Are Muslim Terrorists Really Motivated By Islam?

Salman Abedi’s journey from cannabis-smoking university dropout to Isis suicide bomber is being gradually pieced together by investigators as Manchester reels from the worst terror attack to hit the UK in over a decade.

The 22-year-old was remembered as a “fun guy” who drank, took drugs and possibly had links with local gangs before appearing increasingly religious as his radicalisation deepened.

The same transformation has been documented in many of Europe’s deadliest terrorists, including petty criminals and drug dealers in the Isis “super cell” behind the Paris and Brussels attacks.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/salman-abedi-manchester-attacker-isis-terrorist-europe-islamist-suicide-bomber-arena-explosion-a7753541.html

These terrorists dont seem religiously motivated.

So he went from drugs to islam

Then what happened?

He became more religious

Then what happened?

You didn't read the article.

Then what happened?

You looked even more foolish.

Then what happened?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:You didn't read the article.

Then what happened?

You looked even more foolish.

Then what happened?

So more childish crap

Did he turn to hate through Islam

Yes?

Did the west try to help those fighting against Gaddafi?

Yes

What did they do with their freedom, as we saw in Iraq?

Turn on each other again

Why also were there many ready made ISIS followers there?

Why are so many Muslims easily seduced by this form of Islam?

Take your time from your own link see below (what is it with lefties and Muslims that use the word foolish all the time lol)

That Muslim preachers prey on those most vulnerable, as we see with petty criminals, a problem thus within prisons. Though this does not explain the many who are educated and are even doctors that join and follow ISIS

The only fool is someone being a sheep to religious myths based off them themselves being led by fear.





The 22-year-old was remembered as a “fun guy” who drank, took drugs and possibly had links with local gangs before appearing increasingly religious as his radicalisation deepened.


A person who said they knew Abedi from school told the Manchester Evening News: “He was an outgoing fun guy but since he went to Libya in 2011 he came back a different guy.

“He used to drink, smoke weed then all of a sudden he turned religious and I’ve not seen him since 2012.”
Other clues pointing to radicalisation include the appearance of a black flag associated with Islamist groups on Abedi’s house in Elsmore road.

“There was a black flag with Arabic writing on it on the roof for a bit, a few years ago,” a neighbour told the BBC.

Leaders at the nearby Didsbury Central Mosque, where his father and brother are said to have prayed, (both have been arrested) told The Independent they were “shocked” and did not know Abedi. 

Fawzi Haffar said: “We have many Libyans here but the sermons are extremely moderate, we are very liberal...the preaching and the way we teach Islam is the correct Islam, in our opinion.


“We have no hardcores as far as I know. We always make sure we are very mainstream.“ (mainstream???)

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Salman Abedi’s journey from cannabis-smoking university dropout to Isis suicide bomber is being gradually pieced together by investigators as Manchester reels from the worst terror attack to hit the UK in over a decade.

The 22-year-old was remembered as a “fun guy” who drank, took drugs and possibly had links with local gangs before appearing increasingly religious as his radicalisation deepened.

The same transformation has been documented in many of Europe’s deadliest terrorists, including petty criminals and drug dealers in the Isis “super cell” behind the Paris and Brussels attacks.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/salman-abedi-manchester-attacker-isis-terrorist-europe-islamist-suicide-bomber-arena-explosion-a7753541.html

These terrorists dont seem religiously motivated.

A fun guy who took drugs and drank and was involved with gangs? As though that's normal? What kind of a stupid comparison is that? I thought good Muslims never drank or took drugs? In other words he was a scumbag who became an even bigger scumbag by becoming a radical Muslim. It seems he was never a decent 'Muslim' to start with, was he?

Of course it's religiously motivated. It suits them to be such. The Spanish Inquisition was 'religiously motivated'. That's how religion can get you.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Salman Abedi’s journey from cannabis-smoking university dropout to Isis suicide bomber is being gradually pieced together by investigators as Manchester reels from the worst terror attack to hit the UK in over a decade.

The 22-year-old was remembered as a “fun guy” who drank, took drugs and possibly had links with local gangs before appearing increasingly religious as his radicalisation deepened.

The same transformation has been documented in many of Europe’s deadliest terrorists, including petty criminals and drug dealers in the Isis “super cell” behind the Paris and Brussels attacks.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/salman-abedi-manchester-attacker-isis-terrorist-europe-islamist-suicide-bomber-arena-explosion-a7753541.html

These terrorists dont seem religiously motivated.

A fun guy who took drugs and drank and was involved with gangs?    As though that's normal?   What kind of a stupid comparison is that?   I thought good Muslims never drank or took drugs?   In other words he was a scumbag who became an even bigger scumbag by becoming a radical Muslim.  It seems he was never a decent 'Muslim' to start with, was he?

Of course it's religiously motivated.   It suits them to be such.  The Spanish Inquisition was 'religiously motivated'.  That's how religion can get you.

What is wrong with drinking or taking drugs?

Does that make a person bad?

Committing crimes makes a person bad.

He never tried to murder people when he was taking drugs or drinking.

I have a friend who is a bouncer and he misses the days of when ecstasy first came out. he said and he is right, you never had trouble when people were on ecstasy, they just wanted to have sex all the time and were all about the love.

