The Manchester Libyan connection - a recruiting ground for jihadists

Suicide bomber Salem Abedi grew up in south Manchester, which has been home to a string of extremists and terrorists in recent years, many with strong Libyan connections. Security services were last night urgently investigating if Abedi, 22, whose parents came to the UK from Tripoli in the early 1990s, had links to fellow Libyan terrorist, Abdalraouf Abdallah and his brother Mohammed.

Abdalraouf, 23, was jailed for five and a half years in July last year after being convicted of trying to help other Manchester based jihadis to join Isil.

Among those he helped try to get to Syria was former RAF veteran, and Muslim convert Stephen Gray, who also grew up in the Moss Side area of Manchester.

Abdalraouf, who like Abedi, was the son of Libyan dissidents, travelled to Libya in 2010 on a gap year.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/23/manchester-libyan-connection-recruiting-ground-jihadists/

Wasn't Salem Abedi born in Britain? In the US, if you are born in the country you are American. Doesn't the UK have the same law?

Original Quill wrote:Wasn't Salem Abedi born in Britain?  In the US, if you are born in the country you are American.  Doesn't the UK have the same law?

Yes if you're born here, you're British.

If his parents came here in 1990 then it would seem he was born here (he was only 22) and would therefore have been British nationality.

Thx.  So technically, he's a home-grown criminal sort? He's a terrorist, not by his origins, but by his ideology?

Original Quill wrote:Thx.  So technically, he's a home-grown criminal sort?  He's a terrorist, not by his origins, but by his ideology?

I've no idea what he'd be classed as Quill. Sometimes it makes me laugh when we "choose" what nationality someone is.  Remember the Olympic Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson? He was celebrated in Canada when he won but as soon as he tested positive for drugs Canada disowned him and referred to him as being born in Jamaica - which he was.
They wanted him when he was a winner though.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Thx.  So technically, he's a home-grown criminal sort?  He's a terrorist, not by his origins, but by his ideology?

I've no idea what he'd be classed as Quill. Sometimes it makes me laugh when we "choose" what nationality someone is.  Remember the Olympic Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson? He was celebrated in Canada when he won but as soon as he tested positive for drugs Canada disowned him and referred to him as being born in Jamaica - which he was.
They wanted him when he was a winner though.

Technically, Ben Johnson is a Jamaican-born, Canadian sprinter.  I gather he ran under the Canadian flag in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics.  

But here you've got a British-born, British terrorist.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

I've no idea what he'd be classed as Quill. Sometimes it makes me laugh when we "choose" what nationality someone is.  Remember the Olympic Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson? He was celebrated in Canada when he won but as soon as he tested positive for drugs Canada disowned him and referred to him as being born in Jamaica - which he was.
They wanted him when he was a winner though.

Technically, Ben Johnson is a Jamaican-born, Canadian sprinter.  I gather he ran under the Canadian flag in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics.  

But here you've got a British-born, British terrorist.

It's looking that way. It was the same re 7/7 and also re the murder of Lee Rigby, which might not technically be classed as an act of terror, but it was done in the name of Islam by British men.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Thx.  So technically, he's a home-grown criminal sort?  He's a terrorist, not by his origins, but by his ideology?

I've no idea what he'd be classed as Quill. Sometimes it makes me laugh when we "choose" what nationality someone is.  Remember the Olympic Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson? He was celebrated in Canada when he won but as soon as he tested positive for drugs Canada disowned him and referred to him as being born in Jamaica - which he was.
They wanted him when he was a winner though.

Technically, Ben Johnson is a Jamaican-born, Canadian sprinter.  I gather he ran under the Canadian flag in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics.  

But here you've got a British-born, British terrorist.

That's all correct. My point was that sometimes people's nationalities change according to what they did, good or bad.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Technically, Ben Johnson is a Jamaican-born, Canadian sprinter.  I gather he ran under the Canadian flag in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics.  

But here you've got a British-born, British terrorist.

