Jeremy Corbyn is right: we can be honest about the causes of terrorism while still refusing to justify it Politically unpopular or not, this kind of conversation is vital if we are to take terrorism seriously, and if we are to hope effectively to combat

Jeremy Corbyn has today called for us to address the causes of terrorism in order to try effectively to counter it. Perhaps predictably be has been accused of “justifying” terrorism by doing so, and criticised for crass timing and opportunism. However, the truth is that decades of research suggest Corbyn is quite right.

The causes of terrorism are complex, and differ significantly from case to case. However, this does not mean that we cannot identify and challenge them. More than 30 years ago the renowned political scientist Martha Crenshaw argued that there are both preconditions for terrorism, and precipitants of terrorist acts. Preconditions relate to what we might call root causes: factors over the longer term that set the stage for terrorism. Precipitants are linked to a particular event: factors that might be said to be “triggers” for the terrorist(s) involved. Both the preconditions and the precipitants may vary (in nature, impact, and extent) from case to case.

The fact that terrorism has a variety of causes, and that these might differ from situation to situation, certainly makes countering terrorism difficult: we have to account for variation, we cannot treat every person vulnerable to radicalisation as if they were the same, we cannot find comfort in simplistic narratives of hate, poverty, ignorance, or alienation.

Instead we have to embrace complexity, and we have to make counterterrorism law and policy on the basis of research, evidence and expertise. We also have to then commit the resources that are needed to make those policies and laws effective, and we have to be willing to evaluate them and to change course if it turns out they are not working or are counterproductive in some unforeseen way.

However, politics truly struggles with this. One can, perhaps, understand why. As the reaction to Jeremy Corbyn’s remarks today shows, it is not considered politically tolerable to question accepted wisdom in the field of counterterrorism, or to argue that terrorism may have causes (as opposed to “justifications”) that our actions might be contributing to. Politically unpopular or not, however, this kind of conversation is vital if we are to take terrorism seriously, and if we are to hope effectively to combat it.

In most other policy fields, we expect government to act on the basis of evidence; to survey the research, to consider it in context, to forecast the possible outcomes, to make the best laws and policies they can on the basis of this, to evaluate those laws and policies after some time, and to change them if they are not working. In the field of counterterrorism, however, this is perceived as weakness rather than prudence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Right now, much of the UK’s approach to addressing the causes of terrorism at home builds on discredited and overly simplistic theories about the so-called “escalator” from religious conservatism to “jihadist” terrorism. As a matter of fact, we know that this theory simply does not reflect reality, and yet we still make policy on the basis of it, not least the pernicious and potentially counterproductive Prevent programme.

Not only that, but the UK’s approach to countering terrorism is piecemeal and fragmented: the connections between, for example, stripping resources out of key state institutions (education, healthcare, policing), increasing surveillance, engaging in military action abroad, and privatising security at home seem simply not to be drawn.

While one cannot claim a firm causal link between Foreign Policy A and Terrorist Attack B, one can surely accept that it would be astute to commit to joined-up thinking about how the whole range of policy decisions that have implications for multiculturalism, belonging, engagement, material wellbeing, participation, openness, education and so on might, taken together, address or exacerbate the causes of terrorism.

Doing this does not preclude the everyday and vital work of intelligence-gathering and policing which is remarkably successful in protecting us from terrorist attacks on an everyday basis. Instead, all of these things need to happen together, in an evidence-based way, if we are effectively to address the terrorist threat.

Reams of peer-reviewed research, often funded by governments themselves, show that taking terrorism and counterterrorism seriously requires a focus on causes, evidence and evaluation. It also requires substantial resourcing across policing, security, education, community services, and welfare, as well as long-term thinking in policymaking and foreign policy.

In raising the question of addressing the causes of terrorism, then, Jeremy Corbyn has been neither crass nor opportunistic but, rather, insightful in taking seriously the challenges of countering terrorism and enhancing our collective security.

Fiona de Londras is the Professor of Global Legal Studies at the University of Birmingham

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-speech-manchester-attack-salman-abedi-terrorism-terrorist-honest-causes-a7757186.html



So many now coming out and saying this is the only way.

Including Andrew Neil on Tuesday,

and lets not forget the Commons Report:

David Cameron ‘ultimately responsible’ for Libya collapse and the rise of Isis, Commons report concludes
The scathing verdict comes just one day after Mr Cameron’s sudden announcement that he will leave Westminster immediately

The bloody collapse of Libya – which triggered a refugee crisis and aided the rise of Isis – is blamed today on David Cameron’s blunders when he intervened to overthrow Colonel Gaddafi.