It seems he stopped drugs and drinking, when he became religious and the more religious he became, the more radicalized he became.

As to the rest of your post I agree

I think certain people are just really susceptible to radicalisation - they may be weak, or easily persuaded or just feel a need to fit in with something. In my humble opinion, these people are ripe for the picking.

eddie wrote:I think certain people are just really susceptible to radicalisation - they may be weak, or easily persuaded or just feel a need to fit in with something. In my humble opinion, these people are ripe for the picking.

Interesting Eddie and I would agree to a certain extent, but how would you explain the Hitler Youth?

Or Japanese Bushido?

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:I think certain people are just really susceptible to radicalisation - they may be weak, or easily persuaded or just feel a need to fit in with something. In my humble opinion, these people are ripe for the picking.

Interesting Eddie and I would agree to a certain extent, but how would you explain the Hitler Youth?

Or Japanese Bushido?

Or Republicans?

eddie wrote:I think certain people are just really susceptible to radicalisation - they may be weak, or easily persuaded or just feel a need to fit in with something. In my humble opinion, these people are ripe for the picking.

You have the most open mind on this forum, and that actually makes you very clever. You are open to all possibilities and then make a valued judgement.

No bullshit.

Case in point:

Differences and Similarities Between Gangs, Cults and Terrorist Groups

"All of the groups appear to appeal to individuals who feel marginalized by society and who are looking to satisfy the need to belong. It also appears that the process of joining one of these groups may involve trigger moral disengagement processes as the individual conforms to the mores of the group. In all groups, the individual gives up some level of autonomy. "

http://cides.fryshuset.se/files/2012/07/differences_and_similarities.pdf

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

eddie wrote:I think certain people are just really susceptible to radicalisation - they may be weak, or easily persuaded or just feel a need to fit in with something. In my humble opinion, these people are ripe for the picking.

You have the most open mind on this forum, and that actually makes you very clever. You are open to all possibilities and then make a valued judgement.

No bullshit.

Case in point:

Differences and Similarities Between Gangs, Cults and Terrorist Groups

"All of the groups appear to appeal to individuals who feel marginalized by society and who are looking to satisfy the need to belong. It also appears that the process of joining one of these groups may involve trigger moral disengagement processes as the individual conforms to the mores of the group. In all groups, the individual gives up some level of autonomy. "

http://cides.fryshuset.se/files/2012/07/differences_and_similarities.pdf

Absurdity Zack

What is the difference between gangs?

Ask me this, why is racial verbal hate never reacted to as when someone is critical of religious views?

You are right on gangs, just never understood there is religious gangs. Ones that ostracize all other faiths

Is there, or is there not one Islam Zack?

So what has gangs got to do with anything?

Probably not motivated by Islam, but that does not eliminate Islam as part of the problem.

Millions of people become disenfranchised and have problems in life, most do not turn to fundamentalist groups and terrorism.

I agree with the idea such a person is more susceptible to extremism, but why does he choose the path he does? What is the common link some have with groups like ISIS that others do not? That is Islam.

Maybe IS is not 'really Islam' but it is a branch that stems from religion and does use the texts as their basis, whether you agree with them or not. Are non-Muslims drawn to IS? Of course not, certainly not in noticable numbers.

Note that I am not saying Islam causes people to become terrorists. I am saying it is used by bad people to bring people in to some sick brotherhood with promises of glory. Promises that are made by bad Muslims in order to appeal to otherwise normal people. Their shared religion being the common ideal they share, even if not believed the same way at first.

On tackling the issue at home, a person should be taken in for questioning the moment it is clear they support these groups, certainly if they fly the IS flag. What else do we need?

Eilzel wrote:Probably not motivated by Islam, but that does not eliminate Islam as part of the problem.

Millions of people become disenfranchised and have problems in life, most do not turn to fundamentalist groups and terrorism.

I agree with the idea such a person is more susceptible to extremism, but why does he choose the path he does? What is the common link some have with groups like ISIS that others do not? That is Islam.

Maybe IS is not 'really Islam' but it is a branch that stems from religion and does use the texts as their basis, whether you agree with them or not. Are non-Muslims drawn to IS? Of course not, certainly not in noticable numbers.

Note that I am not saying Islam causes people to become terrorists. I am saying it is used by bad people to bring people in to some sick brotherhood with promises of glory. Promises that are made by bad Muslims in order to appeal to otherwise normal people. Their shared religion being the common ideal they share, even if not believed the same way at first.

On tackling the issue at home, a person should be taken in for questioning the moment it is clear they support these groups, certainly if they fly the IS flag. What else do we need?

I would suggest they very much are motivated by Islam. As what makes a person believe its okay to kill themselves and that they will be rewarded for doing so?

Islam through martyrdom?

The fact that you do have issues on things like transgression, martyrdom and armed jihad, shows very much how these are used as motivating factors for people to carry out suicide attacks. That they will be rewarded for carrying out some of the worst barbarity and be rewarded for this

So Islam has to be the biggest motivating factor as to how and why extremists carry out the attacks and that they feel justified.

