The general atmosphere of Manchester will be one of heaviness and it can affect people's moods for days.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think it's the way they attribute the same feelings to a whole city of people - like they did with Hillsborough. It's just geography isn't it? Like I said, I lived in London for some years, but I don't think London suffered collectively when there was a bomb.

When lots of people feel the same thing - and grief is a strong emotion - it can be quite catching.  The general atmosphere of Manchester will be one of heaviness and it can affect people's moods for days.

It's a bit like funerals though. People send cards or flowers, they turn up and they might talk about the deceased person - although mostly they don't in my experience, they're usually catching up with gossip. Then a few weeks later they can't even remember it very well, and the bereaved person will be lucky to hear from them at Christmas.

One's mood being affected for days isn't really suffering is it? The kind of things that politicians and others say like - our thoughts are with the bereaved at this time - are very sweet, but for those who have lost loved ones, the grief is only just beginning, and it will probably get worse at a time when everyone else has moved on.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

When lots of people feel the same thing - and grief is a strong emotion - it can be quite catching.  The general atmosphere of Manchester will be one of heaviness and it can affect people's moods for days.

It's a bit like funerals though. People send cards or flowers, they turn up and they might talk about the deceased person - although mostly they don't in my experience, they're usually catching up with gossip. Then a few weeks later they can't even remember it very well, and the bereaved person will be lucky to hear from them at Christmas.

One's mood being affected for days isn't really suffering is it? The kind of things that politicians and others say like - our thoughts are with the bereaved at this time - are very sweet, but for those who have lost loved ones, the grief is only just beginning, and it will probably get worse at a time when everyone else has moved on.

But this is very different indeed and not something that happens daily.
It was an attack on the people of this country and it will effect many people especially when many people were at the event itself. Why not go up to Manchester this weekend and see for yourself how people are|?

Anyway, the arrests have started - no surprise there.

http://news.sky.com/story/live-manchester-arena-explosion-10889465

There are several videos around showing soldiers holding guns. They don't really look ready to react at a second's notice though.

Raggamuffin wrote:There are several videos around showing soldiers holding guns. They don't really look ready to react at a second's notice though.

Are they standing around drinking tea?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:There are several videos around showing soldiers holding guns. They don't really look ready to react at a second's notice though.

Are they standing around drinking tea?

They're not having tea on the terrace , but they look a bit casual to me. They could be faced with a terrorist any second!

I see both brothers have been arrested and the father is in denial

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/salman-abedis-father-says-his-son-is-innocent_uk_59259172e4b0650cc020b9f5?utm_hp_ref=uk

the thing is, isnt it about time we used the available derogations in the HRA and locked up ALL and EVERY one that is known to have ANY sort of engagement with isis, no matter how tenuous?

The Manchester suicide bomber was repeatedly flagged to the authorities over his extremist views, but was not stopped by officers, it emerged last night.

Counter Terrorism agencies were facing questions after it emerged Salman Abedi told friends that “being a suicide bomber was okay”, prompting them to call the Government’s anti-terrorism hotline.

Sources suggest that authorities were informed of the danger posed by Abedi on at least five separate occasions in the five years prior to the attack on Monday night.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/security-services-missed-five-opportunities-stop-manchester/

Lord Foul wrote:the thing is, isnt it about time we used the available derogations in the HRA and locked up ALL and EVERY one that is known to have ANY sort of engagement with isis, no matter how tenuous?

Probably, but I can't see it happening. What about the ones who went off to fight for ISIS and returned? Are they roaming the streets?

Lord Foul wrote:the thing is, isnt it about time we used the available derogations in the HRA and locked up ALL and EVERY one that is known to have ANY sort of engagement with isis, no matter how tenuous?

The one way to do this would be to reenact the high treason law

It's already against the law to support ISIS. I don't know how that's defined though, and it's probably not enforced anyway.

Anyway, it might be nothing to do with ISIS.

Some more views:


Here is an extract from Rambling Infidel’s post – do read the full piece here.

My emotions are surging full of rage at the evil committed by the depraved savages responsible for this heartless murder of innocents. This wasn’t an attack on the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime ministers. It wasn’t even directed at armies or police forces. It was aimed at ordinary people. It targeted children, harmless, powerless, innocent children. Religious fascists don’t bomb children going to an Ariana Grande pop concert because they have a grievance over this or that imperialist crime on “Muslim lands”. They do so because they are wicked, lawless, evil and motivated by an ideology that is based on sadism, hatred, dehumanisation, cruelty and absolutism. An ideology that not only denies, but negates any sense of morality, humanity, civilisation and virtue.

As shocking as this is, it should not be surprising. The moral universe of a Jihadist has no issues with decimating children in cold blood. For example massacaring children in a school in Peshawar, Pakistan or firing a bullet (though failed to kill) into Malala Yousufzai’s head because she demanded an education. I can go on and give you inummerable examples of these kinds of atrocities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, Nigeria etc. They will not hesistate to murder ‘their’ own children. What made you think they would not be doing the exact same thing to ours? The life of a child has no value to these nihilists.

Here are some other responses to the vile terrorist attack on Manchester: Paul Canning’s Manchester: Defiant and Proud, John Sargeant, writing in the Huffington Post, and, both writers from Manchester, Iram Ramzan and Mohammed Amin.




http://hurryupharry.org/2017/05/24/notes-on-manchester-attacks/

I do hope the actions of the irresoonsible American press hasn't jeopardised the investigation and any future trials.
What were they thinking? Idiots.