A damning report by MPs condemns the 2011 military campaign for lacking both “accurate intelligence” and a coherent strategy for the aftermath of removing the dictator.

The disastrous results were “political and economic collapse”, tribal warfare, the refugee crisis, widespread human rights abuses and the rise of Islamic State (IS) in North Africa, fuelled by weapons abandoned by the Gaddafi regime.

The Foreign Affairs Select Committee concludes: “Through his decision-making in the National Security Council, former prime minister David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.”

The scathing verdict comes just one day after Mr Cameron’s sudden announcement that he will leave Westminster immediately, breaking an earlier pledge to stay on as a backbencher.

In the report, MPs say:

* They saw “no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya”.

* There was no “defined strategic objective” – which meant a limited intervention to protect civilians “drifted into a policy of regime change by military means”.

* There was no attempt to “pause military action” when Benghazi was secured and seek a deal to protect civilians and reform Libya, with the UK instead “focused exclusively on military intervention”.

* Mr Cameron should have used Tony Blair’s “contacts and influence” to try to secure Gaddafi’s exit and a “negotiated solution”.

* Many Libyans had taken part in the Iraq insurgency and fought with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, which meant the rise of militant extremist groups “should not have been the preserve of hindsight”.

* There was “insufficient action” taken to secure weapons abandoned by the Gaddafi regime, which contributed to the turmoil and “increased terrorism” across the region.

* Mr Cameron should have been required to issue a formal “ministerial direction” to intervene, noting the Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Richards, “dissociated himself from that decision” in evidence to the inquiry.

* France led the campaign, noting: “UK policy followed decision-taking in France”.

Just six months after sending in the RAF and the Navy, in alliance with France – after the regime threatened to attack the rebel-held city of Benghazi – a triumphant Mr Cameron was mobbed by cheering Libyans on a visit with French president Nicolas Sarkozy.

The two leaders pledged support for the future, proclaiming: “Your friends in Britain and France will stand with you as you build your country and build your democracy for the future.”

But the promise proved empty as Libya collapsed into a power vacuum, allowing Isis to seize control of part of the country and people-smugglers to send migrants towards Europe in rickety boats.

Barack Obama has called Libya the worst mistake of his presidency, apparently criticising Mr Cameron personally for the UK’s role in allowing the country to become a “s*** show”.

Crispin Blunt, the Committee’s Conservative chairman, said: “The UK's actions in Libya were part of an ill-conceived intervention, the results of which are still playing out today. Other political options were available. Political engagement might have delivered civilian protection, regime change and reform at a lesser cost to the UK and Libya.”

The international community must now get behind the United Nations-backed Government of National Accord to prevent the country descending into all-out civil war, Mr Blunt added.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokesman said: “The decision to intervene was an international one, called for by the Arab League and authorised by the United Nations Security Council. Muammar Gaddafi was unpredictable, and he had the means and motivation to carry out his threats. His actions could not be ignored, and required decisive and collective international action. Throughout the campaign we stayed within the United Nations mandate to protect civilians.

“After four decades of Gaddafi misrule, Libya undoubtedly faces huge challenges. The UK will continue to play a leading role within the international community to support the internationally recognised Libyan Government of National Accord.

“We have allocated £10million this year to help the new Government to restore stability, rebuild the economy, defeat Daesh [Isis] and tackle the criminal gangs that threaten the security of Libyans and exploit illegal migrants. HMS Enterprise and HMS Diamond are both currently deployed to support the EU naval operation to tackle illegal migration, people smuggling and arms trafficking.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/libya-david-cameron-isis-islamic-state-ultimately-responsible-for-leading-to-collapse-and-rise-of-a7251331.html?amp

So anyone trying to make out our foreign policy has not made us more unsafe, better take it up with the Commons Committee.

Oh, and here is what JC ACTUALLY said, rather than twisted waffle:

Jeremy Corbyn will use a speech in central London on Friday 26 May to tackle head-on his response to the Manchester bombing. The Labour leader plans to outline his “commitment to our country”. And his speech will also attempt to quash criticisms about his leadership and his approach to ‘terrorism’.

The speech is in response to a pre-planned attack by The Sun on the Labour leader. The paper ran a story on Thursday 25 May claiming that Corbyn had “‘bragged about blocking terror laws’ during Stop the War speech”.