You were too kind in your post Eilzel.

I think a lot of it does come down to where people feel their place in society is. That doesn't explain all of it of course. There are lone terrorists or mass murderers who presumably feel completely at odds with anyone else, and not necessarily for religious reasons, but after these Islamic attacks, we usually find that there's a whole network and a group of several people egging each other on. There's clearly a "them" and "us" mentality going on, but isn't that because some Muslims separate themselves from non-Muslims? They feel more in common with Muslims they never met than they do with people they might know at work or socially.

eddie wrote:I think certain people are just really susceptible to radicalisation - they may be weak, or easily persuaded or just feel a need to fit in with something. In my humble opinion, these people are ripe for the picking.

Isn't alcohol haram for any Muslim? These so called Muslim idiots kick up a stink about the evils of homosexuality and how it's forbidden in the Koran and then drink and take drugs and fornicate with children themselves. The hypocrisy is sickening. These fanatics do what suits them at any given time. I'm sure they're all the things you say but then there's the fact that they might just be evil, twisted psychos.

H/T, how right you are !

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:I think certain people are just really susceptible to radicalisation - they may be weak, or easily persuaded or just feel a need to fit in with something. In my humble opinion, these people are ripe for the picking.

Isn't alcohol haram for any Muslim?   These so called Muslim idiots kick up a stink about the evils of homosexuality and how it's forbidden in the Koran and then drink and take drugs and fornicate with children themselves.   The hypocrisy is sickening.  These fanatics do what suits them at any given time.   I'm sure they're all the things you say but then there's the fact that they might just be evil, twisted psychos.

They wouldn't be the only ones to do things that are "forbidden" though. Many Catholics do things which are "forbidden", but they don't end up blowing people up at a pop concert.

Perhaps they're looking for a "cause", a meaning to life. One can only have so much "fun" before they get bored and start looking for an alternative. The alternative is really getting a job and doing all the usual things one's supposed to do - having a path through life which everyone follows. Despite all the talk about people having all these choices these days, there is still a "norm", and perhaps some people can't accept it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Isn't alcohol haram for any Muslim?   These so called Muslim idiots kick up a stink about the evils of homosexuality and how it's forbidden in the Koran and then drink and take drugs and fornicate with children themselves.   The hypocrisy is sickening.  These fanatics do what suits them at any given time.   I'm sure they're all the things you say but then there's the fact that they might just be evil, twisted psychos.

They wouldn't be the only ones to do things that are "forbidden" though. Many Catholics do things which are "forbidden", but they don't end up blowing people up at a pop concert.

Perhaps they're looking for a "cause", a meaning to life. One can only have so much "fun" before they get bored and start looking for an alternative. The alternative is really getting a job and doing all the usual things one's supposed to do - having a path through life which everyone follows. Despite all the talk about people having all these choices these days, there is still a "norm", and perhaps some people can't accept it.

 You see it with all the do gooders banging on about rehabilitation  and trying to ensure young people don't get radicalised etc.   That's all well and good if it worked but it clearly doesn't.   Those kids were blown to smithereens because people keep procrastinating about what to do and how to deal with these fanatics.      It'll go on and on and on until someone has the balls to stand up and go, 'enough!'    That Muslim woman on Question Time was the only one who spoke anything near the truth when she spilled the beans about what was going on in Saudi sponsored mosques.   There's too many people bleating 'Racist' and not enough people taking what's going on under our noses seriously.

What these tossers crave is malignant glory and the need to live the victim fantasy.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They wouldn't be the only ones to do things that are "forbidden" though. Many Catholics do things which are "forbidden", but they don't end up blowing people up at a pop concert.

Perhaps they're looking for a "cause", a meaning to life. One can only have so much "fun" before they get bored and start looking for an alternative. The alternative is really getting a job and doing all the usual things one's supposed to do - having a path through life which everyone follows. Despite all the talk about people having all these choices these days, there is still a "norm", and perhaps some people can't accept it.

 You see it with all the do gooders banging on about rehabilitation  and trying to ensure young people don't get radicalised etc.   That's all well and good if it worked but it clearly doesn't.   Those kids were blown to smithereens because people keep procrastinating about what to do and how to deal with these fanatics.      It'll go on and on and on until someone has the balls to stand up and go, 'enough!'    That Muslim woman on Question Time was the only one who spoke anything near the truth when she spilled the beans about what was going on in Saudi sponsored mosques.   There's too many people bleating 'Racist' and not enough people taking what's going on under our noses seriously.

What these tossers crave is malignant glory and the need to live the victim fantasy.

Yes, but all this is kind of related to what we're discussing in the Hitler thread isn't it? If someone is talking in a way which indicates they have some sympathy for ISIS, what do you do with them? There's no point locking them up for a short time - they could simply come out of prison and carry on. How do you predict who will go on to actually commit such a terrible crime? Do you assume all of them might do and just lock them up for the rest of their lives, based on something they said?

I mean - look at all the people they've arrested since the Manchester bomb. First of all, I'm amazed at the ease with which they've done so. You'd think that anyone involved in such a plot would have made plans to be "out" if the police came calling. Aside from that, what if the authorities really think that the people are guilty but can't prove it? Do they lock all those people up for ever or what?