That's all correct. My point was that sometimes people's nationalities change according to what they did, good or bad.

I appreciate your point...it's a good one.

But it's getting hard to single out anything identifiable as the culprit here...beyond the individual, of course.  If we say it's ideology, I can accept that.  I want to identify Republican ideology as causing thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I'd love to "profile" them and herd them all up, and ship 'em off to a fenced in region of Brazil set aside just for them.

But they keep arguing that what they did is "political".  Apparently, that makes it all right.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

That's all correct. My point was that sometimes people's nationalities change according to what they did, good or bad.

I appreciate your point...it's a good one.

But it's getting hard to single out anything identifiable as the culprit here...beyond the individual, of course.  If we say it's ideology, I can accept that.  I want to identify Republican ideology as causing thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I'd love to "profile" them and herd them all up, and ship 'em off to a fenced in region of Brazil set aside just for them.

But they keep arguing that what they did is "political".  Apparently, that makes it all right.

Thousands of deaths?

Not the Muslims themselves committing sectarian violence against other Muslims and the US in Iraq then who actually caused hundreds of thousands of deaths?

According to one survey, 1,033,000 deaths occurred as a result of the conflict in Iraq, March 2003 to August 2007. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Americans accounted for a goodly percentage of those deaths. But, does it really matter who killed whom? It's quite clear that Republicans in Washington DC created that war. Everything that followed lies at their doorstep.

Original Quill wrote:According to one survey, 1,033,000 deaths occurred as a result of the conflict in Iraq, March 2003 to August 2007.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Americans accounted for a goodly percentage of those deaths.  But, does it really matter who killed whom?  It's quite clear that Republicans in Washington DC created that war.  Everything that followed lies at their doorstep.

Sorry what is the source for the wiki figure?

That would be more prudent

What was the actual deaths from the actual liberation of Iraq by the allies?

Less than a hundred civillians

What is the number of those killed by the sectarian violence by opposing Muslim sides

So you are blaming Americans for freeing them of Saddam and what did the people of Iraq do with this freedom?

Take your time

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:According to one survey, 1,033,000 deaths occurred as a result of the conflict in Iraq, March 2003 to August 2007.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Americans accounted for a goodly percentage of those deaths.  But, does it really matter who killed whom?  It's quite clear that Republicans in Washington DC created that war.  Everything that followed lies at their doorstep.

Sorry what is the source for the wiki figure?

That would be more prudent

If it's difficult for you to read, here it is again isolated for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Thorin wrote:What was the actual deaths from the actual liberation of Iraq by the allies?

Iraq has not been liberated.  So the count is still rising.  However, up until August 2007 the count was 1,033,000.  Now, almost ten years later, the same war has spread to the entire Levant and it continues.

Thorin wrote:What is the number of those killed by the sectarian violence by opposing Muslim sides

The conflict between Sunnis and Shi'ites was caused by the unleashing of religious strife, secondary to the American-led war.  Since it is all the same war, I don't find that there is a great deal of attention paid to parsing that figure.  If you think it is important you might research it as a part of your argument.  I'm sure it's out there.

Thorin wrote:So you are blaming Americans for freeing them of Saddam and what did the people of Iraq do with this freedom?

As I've said, there is a whole cauldron that has opened up since Republicans lied about WMD's to cause a war where none existed before.  Despite interludes and pauses, that war is not over.  ISIS, being the former al Qaeda in Iraq, still claims Iraq as part of its territory so the conflict goes on and the deaths continue.  We'll let you know when it's over, but don't hold your breath.

Its not difficult to read at all.

What is though is why you plucked out the highest estimate, which is no where near all the other estimates?

