There's two City fans in my office, one said she already wanted us to win but her husband is a red, the other said given what's gone on it'd be nice for the City if we won but he can't quite bring himself to actually root for us, he'll pretty much be happy whatever happens. I'd probably be the same as him if it was them.
Manchester Arena Bombing 22.05.17
- Thread starter VeevaVee
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
OK I am confused 21 murdered and 1 twat dead and the Police have contacted all the families of the injured in hospital and the dead BUT there is still I think 7 missing. WHERE ARE THEY !!!
Liberal interventionism isn't really bred of Christian morality or ethic. The two worked in tandem during the colonial era (so roughly, 200 years), but it was a matter of self interest converging rather than any complicit pact between church and state.
Yeah, not sure what's going on there. Confusion in hospitals? I don't understand how everyone can't be accounted for at this stage.
You could certainly portray it as an act of misogny, which would be very much their style.
It's so hard to process, and in a sense I don't want to. Nothing is sacred to these beasts, apart from their scripture.
Pot, kettle, black
Yeah, its nice to show a bit of solidarity in moments like these. I'm not from Manchester, but I love the City and the people. And so I really can't bring myself to hate Man City at the minute. Given what has happened and the response of the whole city makes our rivalry so trivial. We will of course go back to hating eachother in due corse but now is not the time.
We arrest our nutters. You name streets after yours.
I would understand it and other modern ethical notions such as 'human rights' as subconscious facets of a 'secularized' Christian universalism.
It is, though.
I'm talking specifically about angry disenfranchised youths, who feel they've been a dealt a shit hand in life and want to lash out at the world. They're tailor made for jihadists to take under their wing and eventually encourage them to do something like this. All based around motivations and justifications which are unique to their specific faith.
You just don't see any other faith used as an outlet for violent or destructive tendencies from alienated youngsters. The closest I could think of would be white supremacists or people with their own unique and individual perverted visions of the world, like Anders Breivik. These are ideological, rather than religious motivations.
You just don't see "lone wolf" atrocities carried out in the name of any other faith. Not that I'm aware of, anyway. Can you think of any?
I find it extremely unnerving that we have to go through the same 'Islam is trouble', 'But Christians caused Crusades'. Yes, mindless violence is caused by a few religious extremists in every religion. It's not a problem only with Islam. But, Islam also needs a serious reformation within inside. That will not happen if everyone is defensive and say 99% is good. Yes, 99% is good, but 1% of Islam is still a huge number and it will be a problem if 1% will continue to be radical.
Western countries need to rethink their strategy of interventionist policies as well. They can't afford to topple regimes trying to influence countries but they also can't turn a blind eye to people like Saddam and Assad committing genocide. For all this 'don't get involved in middle east', there is still a humanitarian crisis that happens in this region if no intervention is made. It's a delicate problem. If the solution was simple, it would have been already done already. This entire 'Bush and Blair are war criminals first', 'Islam is terrorism', 'Religion is bad' leads us nowhere. We have already messed up. We should all work in this together.
Religious institutions are turning around. Churches, Mosques and influential religious leaders are already lending their voice to make this better. We should empower these conversations and try and push reforms from within. Politics, religion, Common sense and empathy all need to work in one single direction of solving these conflicts. Maps can be redrawn. Radical solutions need to be proposed and accepted. Hard choices have to be made by everybody. Trying to maintain status quo has failed. Having a country filled with one sect like Shia/Sunni and have the others migrate as refugees to other countries is just not a workable solution. Non-intervention is not an option for other nations when dictators wantonly commit genocide based on your sect/faith etc.
I don't know the answer. But there are people dedicated to solving this stuff. Let's hope they figure this out sooner than later. But this is not only dividing the middle east. It's dividing every country. People sitting in Idaho and Surrey make their leadership choices based on a candidate's global view. So a person like Donald Trump or Theresa May can get elected inciting fear about terrorism. That is not to say Clinton, Sanders or Corbyn is any better because I don't know if a hands-off policy will work either. This problem disrupts harmony in this very forum. I can't really take sammsky seriously anymore after railing for months against Trump, I come to know that he's in fact a conservative when it comes to taxes, but just hates Trump because of his rhetoric against Islam. This shit is messing up our life and the casualties are not just innocent lives, it's our way of life as we know it.
Sorry about the rant.
Western countries need to rethink their strategy of interventionist policies as well. They can't afford to topple regimes trying to influence countries but they also can't turn a blind eye to people like Saddam and Assad committing genocide. For all this 'don't get involved in middle east', there is still a humanitarian crisis that happens in this region if no intervention is made. It's a delicate problem. If the solution was simple, it would have been already done already. This entire 'Bush and Blair are war criminals first', 'Islam is terrorism', 'Religion is bad' leads us nowhere. We have already messed up. We should all work in this together.
Religious institutions are turning around. Churches, Mosques and influential religious leaders are already lending their voice to make this better. We should empower these conversations and try and push reforms from within. Politics, religion, Common sense and empathy all need to work in one single direction of solving these conflicts. Maps can be redrawn. Radical solutions need to be proposed and accepted. Hard choices have to be made by everybody. Trying to maintain status quo has failed. Having a country filled with one sect like Shia/Sunni and have the others migrate as refugees to other countries is just not a workable solution. Non-intervention is not an option for other nations when dictators wantonly commit genocide based on your sect/faith etc.