NAH, just shoot the fuckers and have done with it, [posted with Tongue in cheek].

How do they decide which "associates" are possibly involved anyway? What if I was mates with a Muslim person who subsequently went on to commit a terrorist act? Would I be picked up as a possible accomplice? Of course I would say that I had no idea what they were really like, but I couldn't prove that could I?

nicko wrote:NAH, just shoot the fuckers and have done with it,      [posted with Tongue in cheek].

Well that's what happened in Gibraltar with the IRA people who weren't an immediate danger to anyone, and look at the fuss!

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Interesting Eddie and I would agree to a certain extent, but how would you explain the Hitler Youth?

Or Japanese Bushido?

Or Republicans?

Or the KKK, ISIS, EDL, Taliban, BNP, Black Panthers...

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Or Republicans?

Or the KKK, ISIS,  EDL,  Taliban,  BNP,   Black Panthers...

You and Quill both failed to understand the point being made do you?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They wouldn't be the only ones to do things that are "forbidden" though. Many Catholics do things which are "forbidden", but they don't end up blowing people up at a pop concert.

Perhaps they're looking for a "cause", a meaning to life. One can only have so much "fun" before they get bored and start looking for an alternative. The alternative is really getting a job and doing all the usual things one's supposed to do - having a path through life which everyone follows. Despite all the talk about people having all these choices these days, there is still a "norm", and perhaps some people can't accept it.

 You see it with all the do gooders banging on about rehabilitation  and trying to ensure young people don't get radicalised etc.   That's all well and good if it worked but it clearly doesn't.   Those kids were blown to smithereens because people keep procrastinating about what to do and how to deal with these fanatics.      It'll go on and on and on until someone has the balls to stand up and go, 'enough!'    That Muslim woman on Question Time was the only one who spoke anything near the truth when she spilled the beans about what was going on in Saudi sponsored mosques.   There's too many people bleating 'Racist' and not enough people taking what's going on under our noses seriously.

What these tossers crave is malignant glory and the need to live the victim fantasy.

You perked my interest and have found that lady

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

 You see it with all the do gooders banging on about rehabilitation  and trying to ensure young people don't get radicalised etc.   That's all well and good if it worked but it clearly doesn't.   Those kids were blown to smithereens because people keep procrastinating about what to do and how to deal with these fanatics.      It'll go on and on and on until someone has the balls to stand up and go, 'enough!'    That Muslim woman on Question Time was the only one who spoke anything near the truth when she spilled the beans about what was going on in Saudi sponsored mosques.   There's too many people bleating 'Racist' and not enough people taking what's going on under our noses seriously.

What these tossers crave is malignant glory and the need to live the victim fantasy.

Yes, but all this is kind of related to what we're discussing in the Hitler thread isn't it? If someone is talking in a way which indicates they have some sympathy for ISIS, what do you do with them? There's no point locking them up for a short time - they could simply come out of prison and carry on. How do you predict who will go on to actually commit such a terrible crime? Do you assume all of them might do and just lock them up for the rest of their lives, based on something they said?

Well, you rely on surveillance, which is obviously what they were doing because as you say, they instantly swooped on all those people. Secondly, you rely on the Muslim community to dob the fuckers in. Which I'm sure a lot do. But... people did speak out against this guy and the police did nothing. Which is the whole crux of the matter. The same ethic and mindset that saw all those poor kids sexually abused for decades because nobody dared blow the whistle on a group of Muslims for fear of upsetting the community and being labelled racists.

I'll never forget that documentary I saw some years ago where traffic wardens turned a blind eye to Muslims parked on double yellows outside a mosque for fear of upsetting them. Do you see people attending Church kicking off because they can't park outside and get a ticket? Just about sums up the stupidity of selective political correctness.

For starters, anyone who travels to Syria to support IS, should have their passports destroyed regardless of if they've been born here. Fuck their human rights. And anyone caught murdering people in the name of terrorism should face the death sentence. I've never ever agreed with execution, but I'm starting to change my mind for extreme cases. If I'd lost my child to this monstrosity in Manchester, I'd not rest until I saw things changed and punishments become more severe. We're too soft in this country. We let rapists and murderers do a few years in jail then let them out. You seem to get tougher sentences for tax evasion in this country than for murder or rape or GBH.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztu1DmH2yxw


Well worth listening to.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, but all this is kind of related to what we're discussing in the Hitler thread isn't it? If someone is talking in a way which indicates they have some sympathy for ISIS, what do you do with them? There's no point locking them up for a short time - they could simply come out of prison and carry on. How do you predict who will go on to actually commit such a terrible crime? Do you assume all of them might do and just lock them up for the rest of their lives, based on something they said?

Well, you rely on surveillance, which is obviously what they were doing because as you say,  they instantly swooped on all those people.    Secondly, you rely on the Muslim community to dob the fuckers in.   Which I'm sure a lot do.  But... people did speak out against this guy and the police did nothing.   Which is the whole crux of the matter.   The same ethic and mindset that saw all those poor kids sexually abused for decades because nobody dared blow the whistle on a  group of Muslims for fear of upsetting the community and being labelled racists.  