That tells you everything about you and how disingenuous you are

Lets look at your own link:


Various scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War estimated that over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time.^[1] A later study, published in 2011, estimated that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion.^[2] Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants. Updated estimates from the Iraq Body Count Project report an estimated 173,766 – 194,058 civilian deaths from 2003-2017. For troops in the U.S.-led multinational coalition, the death toll is carefully tracked and updated daily, and the names and photographs of those killed in action as well as in accidents have been published widely. A total of 4,491 U.S. service members were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2014.^[3] Regarding the Iraqis (see Tables section below), however, information on both military and civilian casualties is both less precise and less consistent. Estimates of casualty levels are available from reporters on the scene, from officials of involved organizations, and from groups that summarize information on incidents reported in the news media.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War



The reality is many of the counts are based on surverys, where people are asked questions, not any real science. Like a poll. The likely estimates are the lower ones given.


Again just pointing out casualties and ignoring what actually caused them. Muslims intent on murdering each other after they were given their freedom from a mass murderer. Shows why the regressive like you are incompetent idiots and why Jihadist's love apologists like you


So freeing people from oppression unleashed religious strife?
Are you always so clueless?
So centuries of hate between each other and religious hate about apostasy, of which each is viewed as is not the issue then?



So again what casualties were directly caused by the Americans?


In your own time

Thorin wrote:What is though is why you plucked out the highest estimate, which is no where near all the other estimates?

You can't duck truth, didge. Face it, you lose this one too.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:What is though is why you plucked out the highest estimate, which is no where near all the other estimates?

You can't duck truth, didge.  Face it, you lose this one too.

Is that why you ducked out of answering my points Quill?

Hey ho, give yourself a clap for running away. For the best retreat in history, not seen since the Italians changed sides in WW2.

Thorin wrote:So freeing people from oppression unleashed religious strife?
Are you always so clueless?
So centuries of hate between each other and religious hate about apostasy, of which each is viewed as is not the issue then?

Where have I heard that before? Oh yes, that's what Hitler said before invading Czechoslovakia, or Czecho-Slovakia.

Again didge, you just decide on a whim who is right and who is wrong. You are so anxious to go in and blow shit up--including the babies--that you don't even pause to learn.

To be honest, it sounds like you have a family connection to one side or the other.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:So freeing people from oppression unleashed religious strife?
Are you always so clueless?
So centuries of hate between each other and religious hate about apostasy, of which each is viewed as is not the issue then?

Where have I heard that before?  Oh yes, that's what Hitler said before invading Czechoslovakia, or Czecho-Slovakia.

Again didge, you just decide on a whim who is right and who is wrong.  You are so anxious to go in and blow shit up--including the babies--that you don't even pause to learn.  

To be honest, it sounds like you have a family connection to one side or the other.

Did he?

Show me where he said that?

He also never invaded that country, he did the Sudetenland.

In your own time

To be honest, I am surprised you survived falling over on your face daily

Why do you always bring Babies into it Quill?

nicko wrote:Why do you always bring Babies into it Quill?

Its simple, when he cannot answer, he tries to play the "you are a monster card and baby killer" neglecting the fact that Assad and ISIS murder tens of thousand of babies intentionally. Where as US Policy in recent wars do not intentionally try to kill babies.

Its the piss poor emotional guilt trip card being played, when the idiot lives daily in the knowledge millions of children die each year for countless reasons he does zero to stop happening

In other words, he invokes an emotional argument in desperation

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You can't duck truth, didge.  Face it, you lose this one too.

Is that why you ducked out of answering my points Quill?

Hey ho, give yourself a clap for running away. For the best retreat in history, not seen since the Italians changed sides in WW2.

Well, as long as you bring it up...you haven't made a true point since you returned, didge. You're good for finding topics, though most of your work is in C&P jobs. Apparently, you review the papers and pull stories that others wrote, and relate to your anti-Muslim bias.

Face it...you are a collector, not a thinker. And your method of analysis reflects this. You can count and you can spit out words that sound alike, but you can't see or understand implications in the logic or background of your subject.

As a result, all of your so-called "questions" are red herrings, at best (there...that gives you some credit for thinking, but I'm being kind), or deflated balloons, more commonly. To be honest, I speed-read your posts for MSP's (most significant points) and take those as your meaning.