And it comes after the latest YouGov polling saw Labour increase to 38%, with the Tories falling to 43% – the smallest gap of the general election so far.
On Britain’s values

Corbyn will reflect on the bombing in Manchester, which killed 22 people and injured 116, by outlining his “commitment” to the UK:

This is my commitment to our country. I want the solidarity, humanity and compassion that we have seen on the streets of Manchester this week to be the values that guide our government. There can be no love of country if there is neglect or disregard for its people.

No government can prevent every terrorist attack. If an individual is determined enough and callous enough sometimes they will get through.

But the responsibility of government is to minimise that chance – to ensure the police have the resources they need, that our foreign policy reduces rather than increases the threat to this country and that at home we never surrender the freedoms we have won and that terrorists are so determined to take away.

On policy at home

The Labour leader will also outline just what his party will do to protect the country and ensure it’s secure if he’s elected on 8 June:

To keep you and your family safe, our approach will involve change at home and change abroad. At home, Labour will reverse the cuts to our emergency services and police. Once again in Manchester, they have proved to be the best of us.

Austerity has to stop at the A&E ward and at the police station door. We cannot be protected and cared for on the cheap. There will be more police on the streets under a Labour Government. And if the security services need more resources to keep track of those who wish to murder and maim, then they should get them.

On policy abroad

Perhaps most crucially, Corbyn will address the subject of the ‘War on Terror’ directly, which started under former Labour PM Tony Blair:

We will also change what we do abroad. Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services, have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries and terrorism here at home.

That assessment in no way reduces the guilt of those who attack our children. Those terrorists will forever be reviled and held to account for their actions. But an informed understanding of the causes of terrorism is an essential part of an effective response that will protect the security of our people that fights rather than fuels terrorism.

Game-changing?

He will end by making a particularly bold statement, but one that many would consider needs to be said:

We must be brave enough to admit the ‘war on terror’ is simply not working. We need a smarter way to reduce the threat from countries.

This could well be Corbyn’s most important speech of the general election. While the party’s policies have proven popular with the public, his leadership is still used as a stick to beat Labour with by his detractors and the right-wing press. But moreover, it shows that Corbyn has an understanding of both domestic and foreign policy that goes beyond the walls of parliament.

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/05/25/friday-corbyn-will-deliver-important-speech-election-canary-copy/

sassy wrote:Jeremy Corbyn has today called for us to address the causes of terrorism in order to try effectively to counter it. Perhaps predictably be has been accused of “justifying” terrorism by doing so, and criticised for crass timing and opportunism. However, the truth is that decades of research suggest Corbyn is quite right.



http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-speech-manchester-attack-salman-abedi-terrorism-terrorist-honest-causes-a7757186.html



So many now coming out and saying this is the only way.

Including Andrew Neil on Tuesday,

and lets not forget the Commons Report:

David Cameron ‘ultimately responsible’ for Libya collapse and the rise of Isis, Commons report concludes
The scathing verdict comes just one day after Mr Cameron’s sudden announcement that he will leave Westminster immediately


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/libya-david-cameron-isis-islamic-state-ultimately-responsible-for-leading-to-collapse-and-rise-of-a7251331.html?amp

So anyone trying to make out our foreign policy has not made us more unsafe, better take it up with the Commons Committee.

What a crock of shit

So basically he is surrendering to an enemy who has no intention of ever giving us peace

In other words he is going to make as far more vulnerable to attacks, as they would see us under Corbyn as even weaker.

He also wants to sit by whilst Muslims systematically butcher each other

The causes of islamic terrorism are very simple and straight forward

They want global domination

Fancy arguing with a select committee chaired by Crispin Blunt. You couldn't make it up lol

sassy wrote:Fancy arguing with a select committee chaired by Crispin Blunt. You couldn't make it up lol

And there you have it

Sassy cannot counter the points but speaks about Crispin Blunt and not Paul Canning the writer of the article

Thorin wrote:

sassy wrote:Jeremy Corbyn has today called for us to address the causes of terrorism in order to try effectively to counter it. Perhaps predictably be has been accused of “justifying” terrorism by doing so, and criticised for crass timing and opportunism. However, the truth is that decades of research suggest Corbyn is quite right.



http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-speech-manchester-attack-salman-abedi-terrorism-terrorist-honest-causes-a7757186.html



So many now coming out and saying this is the only way.

Including Andrew Neil on Tuesday,

and lets not forget the Commons Report:


So anyone trying to make out our foreign policy has not made us more unsafe, better take it up with the Commons Committee.

What a crock of shit

So basically he is surrendering to an enemy who has no intention of ever giving us peace

In other words he is going to make as far more vulnerable to attacks, as they would see us under Corbyn as even weaker.