I'll never forget that documentary I saw some years ago where traffic wardens turned a blind eye to  Muslims parked on double yellows outside a mosque for fear of upsetting them.   Do you see people attending Church kicking off because they can't park outside and get a ticket?  Just about sums up the stupidity of selective political correctness.

For starters, anyone who travels to Syria to support IS, should have their passports destroyed regardless of if they've been born here.  Fuck their human rights.  And anyone caught murdering people in the name of terrorism should face the death sentence.   I've never ever agreed with execution, but I'm starting to change my mind for extreme cases.   If I'd lost my child to this monstrosity in Manchester, I'd not rest until I saw things changed and punishments become more severe.   We're too soft in this country.  We let rapists and murderers do a few years in jail then let them out.   You seem to get tougher sentences for tax evasion in this country than for murder or rape or GBH.

I don't know if they arrested all those people because of surveillance, or because they knew the guy or associated with him. The natural thing is to suspect his family obviously, but I wouldn't be surprised if they let a lot of them go. Yes, some Muslims spoke out and reported him but for what? For saying that he agreed with ISIS? Is that enough to think that he might become a suicide bomber?

I agree with surveillance generally for anyone who's said anything a bit dodgy, but that would involve an enormous amount of resources. How do you track where they're going every minute of the day? Terrorist acts aren't necessarily plotted via the internet, which can be monitored.

How do you know why people are going to Syria? Some of them announce they're going there to support ISIS obviously, but others wouldn't. They can just say they're going there to see family or whatever. You'd have to ban anyone from going to certain countries altogether.

Whatever they do, it's going to lead to accusations of racial or religious profiling. They're not going to arrest associates of terrorists if they're English and white are they? Like I said, I could be good mates with a Muslim who turned out to be a terrorist, but I doubt very much that I'd be arrested because I'm white, English, and I'm not a Muslim.

Its simple, anyone that goes off to fight or train for an organisation that is at war with the UK. Which will mean many terrorist organisations. Should be charged with treason if born here. I would not execute them, as this provides them with martyrdom status, the last thing you should provide them with. They should receive life, with no chance of parole. That should be the cost of the crime here. Those foreign born, should be handed over to the authorities of their country to be held accountable by their courts.

What about the ones who don't go off to fight for ISIS though?

Raggamuffin wrote:What about the ones who don't go off to fight for ISIS though?

Well how are they going to commit terrorist acts if not trained Rags?

Granted that look online to make weapons and there are still ways to murder, but you are significantly diminishing the risk. As you will find in many of the cases of terrorism here, they have been trained abroad or fought with one of the terrorist organisations or even the Taliban.

So then we then have to manage a far reduced pool of people to be monitored.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What about the ones who don't go off to fight for ISIS though?

Well how are they going to commit terrorist acts if not trained Rags?

Granted that look online to make weapons and there are still ways to murder, but you are significantly diminishing the risk. As you will find in many of the cases of terrorism here, they have been trained abroad or fought with one of the terrorist organisations or even the Taliban.

So then we then have to manage a far reduced pool of people to be monitored.

I mean the ones who don't announce that's why they're going to that area of the world. They could could have people come here from Syria or wherever. Obviously, they're not going to announce that they're coming here to teach anyone how to make a bomb.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well how are they going to commit terrorist acts if not trained Rags?

Granted that look online to make weapons and there are still ways to murder, but you are significantly diminishing the risk. As you will find in many of the cases of terrorism here, they have been trained abroad or fought with one of the terrorist organisations or even the Taliban.

So then we then have to manage a far reduced pool of people to be monitored.

I mean the ones who don't announce that's why they're going to that area of the world. They could could have people come here from Syria or wherever. Obviously, they're not going to announce that they're coming here to teach anyone how to make a bomb.

Well hence why we need to cooperate with all world intelligence services.

I mean this latest terrorist stopped over in Germany on his way back from Libya

I know they are not going to announce but its clear if we are monitoring 3,000 with at some point there being 20,000 that have been monitored at one point or another by the intelligence service.  Shows we clearly do have a good grasp on what many of these extremists are doing

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Well, you rely on surveillance, which is obviously what they were doing because as you say,  they instantly swooped on all those people.    Secondly, you rely on the Muslim community to dob the fuckers in.   Which I'm sure a lot do.  But... people did speak out against this guy and the police did nothing.   Which is the whole crux of the matter.   The same ethic and mindset that saw all those poor kids sexually abused for decades because nobody dared blow the whistle on a  group of Muslims for fear of upsetting the community and being labelled racists.  

I'll never forget that documentary I saw some years ago where traffic wardens turned a blind eye to  Muslims parked on double yellows outside a mosque for fear of upsetting them.   Do you see people attending Church kicking off because they can't park outside and get a ticket?  Just about sums up the stupidity of selective political correctness.

For starters, anyone who travels to Syria to support IS, should have their passports destroyed regardless of if they've been born here.  Fuck their human rights.  And anyone caught murdering people in the name of terrorism should face the death sentence.   I've never ever agreed with execution, but I'm starting to change my mind for extreme cases.   If I'd lost my child to this monstrosity in Manchester, I'd not rest until I saw things changed and punishments become more severe.   We're too soft in this country.  We let rapists and murderers do a few years in jail then let them out.   You seem to get tougher sentences for tax evasion in this country than for murder or rape or GBH.