Your questions pursue paths that are total dead-ends and have no direction. And frankly, the rest of your posts, typically, criticize others for not aggrandizing you. You ask, "Is that why you ducked out of answering my points Quill? No, frankly it's because your thoughts are not important.

This relates back to your basic authoritarianism. You focus on "your questions" and "your points" and "your conclusions" because what you really want to emphasize is you...you...you. The authoritarian personality also is narcissistic, and craves attention. I used to think: poor guy, he needs to be noticed. But having been exposed to Trump lately, I am now much harsher in my evaluation of narcissism. It's much more dangerous than just a 'needy' child.

Well, you asked...so I answered. Now back to topic.

Original Quill wrote:Wasn't Salem Abedi born in Britain?  In the US, if you are born in the country you are American.  Doesn't the UK have the same law?

All the more reason scum like this should swing for treason.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Is that why you ducked out of answering my points Quill?

Hey ho, give yourself a clap for running away. For the best retreat in history, not seen since the Italians changed sides in WW2.

Well, as long as you bring it up...you haven't made a true point since you returned, didge.  You're good for finding topics, though most of your work is in C&P jobs.  Apparently, you review the papers and pull stories that others wrote, and relate to your anti-Muslim bias.

Face it...you are a collector, not a thinker.  And your method of analysis reflects this.  You can count and you can spit out words that sound alike, but you can't see or understand implications in the logic or background of your subject.

As a result, all of your so-called "questions" are red herrings, at best (there...that gives you some credit for thinking, but I'm being kind), or deflated balloons, more commonly.  To be honest, I speed-read your posts for MSP's (most significant points) and take those as your meaning.  

Your questions pursue paths that are total dead-ends and have no direction.  And frankly, the rest of your posts, typically, criticize others for not aggrandizing you.  You ask, "Is that why you ducked out of answering my points Quill?  No, frankly it's because your thoughts are not important.

This relates back to your basic authoritarianism.  You focus on "your questions" and "your points" and "your conclusions" because what you really want to emphasize is you...you...you.  The authoritarian personality also is narcissistic, and craves attention.  I used to think: poor guy, he needs to be noticed.  But having been exposed to Trump lately, I am now much harsher in my evaluation of narcissism.  It's much more dangerous than just a 'needy' child.

Well, you asked...so I answered.  Now back to topic.

1) So you want me to post up evidence for a claim you cannot substantiate?

Well that is a new one

Then invoke anti-Muslim bias? WTF has that got to do with your claim on Hitler?

Nothing but piss poor misdirection.

2) So this has now turned into a view you have on me.

Knock yourself out buddy, where is the evidence for your claim on the quote by Hitler?

3) Sadly more about me and nothing to answer my original points on your disingenuous way to promote a very false picture of the number of victims from the Iraq conflict, of which most were by Muslims against Muslims. Where for years many Kurds and Shias had been oppressed under Saddam. That unlike where Mandela sough reconciliation on freedom for Blacks in South Africa after Apartheid. What we had in Iraq, is people become complete animals and engage themselves in the worst barbarity after they had just been given freedom. That instead of embracing that freedom, they went on a rampage of killing. Which then spilled out further to then Saudi and Iran using the country as a battleground for Islamic supremacy

4) So more about me and nothing on what you claimed, and what I easily rubbished.

5) And yet more emotive views about me, after claiming my views are not important, whilst debating me.
That is the biggest white flag surrender I have seen from you.

Try again

nicko wrote:Why do you always bring Babies into it Quill?

It's a metaphor for the worst in aggrandizing military methods and war-mongering.  Here we have these Memorial Day parades, and hear testimonies about "sacrifices" and "brave patriots", and I want to bring out the other part...what the crowds adulate.  I want to emphasize that, OMG, they are pinning a medal on his chest for mutilating a baby!!  We hate paedophiles, don't we...so why to we pin medals on them at the Memorial Day parade?