He also wants to sit by whilst Muslims systematically butcher each other

The causes of islamic terrorism are very simple and straight forward

They want global domination

Since the Manchester bombings there has been an understandable need to point and either laugh or yell at some of the ‘hot takes’ circulating online.

Whether they’re coming from a comedian or some random woman with a Corbyn backpack yelling ‘conspiracy!’ at soldiers outside Downing Street. Whether its some Texas redneck Sheriff seemingly arguing that British teenage girls should be armed or, in the case of a tweet of mine which went viral, some FoxNews commentator ignorant of the IRA bombing of Manchester 21 years ago.

There’s mountains of them and they’re nigh-on impossible to resist (I should know). They’re especially difficult to resist if you can use them to make a bigger political point, as Tom Harris did in a Telegraph piece headlined ‘The Left has lost the plot if it thinks the Manchester attack was a Tory conspiracy’.

The thing is that ‘the Left’ is not, enmasse, conspiracising over Manchester, and that’s significant.

The well respected Canadian writer Terry Glavin has noticed this too. He says that “a tectonic shift in the way the “debates” around terrorism [has] lately evolved.”

In the NATO capitals, something has finally shifted in the way Islamist terror is understood. It is as though the public tolerance for claptrap and prevarication of both the leftish and rightist type has at last been reached, and a new consensus, of the kind expressed so beautifully by Mancunians this week – Muslim and otherwise – is beginning to take hold.

…….

At the time of the London bombings, Jeremy Corbyn, then just a boring, offside Labour MP, joined with London Mayor Ken Livingstone (recently suspended from the Labur Party for his dalliances with anti-Semitism) and the disgraced former Labour MP George Galloway (a fancier of Syrian genocidaire Bashar Assad and a Hezbollah enthusiast) in blaming the London attack on Western foreign policy.
Corbyn is now the leader of a bitterly divided and vastly diminished Labour Party that is expected to be trounced by Prime Minister Theresa May in the June 8 parliamentary elections. You won’t hear Corbyn blaming the wicked former U.S. president George W. Bush for Monday night’s outrage in Manchester. It would be suicidal. Things have changed.
The Manchester massacre occurred four years to the day after Lee Rigby of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers was butchered by “lone wolf” jihadists in the streets of Woolwich. Rigby’s throat was opened with a crude knife and he was nearly decapitated, with a meat cleaver. As recently as 2013, it was still fashionable to utter imbecilities lightening such murderers’ burden of guilt by resort to the “blowback” defence.
At the time, the famous American fantasist/documentarian Michael Moore declared that Rigby’s slaughter was understandable, because Westerners “kill people in other countries.”
This sort of vulgar “analysis” has been largely excised from respectable conversation and appears now to be confined to the sewers of public debate, where it belongs. On Tuesday, the Kremlin propaganda channel RT News found some “experts” who took up the line. So did the viciously homophobic and anti-Semitic British Hizb ut-Tahrir group, which is about as popular among British Muslims as Galloway is among Britain’s Labour Party MPs.

The leading proponents of blowback, Tariq Ali and John Pilger, have, post-Manchester, been confined to, respectively, Democracy Now! and Russia Today with their micro-audiences. Also seems that Stop The War Coalition (StWC) have STFU. They must be chafing at the bit.

Of course there are people online connecting Corbyn’s Iraq War opposition to somehow being ‘prescient’ because that War caused ISIS or something (and here is a brilliant meme from Andrew Spooner which nails down that canard).

But these are fringe voices.

As I write what ‘blowback’ argument there is is coming not just from the left but from everywhere on the political spectrum and it’s about Theresa May’s stint as Home Secretary and her cuts to the police.

As Glavin notes:

The people of Manchester are not unfamiliar with the horrible implications of “radicalization” among young Muslim men. The Muslim leadership in that city has been acutely concerned with the implications of jihadist recruitment and grooming for some long while.

As is so often the case, it seems the bomber was indeed reported to authorities. Whether police cuts really did play a role, given how expanded the security services have been, I don’t know, but citing them is entirely legitimate and that’s what the Corbynistas are doing along with a whole lot of other people.

What the biggest (with one exception) Corbyn supporting websites are not doing is indulging conspiracy theories, such as that the bombing was a false flag connected to the election or that the army deployment is to somehow win the election.

These websites, as Jim Waterson documented for Buzzfeed, have truly huge audiences and are consequently extremely influential but fly pretty much under the radar of Tweetminster.