I don't know if they arrested all those people because of surveillance, or because they knew the guy or associated with him. The natural thing is to suspect his family obviously, but I wouldn't be surprised if they let a lot of them go. Yes, some Muslims spoke out and reported him but for what? For saying that he agreed with ISIS? Is that enough to think that he might become a suicide bomber?

If someone reported this guy, for whatever reason, then surveillance should have been stepped up. If our security services are foiling plot after plot, then why didn't they foil this plot? Why didn't even a sniff of suspicion get the radar up on this guy? Perhaps if they had, The 22 would still be alive.

I agree with surveillance generally for anyone who's said anything a bit dodgy, but that would involve an enormous amount of resources. How do you track where they're going every minute of the day? Terrorist acts aren't necessarily plotted via the internet, which can be monitored.

How do you know why people are going to Syria? Some of them announce they're going there to support ISIS obviously, but others wouldn't. They can just say they're going there to see family or whatever. You'd have to ban anyone from going to certain countries altogether.

I did say if it was proven they had gone to support IS. Plenty of them have, and plenty of them are back here in the good old Britain they despise and loathe so much.

On a final note, I found this interesting.

Akram Ramadan (who knew the Abedi family) said that most of the Libyan youth in Manchester felt “disbanded” and did not know where they belonged. “They don’t belong to either society. They are neither Libyan nor British. They are not accepted anywhere. And Libyan society considers them half-breeds. They are not accepted, which leads to so much frustration and discontent.”

Where's the multiculturism here then?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't know if they arrested all those people because of surveillance, or because they knew the guy or associated with him. The natural thing is to suspect his family obviously, but I wouldn't be surprised if they let a lot of them go. Yes, some Muslims spoke out and reported him but for what? For saying that he agreed with ISIS? Is that enough to think that he might become a suicide bomber?

If someone reported this guy, for whatever reason, then surveillance should have been stepped up.   If our security services are foiling plot after plot, then why didn't they foil this plot?  Why didn't even a sniff of suspicion get the radar up on this guy?   Perhaps if they had, The 22 would still be alive.

I agree with surveillance generally for anyone who's said anything a bit dodgy, but that would involve an enormous amount of resources. How do you track where they're going every minute of the day? Terrorist acts aren't necessarily plotted via the internet, which can be monitored.

How do you know why people are going to Syria? Some of them announce they're going there to support ISIS obviously, but others wouldn't. They can just say they're going there to see family or whatever. You'd have to ban anyone from going to certain countries altogether.

I did say if it was proven they had gone to support IS.  Plenty of them have, and plenty of them are back here in the good old Britain they despise and loathe so much.

On a final note, I found this interesting.

Akram Ramadan (who knew the Abedi family) said that most of the Libyan youth in Manchester felt “disbanded” and did not know where they belonged. “They don’t belong to either society. They are neither Libyan nor British. They are not accepted anywhere. And Libyan society considers them half-breeds. They are not accepted, which leads to so much frustration and discontent.”

Where's the multiculturism here then?  

I said a long time ago that there should be zero tolerance for anyone who goes off to join ISIS, and that "Jihadi brides" are not victims, they are criminals.

Re the rest of your post, I think all this insistence on keeping some kind of tie with a culture which happens to match your colour, or was the culture of your grandparents or even parents, is a bit pathetic. If they were born here, if they went to school here, if they have a Manchester accent, they are not Libyan, so why do they insist they are?

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I did say if it was proven they had gone to support IS.  Plenty of them have, and plenty of them are back here in the good old Britain they despise and loathe so much.

On a final note, I found this interesting.

Akram Ramadan (who knew the Abedi family) said that most of the Libyan youth in Manchester felt “disbanded” and did not know where they belonged. “They don’t belong to either society. They are neither Libyan nor British. They are not accepted anywhere. And Libyan society considers them half-breeds. They are not accepted, which leads to so much frustration and discontent.”

Where's the multiculturism here then?  

I said a long time ago that there should be zero tolerance for anyone who goes off to join ISIS, and that "Jihadi brides" are not victims, they are criminals.

Re the rest of your post, I think all this insistence on keeping some kind of tie with a culture which happens to match your colour, or was the culture of your grandparents  or even parents, is a bit pathetic. If they were born here, if they went to school here, if they have a Manchester accent, they are not Libyan, so why do they insist they are?

You'd still have Libyan heritage and I agree that nobody should be forced to forget that. Everybody's culture matters. What I find so offensive is the double standards. These radicals/potential radicals come over here to seek refuge, get looked after financially by the State, and then turn traitor and try to annihilate our people. It's even worse if they're born here. It's the sense of fucking entitlement these people have that gets to me. "You can't do/say/think this because I'm Muslim and that's not allowed." "I can preach hate on the streets but don't you dare crack jokes about Mohammed."

Well If I want to call Mohammed a peasant paedophile who married nine year olds, I uphold my right of free speech in this country to do so. So you can fuck right off and stick your Holy Jihad up your arse.