I can bring up no better proof than that you bristle (most of all) at my bringing it up.  It's like Trump, who says he's at war with the press.  He's not at war with the press, he's at war with the truth...and the press brings it out.  Likewise, just when you want to polish your brass for the Memorial Day parade, I'm going to speak out about how it was earned.

As a metaphor, it's not personal, nicko.  I mean, it's intended as personal at those who killed the babies.  But I'm also critical of those who quietly stood by while the baby was being killed.  Admit it, you saw it in southeast Asia..it wasn't you, but the guy standing next to you, or over there, across the stream.  

I want everyone to think of the innocence that was slaughtered as they polish that brass.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:Why do you always bring Babies into it Quill?

It's a metaphor for the worst in aggrandizing military methods and war-mongering.  Here we have these Memorial Day parades, and hear testimonies about "sacrifices" and "brave patriots", and I want to bring out the other part...what the crowds adulate.  I want to emphasize that, OMG, they are pinning a medal on his chest for mutilating a baby!!  We hate paedophiles, don't we...so why to we pin medals on them at the Memorial Day parade?

I can bring up no better proof than that you bristle (most of all) at my bringing it up.  It's like Trump, who says he's at war with the press.  He's not at war with the press, he's at war with the truth...and the press brings it out.  Likewise, just when you want to polish your brass for the Memorial Day parade, I'm going to speak out about how it was earned.

As a metaphor, it's not personal, nicko.  I mean, it's intended as personal at those who killed the babies.  But I'm also critical of those who quietly stood by while the baby was being killed.  Admit it, you saw it in southeast Asia..it wasn't you, but the guy standing next to you, or over there, across the stream.  I want you to think of the innocence that was slaughtered as you polish that brass.

Absurd reasoning, as in places like Syria, its Assad and various Jihad groups doing the war mongering. After people rose up wanting democracy. This was crushed by military force and what did the regressives say?

Its not my problem. After then claiming geography matters only based on imaginary lines when it comes to war, but not immigration and refugees, thus contradicting themselves. They claim, as Quill poorly has done, let them sort it out themselves. Well as any caring parent would do, they would want to stop children hurting each other and lets face it the Middle east does have many nations act like children over religious hatred.

I means how many countries are fighting religious wars there? It seems Islam and through its followers, think they have some special place to feel aggrieved, that some people in the world might want to stop them butchering each other.

The reality is what Quill portrays is hypocritical. Its lets help people here geographically that pay into the system of his country, but fuck all the rest. What decent person sits by when we can do something and then calls for people to not do something? Imagine that view when Ethiopia was starving? Does it only matter when children starve or when they are butchered by animals like ISIS or Assad?

Those selfish and its a selfish view based off fear itself, because they know getting involved means we are standing up to those who wish to commit the worst violence onto people because of their beliefs and that these same violent people might attack us, for standing up for the rights of others. You see they do not want to be attacked and say "fuck you" to those who are. Its a cowardly approach, one our forebears would hang their heads in shame at such actions

So sadly babies die in wars, what is more sad, is there is people so selfish and afraid, of the possible consequences of us doing the right thing to help those oppressed and preventing much more babies from dying.

That tells you how cowardly some people really are, when we are all one human species.

I mean if Quill is against babies dying in war, why does he advocate we do nothing to stop those murdering thousands in a war?

Kind of make his whole argument a complete contradiction,. even more so hen he fails to even understand intent. The west does not go out to deliberately kill babies in this conflict, yet Assad and ISIS do.

It shows he does not really care and uses babies who are victims to make a very piss poor argument.

Lets put it this way

His view has seen tens of thousands of children die in Syria, by calling for no action.

How many could have been saved if we had acted to stop both Assad and ISIS, if we had sent in a joint Arab nations and Nato force in there?

By fearing to act, based off a fear of reprisals through terrorism, proves he surrenders to terrorism.

Go figure