Thomas G Clark (Another Angry Voice (AAV)), writes Waterson, is “measured by Facebook shares per article in the first week of the election campaign, the most viral political journalist in the entire country. “

None of AAV, The Canary, Evolve Politics, and Skwawkbox have indulged conspiracism. (The Canary even had, I swear this is true, an editorial the day after the bombing that would not have been out of place in The Guardian)

The exception is Mike Sivier’s hysterical VoxPolitical, with Sivier writing that “Mrs May’s deployment of the army indicates she is quite happy to use terror tactics on her own people.”

I wrote a comment to Sivier, which of course he won’t publish:

Clark for AAV wrote last night against the conspiracy theorists, saying that “conspiracy theorising about “false flags” is deeply unhelpful”.

The evidence-free assertions that the Tories plotted this attack themselves are damaging to the fabric of British political debate. The Tories might well be an incredibly callous party, but in my view they’re also far too incompetent to pull something like that off without leaving incriminating evidence all over the place.
The important issues at the moment are that they deserve intense scrutiny about the extreme cuts they imposed on the armed forces, police, emergency services, hospitals and border agency. Also serious questions need to be asked about the emerging accusations that the bomber had been shopped to the police several times for having links to Islamist extremism.

Of course they have sailed right up to the line and there’s a lot of stuff here I think is idiotic, particularly the stuff around the bombing halting a ‘Corbyn surge’ when its clear May’s time as Home Secretary is coming back to haunt her over the issue of, of all things, security. Daniel Sugarman pointed me at this from Skwawkbox’s Steve Walker, but I don’t think its conspiracism because Walker’s not saying the troop deployment was in order to win the election (i.e. there’s a conspiracy).

And of course they have all sailed right over the line into conspiracism elsewhere. The Canary is right now doing that over the ‘Evil Hillary murdered Seth Rich who dun the Wikileaks not the Russkies’ conspiracy theory, as promoted by Fox New’s Shaun Hannity. All of them have done it over antisemitism, with Sivier being a particularly stupid example. Also, as Andrew Coates has documented, conspiracism is growing within the European left. And, as Nick Cohen and others have suggested, they may well blame the Manchester bombings June 9 for Corbyn’s defeat.

But over the Manchester bombing, as of now, most of them aren’t pushing conspiracies, and it was also notable to see Corbyn sidekick Baroness Chakrabati, the bete-noire of many reading this regarding her role around Labour and antisemitism, going out of her way to speak out against conspiracism on BBC Newnight.

Terry Glavin thinks Manchester signals that something might have changed for the better and I think the evidence suggests that it has.

What if the non-Corbynistas, the ’sensible left’, the fans of Nick Cohen – us – have actually had an impact?

What if we were so caught up in our own bubble that we failed to notice when we’ve actually won ourselves a little victory?

~~~~

*Before someone cites Rufus Hound having 1.2 million followers on Twitter the way that works is that only a tiny fraction of that number will have actually seen the Tweet. Far more will have now, of course, because it’s been amplified by the outrage to it.

~~~~

Also by me, for Little Green Footballs, ‘Manchester: Defiant and Proud‘

http://hurryupharry.org/2017/05/25/the-left-and-manchester-some-good-news/

Oops, always said you have the intellect of a gnat, you didn't actually read that did you. Got anything else that agrees with JC old boy?

And there you have it again, more infantile abuse from sassy and nothing to counter points.

Oh I read it right through sassy, but you never did, that is evident, as what was the central point by those liberal and on the left here?

That people are not bought by the blame the west argument?

That now more on the lest are seeing from the original bullshit that comes from the left on Islamic terrorism?

That many more of those anti Corbyn and understanding the threat of Islamic extremism are not being bought by people like you. 

Did you not read that?

How they can also ridicule May as well for her failing with the Police?

But why post his, if you think that article backs a Far left extremist hater like you?  






You know someone has lost the debate, when they always and continually resort to abuse.

That is sassy in a nutshell

The question I ponder is she was never this bitter and hateful in the past, she listened to reason, so what has changed?

Its simple, hate breeds hate. She is a product of hate, that she cannot listen or want to listen to anything over than her views and all others are either thick and stupid if they disagree

Thankfully we actually do have a diverse society full of ideas all people can have, where you both good and bad. What sassy has never learnt to do is reason against the wrong ones and the reason for that is she followers many bad ideas

That wasn't abusive, that was factual. Try reading the article you put up and actually comprehending it. He is saying it's a victory that Corbyn is saying this.

sassy wrote:That wasn't abusive, that was factual.   Try reading the article you put up and actually comprehending it.   He is saying it's a victory that Corbyn is saying this.

