Manchester Arena Terror Attack: 22 Dead : 50+ Injured

I don't really think anyone seriously don't know what they want, I think people are more struggling with how to fight it and why people get radicalised in the first place.

[Osem]

Mainly naive malleable young men who're easily taken advantage of by religious extremists in just the same way as gangs (drug related or otherwise) draw in new members and even future victims. Not so very different from the sort of controlling, abuse employed by the paedophile gangs in enticing vulnerable young girls into their networks and convincing them, over a period of time, to do things they'd never have dreamt of. The only motive these young terrorists have for what they do is the motive seeded in their minds, sometimes over many years, by those who so cleverly exploit them which include religious leaders they've been taught to look up to.

Originally Posted by Pierre

paywall, I wouldn't mind reading the article though. too tight to pay for it.

I disabled Javascript and was able to read it.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't really think anyone seriously don't know what they want, I think people are more struggling with how to fight it and why people get radicalised in the first place.

They are working out a particular version of the Muslim end time scenario, based on the hadith; the traditions of Muhammad's teaching written after his death. They believe a person called the Mahadi will turn up and lead them to victory over the whole of the world. IS believe that the more atrocities they commit, the sooner the Mahadi will appear.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Islamists are very clear about what they want – we just aren’t listening

and then listen to this from Sam Harris:

What do jihadists really want?

The New York Times, has arrogantly defended it's decision to publish photographs of dead bodies on the floor of Manchester Arena and the fragments of what was left of the Bomb.

This is their Statement:

Originally Posted by New York Times

The New York Times released the following statement about its publication on Wednesday of an article and photographs of evidence collected at the crime scene of the Manchester bombing:

The images and information presented were neither graphic nor disrespectful of victims, and consistent with the common line of reporting on weapons used in horrific crimes, as The Times and other media outlets have done following terrorist acts around the world, from Boston to Paris to Baghdad, and many places in between.

Our mission is to cover news and inform our readers. We have strict guidelines on how and in what ways we cover sensitive stories. Our coverage of Monday’s horrific attack has been both comprehensive and responsible.

We cover stories about terrorism from all angles. Not only stories about victims but also how terrorist groups work, their sources of funding, how they recruit. Acts of terrorism have tremendous impact on how we live, on how we are governed and how we interact as people, communities and nations. At times the process of reporting this coverage comes at personal risk to our reporters. We do it because it is core to our mission.

Not sure whats arrogant about it, they are after all, a newspaper.

The question really seems to be where did the photos come from, and did they have permission to post them.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Mick

The New York Times, has arrogantly defended it's decision to publish photographs of dead bodies on the floor of Manchester Arena and the fragments of what was left of the Bomb.

This is their Statement:

Maybe they just ought to just respect what the security services tasked with picking up the pieces are asking of them for a few more hours or is getting that breaking news scoop/picture published ahead of their rivals the most important thing? Are they really saying that 'educating their readership' is that important and couldn't have waited a short time?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't really think anyone seriously don't know what they want

On the contrary:

Only last month this now traditional national rite was led by no less a figure than the Dean of Westminster, the Very Reverend Dr John Hall. At the beginning of April, Westminster Abbey was the venue for a national act of mourning for the victims of the previous month’s terrorist attack. The Dean used his sermon — at what was billed as ‘a service of hope’ — to announce that Britain was ‘bewildered’ by the actions of Khalid Masood.

‘What could possibly motivate a man,’ asked the Dean, ‘to hire a car and take it from Birmingham to Brighton to London, and then to drive it fast at people he had never met, couldn’t possibly know, against whom he had no personal grudge, no reason to hate them, and then run at the gates of the Palace of Westminster to cause another death? It seems likely we shall never know.’

......and he's not the only one who is either deliberatly not facing up to what is going on, or is simply thick as mince.

Originally Posted by Paul M

Not sure whats arrogant about it, they are after all, a newspaper.

The question really seems to be where did the photos come from, and did they have permission to post them.

I feel it is arrogant because they say it's not disrespectful to the victims, it may not directly be so, however, it's disrespectful to publish such stuff especially when the US had been asked not to by UK Authorities.

Anyway, President Trump has apparently just said that he is very angry with the leaks and has ordered the U.S Department of Justice to have a complete investigation of the Intelligence leaks.

Basically, the behaviour of the NYT (and other US outlets), they have used the Manchester Bombing, in their political crossfire that they have with President Trump. It's nothing short of reprehensible what they have done and how they have acted.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Mick

I feel it is arrogant because they say it's not disrespectful to the victims, it may not directly be so, however, it's disrespectful to publish such stuff especially when the US had been asked not to by UK Authorities.

Anyway, President Trump has apparently just said that he is very angry with the leaks and has ordered the U.S Department of Justice to have a complete investigation of the Intelligence leaks.

good someone might end up in prison for leaking sensitive information

[Osem]

The NYT has it in for Trump so I imagine they'll put anything which causes problems for him to the top of their agenda and the hell with anything else.

Originally Posted by passingbat

They are working out a particular version of the Muslim end time scenario, based on the hadith; the traditions of Muhammad's teaching written after his death. They believe a person called the Mahadi will turn up and lead them to victory over the whole of the world. IS believe that the more atrocities they commit, the sooner the Mahadi will appear.

Yeah. I think that whilst people might be fussy on the details they know ISIS and others want complete destruction. They hate and destroy everything, little girls going to concerns anger them, satire angers them even works of Islamic architecture and art seems to anger them. They destroy historic moments in Syria. It's a complete black hole.

Very few people are actually thinking 'well, well are they bombing things!' but rather asking why do they want such destruction? As Osem says we have theories there too.

The answers though are harder.

---------- Post added at 18:46 ---------- Previous post was at 18:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

The NYT has it in for Trump so I imagine they'll put anything which causes problems for him to the top of their agenda and the hell with anything else.

Again to be fair the NYT are lower on the list of whose leaked the most on this issue. NBC have leaked details of the investigation, links to Libya and how they identified the bomber. CBS leaked the name. The U.S Government is leaking like crazy.

---------- Post added at 18:55 ---------- Previous post was at 18:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Ramrod

On the contrary:

......and he's not the only one who is either deliberatly not facing up to what is going on, or is simply thick as mince.

Yeah but it's one guy and I'm not totally sure he isn't talking more in depth. I.E What motivates him to follow such a destructive cause? He does later in the speech cite the other attacks in Europe for example so it's clear he knows what 'cause' that he drew from but is wondering why someone would follow it.

Originally Posted by Damien

Again to be fair the NYT are lower on the list of whose leaked the most on this issue. NBC have leaked details of the investigation, links to Libya and how they identified the bomber. CBS leaked the name. The U.S Government is leaking like crazy.

They are not lower on the list at all. They were the only ones, yesterday to first post pictures of the bomb fragments. The day before that, they had pictures of dead people on the floor of the Manchester Arena, they had made no attempt to blur any images of the victims.

While other news outlets are guilty of leaking stuff, I would say leaking pictures of bomb fragments, leaking more intelligence when UK asked for it to stop, is a serious issue and NYT has sank to serious low levels of journalism and like a commentator was saying on Sky News earlier and I agree with them, they are using the Manchester Bombing, in their crossfire attacks on Trump, only it is now backfiring on them and it serves them right. Utterly reprehensible publication ethics.

There's clearly a campaign being raged against trump by a wide range of organisations and clearly no bar can be set low enough for them not to limbo under with ease. As for the answer to islamic extremism it's simple but not palatable to a large number the answer is find them and kill them they live by violence and they spend all their time commiting or planning violence there is no middle ground for them and there shouldn't be for us either in eradicating them.