Anyway, we all know that there could well be other attacks. The authorities will stop some of them, and other terrorists will go under the radar, or they'll be deemed to not be a particular threat, even if they're known about. We know that the terrorists who committed the murders on 7/7 had been to Pakistan to training camps, but has anyone been banned from going to Pakistan? No.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I said a long time ago that there should be zero tolerance for anyone who goes off to join ISIS, and that "Jihadi brides" are not victims, they are criminals.

Re the rest of your post, I think all this insistence on keeping some kind of tie with a culture which happens to match your colour, or was the culture of your grandparents  or even parents, is a bit pathetic. If they were born here, if they went to school here, if they have a Manchester accent, they are not Libyan, so why do they insist they are?

You'd still have Libyan heritage and I agree that nobody should be forced to forget that.   Everybody's culture matters.  What I find so offensive is the double standards.   These radicals/potential radicals come over here to seek refuge, get looked after financially by the State, and then turn traitor and try to annihilate our people.   It's even worse if they're born here.   It's the sense of fucking entitlement these people have that gets to me.    "You can't do/say/think this because I'm Muslim and that's not allowed."  "I can preach hate on the streets but don't you dare crack jokes about Mohammed."    

Well If I want to call Mohammed a peasant paedophile who married nine year olds, I uphold my right of free speech in this country to do so.  So you can  fuck right off and stick your Holy Jihad up your arse.

Why do they want that "heritage"? If they want to be Libyan, they should move to Libya, otherwise they should just be British or English. It's like Muslims who bang on about Muslims in other country. It's this insistence on being a "Muslim brother" which is half the trouble.

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, we all know that there could well be other attacks. The authorities will stop some of them, and other terrorists will go under the radar, or they'll be deemed to not be a particular threat, even if they're known about. We know that the terrorists who committed the murders on 7/7 had been to Pakistan to training camps, but has anyone been banned from going to Pakistan? No.

There will be other attacks.   More will die and on and on it goes ad nauseum...

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

You'd still have Libyan heritage and I agree that nobody should be forced to forget that.   Everybody's culture matters.  What I find so offensive is the double standards.   These radicals/potential radicals come over here to seek refuge, get looked after financially by the State, and then turn traitor and try to annihilate our people.   It's even worse if they're born here.   It's the sense of fucking entitlement these people have that gets to me.    "You can't do/say/think this because I'm Muslim and that's not allowed."  "I can preach hate on the streets but don't you dare crack jokes about Mohammed."    

Well If I want to call Mohammed a peasant paedophile who married nine year olds, I uphold my right of free speech in this country to do so.  So you can  fuck right off and stick your Holy Jihad up your arse.

Why do they want that "heritage"? If they want to be Libyan, they should move to Libya, otherwise they should just be British or English. It's like Muslims who bang on about Muslims in other country. It's this insistence on being a "Muslim brother" which is half the trouble.

I could go live in Greece but I'd still be British. If I was born in Greece, of British parents, I'd consider myself British . That would be my heritage. If I was born in Greece/Britain of British and Greek parents, I'd probably consider myself of mixed heritage. You can't take that out of someone if they want to nurture it.

The problem seems to arise more from others' perceptions of your heritage. The do gooders can bang on about 'multiculturalism' til the cows come home but you can't force that on people. The truth is, most people are proud of their heritage. You don't see the Native Americans discarding theirs. Why should they? They can be born in any country but that heritage is strong in them and rightly so. It's who they are. Or who they feel they are.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

You'd still have Libyan heritage and I agree that nobody should be forced to forget that.   Everybody's culture matters.  What I find so offensive is the double standards.   These radicals/potential radicals come over here to seek refuge, get looked after financially by the State, and then turn traitor and try to annihilate our people.   It's even worse if they're born here.   It's the sense of fucking entitlement these people have that gets to me.    "You can't do/say/think this because I'm Muslim and that's not allowed."  "I can preach hate on the streets but don't you dare crack jokes about Mohammed."    

Well If I want to call Mohammed a peasant paedophile who married nine year olds, I uphold my right of free speech in this country to do so.  So you can  fuck right off and stick your Holy Jihad up your arse.

Why do they want that "heritage"? If they want to be Libyan, they should move to Libya, otherwise they should just be British or English. It's like Muslims who bang on about Muslims in other country. It's this insistence on being a "Muslim brother" which is half the trouble.

Yep. Again, this them and us, and not even a sniff of integration. I believe Muslims are happy to integrate but equally there are others who don't. And the ones who don't want to get everyone in their 'tribe'.

What I find farcical is those who spout on about how much they hate the West and despite Britain but live here just the same.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why do they want that "heritage"? If they want to be Libyan, they should move to Libya, otherwise they should just be British or English. It's like Muslims who bang on about Muslims in other country. It's this insistence on being a "Muslim brother" which is half the trouble.

I could go live in Greece but I'd still be British.   If I was born in Greece, of British parents, I'd consider myself British .  That would be my heritage.  If I was born in Greece/Britain of British and Greek parents, I'd probably consider myself of mixed heritage.    You can't take that out of someone if they want to nurture it.  