So now you are an expert on intelligence of people and what do you base this on?

Your continued hate?

Can you translate the above gibberish please?

What victory?

PMSL

This victory sassy?



At the time of the London bombings, Jeremy Corbyn, then just a boring, offside Labour MP, joined with London Mayor Ken Livingstone (recently suspended from the Labur Party for his dalliances with anti-Semitism) and the disgraced former Labour MP George Galloway (a fancier of Syrian genocidaire Bashar Assad and a Hezbollah enthusiast) in blaming the London attack on Western foreign policy.
Corbyn is now the leader of a bitterly divided and vastly diminished Labour Party that is expected to be trounced by Prime Minister Theresa May in the June 8 parliamentary elections. You won’t hear Corbyn blaming the wicked former U.S. president George W. Bush for Monday night’s outrage in Manchester. It would be suicidal. Things have changed.
The Manchester massacre occurred four years to the day after Lee Rigby of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers was butchered by “lone wolf” jihadists in the streets of Woolwich. Rigby’s throat was opened with a crude knife and he was nearly decapitated, with a meat cleaver. As recently as 2013, it was still fashionable to utter imbecilities lightening such murderers’ burden of guilt by resort to the “blowback” defence.
At the time, the famous American fantasist/documentarian Michael Moore declared that Rigby’s slaughter was understandable, because Westerners “kill people in other countries.”
This sort of vulgar “analysis” has been largely excised from respectable conversation and appears now to be confined to the sewers of public debate, where it belongs. On Tuesday, the Kremlin propaganda channel RT News found some “experts” who took up the line. So did the viciously homophobic and anti-Semitic British Hizb ut-Tahrir group, which is about as popular among British Muslims as Galloway is among Britain’s Labour Party MPs

What on earth are you talking about. Might I suggest that you take the article to your english teacher and get her to explain it to you. Really, you obviously are not comprehending what the article is saying.

Wanna read the whole article from the above sassy?



The most dramatic event that occurred in Britain this week may or may not have been the “huge bomb-like bang” that Ariana Grande concert-goers began to call in to Greater Manchester Police at 10:35 p.m. on Monday night, with eyewitness reports of dead and dismembered teenagers strewn around the foyer of the Manchester Arena.

It may or may not have been even the most important thing that happened in Manchester.

Far and away more astonishing than yet another European eruption of bloody jihadist fascism – which all the evidence suggests was the “motive” behind the atrocity – the thing that should be holding our attention was the spontaneous and yet somehow brilliantly organized mass mobilization of ordinary people in the simple duties of defiant, selfless decency.

That, and a tectonic shift in the way the “debates” around terrorism have lately evolved.

In the best, hard-headed and big-hearted traditions of that great British city, Manchester’s Muslim cab drivers spent the night delivering people to their destinations without their meters on. The Sikhs’ opened their gurudwaras and langars to the stranded and the hungry. The blood donation centre was turning people away by Tuesday morning. Imams and Muslim youth groups from throughout Britain streamed into the city to gather with the thousands of “old stock” Mancunians for a vigil at Albert Square.


The full-throated consensus was that the people of Manchester will not be badgered into outbursts of Muslim-baiting.

They will not go at one another’s throats. They will grieve together, and rejoice in their freedom together.

Said Eddy Newman, the Lord Mayor of Manchester: “We will defy the terrorists by working together to create cohesive, diverse communities that are stronger together. We are the many, they are the few.”

Around the world, there were heartwarming outpourings of solidarity. The lights were turned out on the Calgary Tower, the Empire State Building and the Eiffel Tower. Tel Aviv City Hall was illuminated in the colours of the Union Jack. So was the 850-metre Burj Khalifa in Dubai.

These kinds of worldwide tributes to the victims of Islamic atrocities in Europe have become commonplace over the past three years: Brussels, Paris, Stockholm, Nice, Berlin, Copenhagen and so on. But this time around, something is different.

It may be because of the gathering pace of mass murders committed beyond what jihadists call dar al-Islam (the abode of Islam) and well within the “West,” the region jihadists call dar al-harb (the abode of war.) The expansion of jihadist terror occurred nearly three years ago, when the al-Qaida mutation known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant “crossed some kind of Rubicon,” in the words of the Brookings Institution’s William McCants, author of The ISIS Apocalypse.

In the NATO capitals, something has finally shifted in the way Islamist terror is understood. It is as though the public tolerance for claptrap and prevarication of both the leftish and rightist type has at last been reached, and a new consensus, of the kind expressed so beautifully by Mancunians this week – Muslim and otherwise – is beginning to take hold.