I don't know the answer. But there are people dedicated to solving this stuff. Let's hope they figure this out sooner than later. But this is not only dividing the middle east. It's dividing every country. People sitting in Idaho and Surrey make their leadership choices based on a candidate's global view. So a person like Donald Trump or Theresa May can get elected inciting fear about terrorism. That is not to say Clinton, Sanders or Corbyn is any better because I don't know if a hands-off policy will work either. This problem disrupts harmony in this very forum. I can't really take sammsky seriously anymore after railing for months against Trump, I come to know that he's in fact a conservative when it comes to taxes, but just hates Trump because of his rhetoric against Islam. This shit is messing up our life and the casualties are not just innocent lives, it's our way of life as we know it.
Sorry about the rant.
You made a terrorist prime minister. I don't want to get into this in this thread, but I won't accept you moralising
No apologies needed - a good rant. I think we're all scared and confused.
I guess some might be nigh on impossible to identify, sadly.
Arsenal have cancelled their FA cup victory parade if they were to beat Chelsea.
Good on 'em!
Good on 'em!
Without sounding out of place they have probably been blown to bits. Literally.
Getting the DNA and all that stuff is probably taking longer than expected with so many people present etc.
I admire the optimism in this gesture.
It's absurd claiming that every such event affects one personally.
As I type this post how many people around the world die painfully? It's a tragedy for somebody, but not for me.
If the proponents of violence have already concluded that they are right, why the charade of debate?
Thought I'd post this here.
I fully agree.
In 2015 almost 10,000 people were killed by suicide bombers.
https://aoav.org.uk/2013/a-short-history-of-suicide-bombings/
Who?
The same reason any debate happens - to win the undecided or hesitant to their side. Everything ISIS does - the acts of violence, the propaganda, the appeal to Islamic authority - is designed to win Muslims over to their cause.
Well that was my first thought and did say pretty mucg that yesterday, but why would the Police say the had spoke to the families of all injured and dead.
Heh, I was thinking about thatReminds me of this.
Blair ?
MEN reporting this.
Manchester Arena bomb maker at large and could strike again
Intelligence services now believe that Salman Abedi who detonated the nail bomb in the foyer of the venue was a ‘mule’ using a device made by someone else.
The person who made the bomb that blew up Manchester Arena is still at large and could strike again at any time.
Intelligence services now believe that Salman Abedi who detonated the nail bomb in the foyer of the venue was a ‘mule’ using a device made by someone else.
Manchester Arena bomb maker at large and could strike again
Intelligence services now believe that Salman Abedi who detonated the nail bomb in the foyer of the venue was a ‘mule’ using a device made by someone else.
The person who made the bomb that blew up Manchester Arena is still at large and could strike again at any time.
Intelligence services now believe that Salman Abedi who detonated the nail bomb in the foyer of the venue was a ‘mule’ using a device made by someone else.
It's not really that hard to understand when they are doing it to their own daughters:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...amascus-father-convinces-jihadi-a7488371.html
That's a somewhat different point.
I don't underestimate the psychological impact of such atrocities. But I wonder, as a matter of public policy, if it wouldn't be better to play them down rather than big them up. There is no 'war'. Islamic terrorism is not an existential threat to the West.
True.
You don't see it because it's not deemed necessary.
If hugely superior Muslim armies invaded, bombed and occupied Christian countries over a 5 decade period leaving a catalogue of ruined lives and cities we might see some.
It's definitely through religious channels but it's not innate.
Yep, I made that point earlier. Cover the incident, paint him as a nutter. Do whatever you need to behind the scenes but I'd stop the war narrative.
For years that was policy v The IRA.
I've nervous for Carricks Testimonial 
it was meant to be a fun thing for me
it was meant to be a fun thing for meI mean, he wasn't a terrorist when we made him Prime Minister.
1997 - First elected
2001 - Re-elected
2003 - Iraq war begins
2005 (March) - Confirmation that there were no WMDs in Iraq
2005 (May) - Re-elected
2007 - Resigns
Now I'm not trying to defend the decision to reelect him in 2005, and certainly I am not defending Blair in following Bush into Iraq with no evidence in a potentially illegal war...
But democracy isn't fool proof.
I don't know. It's a chicken/egg type argument, but generally speaking, religion tends to adapt to the state rather than the other way around. The moral/ethical values of the West have shaped doctrine more than doctrine has shaped those values. Which is why when you see the Westboro Baptist Church being the most hated organisation in America, it's ironic, because everything they do and say has a certain legitimacy in Old Testament doctrine. That's where you see the divergence between moral norms and doctrinal values. For churches to be legitimate in the West, they've had to exclude those parts of doctrine which exclude or condemn large parts of society. See Pope Francis for further reference.
The temporal drives the spiritual in the West, that much I'm fairly confident of. I'd also argue that it's been that way since at least the Industrial Revolution.
Well colonialism has left an unpleasant legacy all over the world, affecting people of many different faiths. Yet here we are, with one specific faith used as justification for atrocities like this again and again and again.
You're right, of course, that the west is reaping the whirlwind of heavy-handed foreign policy in the region, motivated by the need to secure a steady supply of oil. I completely agree with that. I also think it's possible that the role certain faiths have in preventing a peaceful resolution is a distinct issue which needs discussion and consideration in its own right. All the more so when you see the way it can be used as a basis for seriously unpleasant human rights abuses, including endemic misogny and homophobia. Not sure any of that can be blamed on Western foreign policy tbf.
Last edited:
I've nervous for Carricks Testimonial
Haven't been to old trafford this season, never got the chance with work and things, but the way mates who go describe it, its probably the safest building in the city when a match is on.