Miscellaneous News

D

delft

Brigadier
I heard BBC Radio 4 say an hour and a half ago that according to rumour the Manchester bomber and his father went to Libya in 2011to fight for a Jihadi outfit, said a friend of his had said he had met them there. So they probably assisted NATO in destroying the country.
BBC is this morning is interviewing many people who say that only the bomber is responsible and that he hated Western values and that British policies are perfect, that reducing the number of police by 19000 since 2010 was entirely irrelevant.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
Janiz said:
Since when France+US = NATO?
Click to expand...
UK also used cruise missiles and aircraft against Libya. Indeed one of the first actions was the rescue of a British agent who had worked for five months on a farm in East Libya in preparation of the "civil war". The Netherlands sent F-16's for reconnaissance, the operations were coordinated by the NATO command centre in Naples.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
They used internment in Northern Ireland and that increased the number of enemies more than the number they locked up. And locking up also costs money.
By the way the bomber had been signalled as dangerous but the police hadn't been able to check him out. Too few policemen.
 
Last edited:
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
delft said:
I heard BBC Radio 4 say an hour and a half ago that according to rumour the Manchester bomber and his father went to Libya in 2011to fight for a Jihadi outfit, said a friend of his had said he had met them there. So they probably assisted NATO in destroying the country.
BBC is this morning is interviewing many people who say that only the bomber is responsible and that he hated Western values and that British policies are perfect, that reducing the number of police by 19000 since 2010 was entirely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I do think that Britain needs stricter immigration monitoring.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
siegecrossbow said:
I do think that Britain needs stricter immigration monitoring.
Click to expand...
That's the solution the government said it choose long ago but it needs to import so very many people because of lack of training for its own young people. Think of importing nurses from the Philippines because they are well trained and speak English. It is "cheaper" that way. But that is plainly irrelevant because many of the terrorists are radicalised within UK and indeed many are UK born. BTW what does "to radicalise" mean in this context, a word that is often used by the UK authorities.
In the current case they gave asylum to a man and his wife because he was an opponent of the Libyan government and they used the man and one or more of his British born sons in the "civil war" that was sponsored by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and supported by NATO. No doubt the fighters were given promises that were not fulfilled as Lawrence of Arabia gave to the Arab tribesmen a century ago, as US gave to Osama bin Laden thirty years ago.
The most obvious change would be to a foreign policy that is less destructive of other countries.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
An article by Patrick Cockburn in The Independent points to a main source of the trouble:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Manchester attack: It is pious and inaccurate to say Salman Abedi's actions had 'nothing to do with Islam'
The attack on Manchester Arena – and those on the Bataclan and the Pulse nightclub before it – can trace their roots to the Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia. The UK and US governments just won’t admit it

In the wake of the massacre in Manchester, people rightly warn against blaming the entire Muslim community in Britain and the world. Certainly one of the aims of those who carry out such atrocities is to provoke the communal punishment of all Muslims, thereby alienating a portion of them who will then become open to recruitment by Isis and al-Qaeda clones.

This approach of not blaming Muslims in general but targeting “radicalisation” or simply “evil” may appear sensible and moderate, but in practice it makes the motivation of the killers in Manchester or the Bataclan theatre in Paris in 2015 appear vaguer and less identifiable than it really is. Such generalities have the unfortunate effect of preventing people pointing an accusing finger at the variant of Islam which certainly is responsible for preparing the soil for the beliefs and actions likely to have inspired the suicide bomber Salman Abedi.

The ultimate inspiration for such people is Wahhabism, the puritanical, fanatical and regressive type of Islam dominant in Saudi Arabia, whose ideology is close to that of al-Qaeda and Isis. This is an exclusive creed, intolerant of all who disagree with it such as secular liberals, members of other Muslim communities such as the Shia or women resisting their chattel-like status.

What has been termed Salafi jihadism, the core beliefs of Isis and al-Qaeda, developed out of Wahhabism, and has carried out its prejudices to what it sees as a logical and violent conclusion. Shia and Yazidis were not just heretics in the eyes of this movement, which was a sort of Islamic Khmer Rouge, but sub-humans who should be massacred or enslaved. Any woman who transgressed against repressive social mores should be savagely punished. Faith should be demonstrated by a public death of the believer, slaughtering the unbelievers, be they the 86 Shia children being evacuated by bus from their homes in Syria on 15 April or the butchery of young fans at a pop concert in Manchester on Monday night.

The real causes of “radicalisation” have long been known, but the government, the BBC and others seldom if ever refer to it because they do not want to offend the Saudis or be accused of anti-Islamic bias. It is much easier to say, piously but quite inaccurately, that Isis and al-Qaeda and their murderous foot soldiers “have nothing to do with Islam”. This has been the track record of US and UK governments since 9/11. They will look in any direction except Saudi Arabia when seeking the causes of terrorism. President Trump has been justly denounced and derided in the US for last Sunday accusing Iran and, in effect, the Shia community of responsibility for the wave of terrorism that has engulfed the region when it ultimately emanates from one small but immensely influential Sunni sect. One of the great cultural changes in the world over the last 50 years is the way in which Wahhabism, once an isolated splinter group, has become an increasingly dominant influence over mainstream Sunni Islam, thanks to Saudi financial support.

A further sign of the Salafi-jihadi impact is the choice of targets: the attacks on the Bataclan theatre in Paris in 2015, a gay night club in Florida in 2016 and the Manchester Arena this week have one thing in common. They were all frequented by young people enjoying entertainment and a lifestyle which made them an Isis or al-Qaeda target. But these are also events where the mixing of men and women or the very presence of gay people is denounced by puritan Wahhabis and Salafi jihadis alike. They both live in a cultural environment in which the demonisation of such people and activities is the norm, though their response may differ.

The culpability of Western governments for terrorist attacks on their own citizens is glaring but is seldom even referred to. Leaders want to have a political and commercial alliance with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf oil states. They have never held them to account for supporting a repressive and sectarian ideology which is likely to have inspired Salman Abedi. Details of his motivation may be lacking, but the target of his attack and the method of his death is classic al-Qaeda and Isis in its mode of operating.

The reason these two demonic organisations were able to survive and expand despite the billions – perhaps trillions – of dollars spent on “the war on terror” after 9/11 is that those responsible for stopping them deliberately missed the target and have gone on doing so. After 9/11, President Bush portrayed Iraq not Saudi Arabia as the enemy; in a re-run of history President Trump is ludicrously accusing Iran of being the source of most terrorism in the Middle East. This is the real 9/11 conspiracy, beloved of crackpots worldwide, but there is nothing secret about the deliberate blindness of British and American governments to the source of the beliefs that has inspired the massacres of which Manchester is only the latest – and certainly not the last – horrible example.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top