†Monday night’s slaughter of 22 innocents was carried out by a deranged college-dropout suicide bomber who was known around Manchester’s Didsbury Mosque as a bit of a crank. In recent months, had developed the habit of praying loudly and obnoxiously in the streets of his Whalley Range neighbourhood. It was the worst terrorist attack in Britain since the July 7, 2005 suicide bombings that took the lives of 56 Londoners.

At the time of the London bombings, Jeremy Corbyn, then just a boring, offside Labour MP, joined with London Mayor Ken Livingstone (recently suspended from the Labur Party for his dalliances with anti-Semitism) and the disgraced former Labour MP George Galloway (a fancier of Syrian genocidaire Bashar Assad and a Hezbollah enthusiast) in blaming the London attack on Western foreign policy.

Corbyn is now the leader of a bitterly divided and vastly diminished Labour Party that is expected to be trounced by Prime Minister Theresa May in the June 8 parliamentary elections. You won’t hear Corbyn blaming the wicked former U.S. president George W. Bush for Monday night’s outrage in Manchester. It would be suicidal. Things have changed.

The Manchester massacre occurred four years to the day after Lee Rigby of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers was butchered by “lone wolf” jihadists in the streets of Woolwich. Rigby’s throat was opened with a crude knife and he was nearly decapitated, with a meat cleaver. As recently as 2013, it was still fashionable to utter imbecilities lightening such murderers’ burden of guilt by resort to the “blowback” defence.

At the time, the famous American fantasist/documentarian Michael Moore declared that Rigby’s slaughter was understandable, because Westerners “kill people in other countries.”

This sort of vulgar “analysis” has been largely excised from respectable conversation and appears now to be confined to the sewers of public debate, where it belongs. On Tuesday, the Kremlin propaganda channel RT News found some “experts” who took up the line. So did the viciously homophobic and anti-Semitic British Hizb ut-Tahrir group, which is about as popular among British Muslims as Galloway is among Britain’s Labour Party MPs.

Another stupid point that was once commonly made whenever some whackjob went off the deep end and took to bloody mayhem while citing “Islam” as the excuse: Was he a really a jihad-inflamed terrorist, or was he just mentally unstable? Weird as it now seems, as recently as October 2014, New Democratic Party leader Tom Mulcair considered this a relevant question in the case of ISIL fanboy Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, who murdered Cpl. Nathan Cirillo at the National War Memorial and then stormed Parliament Hill before being shot dead.

Mulcair objected to the tragedy being described as an act of terrorism, owing to evidence for Zehalf-Bibeau’s mental illness – as if death-cult bloodlust and insanity were two different, mutually-exclusive things. At the time, American celebrity leftist Glenn Greenwald categorized Zehalf-Bibeau’s rampage as – your guessed it – blowback, owing to Canada “wallowing in war glory, invading, rendering and bombing others.”

You’re not likely to hear this kind of idiotic masochism being flaunted in the matter of Salman Abedi, the 22-year-old mass murderer who police say killed those kids in Manchester.

Another stupidity that was once considered a clever response to jihadist terror in “dar al-harb” was to point out that more North Americans (or Europeans) die from falling in their bathtubs than by getting killed by terrorists. It’s probably true. But bathtubs have not happily slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent Muslims in recent years, and bathtubs have not deliberately murdered more than 400 people in horrific attacks in Europe since 2015.

The scores of hideous mass murder plots successfully foiled by European authorities over the past two years were not being plotted by bathtubs. Britain’s MI5 is currently monitoring 3,000 extremely dangerous jihad hobbyists. French intelligence agencies are trying to keep tabs on about 15,000.

The people of Manchester are not unfamiliar with the horrible implications of “radicalization” among young Muslim men. The Muslim leadership in that city has been acutely concerned with the implications of jihadist recruitment and grooming for some long while.

Throughout Europe and North America, we seem to be finally shedding a lot of sappy platitudes and bigoted hysteria about the problem. Manchester is showing us how it’s done.

Long live Manchester.

Terry Glavin is an author and journalist.

sassy wrote:What on earth are you talking about.   Might I suggest that you take the article to your english teacher and get her to explain it to you.   Really, you obviously are not comprehending what the article is saying.

Really, show me how or why this makes sense and on what?

This is what you said?


He is saying it's a victory that Corbyn is saying this.

No idea what victory, so again what victory?

Did you really read the article?

