Post Manchester Arena explosion - views and opinions...

[Tone]

His was a blanket ban on Muslims , I was highlighting people going out to fight.

 

No, the restrictions announced by President Trump covered all travelers from certain specific countries - including Libya.

[Andyregs]

Isn't Wahhabism seen as one of the main reasons for terrorism? As much as I agree that foreign policy has had an impact, this ultra conservative form of Islam has existed for a couple of hundred years. Current foreign policy cannot be blamed for it. At least not in the way that's been discussed. What makes it even more confusing though, is that this is Saudi Arabia's dominant faith, who are partly responsible for its spread. And the west loves a good arms deal with the Saudis. Saudi Arabia probably wouldn't exist if not for US support.

I also think it's not such a clear moral decision when deciding when to intervene abroad. When Syria drops chemical weapons, and many there are calling for help, is it not morally right to intervene. Though more often or not by doing this you could either be empowering groups who turn to terrorism or angering other groups who seek retaliation. Ultimately though, you have to look at what exactly is Isis' ultimate goal. Is it to stop the wests foreign policy in the middle east, or to spread their form of Islam? But then again, it's because of this that the biggest victim group of such terror groups are other muslims. Which is why it can't be ignored that the vast majority of muslims are equally as angered by such atrocities. I think I'm rambling now, but it's just a complicated mess.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I wouldn't care. They said they left that country out of fear for their life and came here to live safely , then they go back......as Karl pilkington would say ********.

As far as I know the bomber was British and so was entitled to the same freedoms etc as you and me and his father went back after the fall of Gaddafi having fled his regime.

 

Sent from my F5121 using the onevalefan mobile app

[SuperValiant1876]

its clearly not as simple as the intelligence services being warned and then them locking someone up is it.

 

The whole "THEY WERE WARNED - WHY WEREN'T THEY LOCKED UP?!" crew - think about what you're saying

 

1) you obviously can't just lock someone up because somebody has rang up and said they're concerned somebody is a terrorist. think about it, you can't lock someone up indefinitely cos of a ******* phone call. People would ring up and get someone locked up every time they were pissed off with someone

 

2) they have to obviously investigate said person and find evidence they're planning an attack - in which case yes, absolutely, lock them up and throw away the key. Not easy to do when the Home Secretary is cutting public services left, right and centre - and even if they weren't, isn't there a watchlist of 3,000 people?!

 

Seriously, do people think of the ramifications/logistics of what they're saying??

 

I'd have half the people posting in this thread locked up

If it was a simple case of ringing 'Prevent' and that was it

 

It would be like the Peep Show sectioning episode. "If you try to section me Mark you will have crossed a line, and I will section you so help me God".

[geosname]

 

The whole "THEY WERE WARNED - WHY WEREN'T THEY LOCKED UP?!" crew - think about what you're saying

 

1) you obviously can't just lock someone up because somebody has rang up and said they're concerned somebody is a terrorist. think about it, you can't lock someone up indefinitely cos of a ******* phone call. People would ring up and get someone locked up every time they were pissed off with someone

 

It has happend here due to the lese majeste laws

[SuperValiant1876]

It has happend here due to the lese majeste laws

 

and there has still been numerous bombings over there.

[geosname]

and there has still been numerous bombings over there.

 

The lese majeste laws only apply to comments about the monarchy not terrorists

 

Lèse majesté in Thailand, based on Thai Criminal Code section 112, making it illegal to defame, insult, or threaten the king, queen, heir-apparent, or regent, has been on the statute books since 1908. ... The Supreme Court of Thailand decided in 2013 that the law also applies to any previous monarchs.