The problem seems to arise more from others' perceptions of your heritage.    The do gooders can bang on about 'multiculturalism' til the cows come home but you can't force that on people.  The truth is, most people are proud of their heritage.   You don't see the Native Americans discarding theirs.   Why should they?  They can be born in any country but that heritage is strong in them and rightly so.  It's who they are.   Or who they feel they are.

Why would you consider yourself British if you were born and brought up in Greece? You might if you were separated from Greek children and sent to mix with other British children I guess, but otherwise, why would you not identify as Greek? If you went to live in Greece, and didn't feel Greek or British, I presume you'd leave instead of moan that you don't fit in.

All this "heritage" stuff seems to cause so many problems.

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:I think certain people are just really susceptible to radicalisation - they may be weak, or easily persuaded or just feel a need to fit in with something. In my humble opinion, these people are ripe for the picking.

Interesting Eddie and I would agree to a certain extent, but how would you explain the Hitler Youth?

Or Japanese Bushido?

I can't comment on the japenese thing as I know nothing about it - happy to look at a link and learn.

As for the Hitler youth, not sure didge, couldn't they have been somewhat hypnotised by Hitler in much the same way as Muslims are radicalised?

Hitler didn't hypnotise anyone, he merely said what they wanted to hear. It's the same with radicalised Muslims.

Raggamuffin wrote:Hitler didn't hypnotise anyone, he merely said what they wanted to hear. It's the same with radicalised Muslims.

Hypnotising, brainwashing...same shit really. Stop splitting hairs Lady rags.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Hitler didn't hypnotise anyone, he merely said what they wanted to hear. It's the same with radicalised Muslims.

Hypnotising, brainwashing...same shit really. Stop splitting hairs Lady rags.

It might be the same thing as "brainwashing", but he didn't do that either. Telling someone what they want to hear isn't brainwashing or hypnotising them.

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Interesting Eddie and I would agree to a certain extent, but how would you explain the Hitler Youth?

Or Japanese Bushido?

I can't comment on the japenese thing as I know nothing about it - happy to look at a link and learn.

As for the Hitler youth, not sure didge, couldn't they have been somewhat hypnotised by Hitler in much the same way as Muslims are radicalised?

Well the Hitler youth is a fine example of where children are fed an unbalanced and indoctrinated view on life.

The same you find happening with many religious beliefs, especially when they are denied the ability to understand other ways of life and are only taught a very biased outlook on life. The point is many Hitler Youth were willing to give their lives for this belief, as they had been conditioned. Just as you see happen with those condition to extreme beliefs. That those beliefs become normalized. Hate becomes normalized, killing becomes normalized etc.

HoratioTarr

I did say if it was proven they had gone to support IS.  Plenty of them have, and plenty of them are back here in the good old Britain they despise and loathe so much.

On a final note, I found this interesting.

Akram Ramadan (who knew the Abedi family) said that most of the Libyan youth in Manchester felt “disbanded” and did not know where they belonged. “They don’t belong to either society. They are neither Libyan nor British. They are not accepted anywhere. And Libyan society considers them half-breeds. They are not accepted, which leads to so much frustration and discontent.”

Where's the multiculturism here then?


Raggamuffin

I said a long time ago that there should be zero tolerance for anyone who goes off to join ISIS, and that "Jihadi brides" are not victims, they are criminals.

Re the rest of your post, I think all this insistence on keeping some kind of tie with a culture which happens to match your colour, or was the culture of your grandparents  or even parents, is a bit pathetic. If they were born here, if they went to school here, if they have a Manchester accent, they are not Libyan, so why do they insist they are?



HoratioTarr

You'd still have Libyan heritage and I agree that nobody should be forced to forget that.   Everybody's culture matters.  What I find so offensive is the double standards.   These radicals/potential radicals come over here to seek refuge, get looked after financially by the State, and then turn traitor and try to annihilate our people.   It's even worse if they're born here.   It's the sense of fucking entitlement these people have that gets to me.    "You can't do/say/think this because I'm Muslim and that's not allowed."  "I can preach hate on the streets but don't you dare crack jokes about Mohammed."    

Well If I want to call Mohammed a peasant paedophile who married nine year olds, I uphold my right of free speech in this country to do so.  So you can  fuck right off and stick your Holy Jihad up your arse.




Good evening all!

When so many people from so many different countries and so many different cultures etc are being allowed to flood in, as well as them all being encouraged to be proud of their identity/culture/heritage etc, and to carry on with it here among themselves, in their own separate cultural/heritage identity based groups etc... creating so much division here in uk... we are told that we can celebrate the diversity of multiculturalism!!!


So... "the Libyan youth in Manchester felt “disbanded” and did not know where they belonged. “They don’t belong to either society. They are neither Libyan nor British. They are not accepted anywhere. And Libyan society considers them half-breeds. They are not accepted, which leads to so much frustration and discontent..."...?


Well... I dont feel part of any of the multitude of other 'multicultural' groups here in this country that have been foisted upon us over the last few decades either... as i'm sure none of them feel part of any of the others... and with the continued forced 'inclusion' of every other culture/heritage/identity into my own... i dont even feel like i'm part of that much any more either...