I doubt it because many lefties clearly think you are part of the problem on this

Let's stick with the article that you read and thought wasn't supporting what JC said.   Read it again, try and understand it and comprehend it before you go on to anything else.   You see, you have fallen flat on your face and are showing that you still don't understand it.   Stick to Janet and John.

sassy wrote:Let's stick with the article that you read and thought wasn't supporting what JC said.   Read it again, try and understand it and comprehend it before you go on to anything else.   You see, you have fallen flat on your face and are showing that you still don't understand it.   Stick to Janet and John.

That is part of the article

Show me where they are supporting JC

If I have, then why does everything I post from the same link contradict you sassy?

Bless you petal, I love it when you get emotional, even your grammar goes to shit

So would you like me to post more to prove your stupidity here?

Here let me help you.



What if the non-Corbynistas, the ’sensible left’, the fans of Nick Cohen – us – have actually had an impact?

What if we were so caught up in our own bubble that we failed to notice when we’ve actually won ourselves a little victory?

Oh dear has sassy realised she just made a wally of herself by seeing that was part of the article and clearly she never read it all? By running away?



You have got to love a brainwashed child like sass.

Said the world leading expert on RVERY subject knoen to msnkind.

To really further embarrass sassy let me just post this from the opening article showing how at odds it is with Corbyn's view.


The leading proponents of blowback, Tariq Ali and John Pilger, have, post-Manchester, been confined to, respectively, Democracy Now! and Russia Today with their micro-audiences. Also seems that Stop The War Coalition (StWC) have STFU. They must be chafing at the bit. Of course there are people online connecting Corbyn’s Iraq War opposition to somehow being ‘prescient’ because that War caused ISIS or something (and here is a brilliant meme from Andrew Spooner which nails down that canard).




Then we have her fav website

And of course they have all sailed right over the line into conspiracism elsewhere. The Canary is right now doing that over the ‘Evil Hillary murdered Seth Rich who dun the Wikileaks not the Russkies’ conspiracy theory, as promoted by Fox New’s Shaun Hannity. All of them have done it over antisemitism, with Sivier being a particularly stupid example. Also, as Andrew Coates has documented, conspiracism is growing within the European left. And, as Nick Cohen and others have suggested, they may well blame the Manchester bombings June 9 for Corbyn’s defeat.

Oh dear, isn't it sad when someone doesn't understand an article (which I admit is not very well written, but then he's not a very good writer) and jumps on bits of it, without understanding what the article as a whole is saying. And isn't it even sadder when they don't even realise they don't understand. You have to be embarrassed for them.

sassy wrote:Oh dear, isn't it sad when someone doesn't understand an article (which I admit is not very well written, but then he's not a very good writer) and jumps on bits of it, without understanding what the article as a whole is saying.   And isn't it even sadder when they don't even realise they don't understand.   You have to be embarrassed for them.

So you keep claiming sassy....

You then claim he is not a good writer after claiming he backed Corbyn



I only feel embarrassed for you sassy hun

So all can see you have looked the right wally sassy, but please keep continuing to tell me I am wrong, when I keep showing you are wrong

You see, that is your problem, you simply do not understand things.   Yes, he is a crap writer, the way that article is set out and the way he goes all round the houses to make his point, which confuses people of little intellect like yourself, is why he is a crap writer.   However, his crap writing is supporting what JC is saying if you had the intellectual ability to decipher it.

Never Didge, come back to me when you have got beyond Janet and John and understand what he is saying.   Meanwhile, carry on with you very silly posturing, you haven't even twigged that at one point you were quoting a part of it that was saying that JC WASN'T supporting them.   This is the saddest thing I've seen for a long time.

sassy wrote:You see, that is your problem, you simply do not understand things.   Yes, he is a crap writer, the way that article is set out and the way he goes all round the houses to make his point, which confuses people of little intellect like yourself, is why he is a crap writer.   However, his crap writing is supporting what JC is saying if you had the intellectual ability to decipher it.

Never Didge, come back to me when you have got beyond Janet and John and understand what he is saying.   Meanwhile, carry on with you very silly posturing, you haven't even twigged that at one point you were quoting a part of it that was saying that JC WASN'T supporting them.   This is the saddest thing I've seen for a long time.

1) Is he based on what and what standing for you to claim he is crap? Or I for that matter?

because you keep telling me so?

2) Please show me where he is supporting Corbyn's the west is to blame for terrorism?

In your own time

3) So more views about me and nothing to back your claims, even though I have shown you to be weighed, measured and left found wanting, as everyone can read the article for themselves.

They can see you are looking a right wally]