• Security services missed five opportunities to stop bomber
  
  
  
• Leaked pictures show Manchester attacker's suicide bomb
  
  
  
• May expected to raise US intelligence leaks with Trump
  
  
  
• Eight men in custody in UK over the attack
  
  
  
• Bomber's father and brother arrested in Tripoli, Libya
  
  
  
• Brother 'knew Abedi was planning attack'
  
  
  
• Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes, sister says
  
  
  
• The bomber: University dropout who turned to terror
  
  
  
• The victims: Girl, eight, among 22 people killed as scores hurt
  
  
  
• Everything we know about attack targeting Ariana Grande gig
  
  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/manchester-attack-latest-detectives-hunt-terror-network/


And there you have it.

US air strikes target Assad who murder thousands of civilians with gas attacks, shootings, bombings, starvation etc. They also target ISIS, who rape little girls, murder thousands of civilians and both are seen as lesser evils by these extremist fanatics. How or why would Islamists view American help as a reason to then blow up children at a British concert? Because they believe its acceptable to rape little girls and murder people as ISIS does. That we have no right to stop genocide and help innocent people. Its claimed he looked at Muslim children killed. Did he? Did he look at pictures where ISIS and Assad have murdered tens of thousands? Does not Christian, Yazidi, Druze, Kurdish ect children being murdered not matter then as well? As why did he not look at pictures of the countless atrocities committed by both Assad and ISIS in Syria?

This is the foreign policy Zack tells me is why Jihadists target us. A foreign policy to help free those targeted with genocide. That we should not intervene why they rape and butcher people. As they see it as Muslim lands, that are being transgressed and that they should have free reign to butcher and rape as much people as they like. Where for the first few years, the foreign policy was inaction. Which led to half a million dead, countless injured and 9 million displaced, leading to the refugee crisis. Which has led to an increase in hate against refugees and migrants.

This proves again the problem within the Muslim world, that a blame game and hate is perpetuated against the west, where we intentionally try to help stop the genocide of people.

Which goes back to my earlier point.

So foreign policy?

So where is all the Vietnamese Terrorism against the US and France back during the Indochina and Vietnam war and today?

Where is it based on their policies in two wars

Or Korean Terrorism?

Malaysian terrorism against the West?

How about any African nation?

How about the foreign policy in countless other countries?

How about Germany and Japan, from the civilian deaths of WW2?

Where is the terrorism against the west?

It is very much religious based around transgression, of which is very much played off. Its like as I said. Assad and ISIS can literally murder hundreds of thousands and is seen as a lesser evil, than the west killing by accidents some civilians. When the west is there to help in Syria.

I mean do you know what was the reason for the Bali bombing?

Because the west stopped the Indonesians committing genocide in East Timor against Christians. It was the third main reason of Al Qaeda being at odds with the west. The Wests intervention in East Timor. That we stopped genocide and Muslims saw this as an front. Are you saying that foreign policy was wrong?

How about Bosnia?

How about Kosovo?

The problem is clearly Islam and what happens to Muslims, where any non-Muslim seen to be helping Muslims is seen as a far heinous crime than Muslims butchering Muslims. So you prove exactly what I have said. That the west is viewed as colonialists and in regard to their foreign policy. So tell me, was it wrong to defeat the Taliban, who denied the most basic rights to Muslims in Afghanistan? 

Was it wrong to remove a mass murderer in Saddam Hussein?

Where was the terrorism against his regime for his foreign policies?

Raggamuffin wrote:It's already against the law to support ISIS. I don't know how that's defined though, and it's probably not enforced anyway.

Anyway, it might be nothing to do with ISIS.

I think they already took responsibility, rags?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's already against the law to support ISIS. I don't know how that's defined though, and it's probably not enforced anyway.

Anyway, it might be nothing to do with ISIS.

I think they already took responsibility, rags?

Well they would, wouldn't they?

The EUFA cup victory of ManU against Ajax lifted the spirits of many Manchester folk.  Hundreds of jobs in the city are tied up in the success of this footy club, for a start. They are considering a victory parade through the city.


And I hope the tories don't DARE try to make political capital out of this tragedy, in their election campaign. This atrocity happened  on their watch. This murdering scum  ticked everyone of the boxes for being a potential terrorist  ..... PLUS his own relatives and the local religious leaders had tipped off the authorities about him, several times! Own this, Theresa!

Lord Foul wrote:the thing is, isnt it about time we used the available derogations in the HRA and locked up ALL and EVERY one that is known to have ANY sort of engagement with isis, no matter how tenuous?

We could model it after the Nonpartisan Anti-Chinese League.

26 MAY 2017 • 5:37PM

• 'Large part of network' linked to bombing held, police say
  
  
• Fresh raids on Manchester barbershop and takeaway
  
  
• Police reveal eight men as young as 18 held in custody
  
  
• Isil calls on followers to rise up in 'war' on infidels in West
  
  
• Officers fear bomber could have distributed other devices
  
  
• Corbyn speech linking UK wars to attack declared 'crass'
  
  
• Rex Tillerson visits UK for talks after security leaks anger
  
  
• Salman Abedi: Who is uni dropout who turned to terror?
  
  
• The victims: Seven children among 22 people killed
  
  
• Everything we know about attack at Ariana Grande gig
  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/26/manchester-arena-bombing-salman-abedi-latest-updates/

An audience member on BBC’s Question Time claimed he was given an “anti-Western” leaflet from Didsbury Mosque in Manchester which suicide bomber Salman Abedi attended. However an attendee of the mosque, also on the show, argued that the mosque has a “multi-cultural community” and claimed the handout was “not official”.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/26/question-time-audience-member-claims-given-anti-west-leaflet/?playlist=structure%3Anews


Video on link