Manchester Arena atrocity

The attack at Manchester Arena it isn't a great surprise. Absolutely horrendous though, and seems to have been planned and timed to maximise death and terror. The suicide bomber's target an audience of mainly young teenage girls.

Terrorists don't care who they kill. It's all about 'numbers' and publicity from the handlers pov and a belief in a greater good and martyrdom for the perpetrator particularly for the 'suicide bomber'.

White girls - of a lower order and expendable. Not a problem. Plenty more from where they came from.

The 'terror wars' have a long way to go before they are finished. It will be long after my generation have moved off this mortal coil. It's just another phase of man's evolution to usher in his complete destruction for the cybernetics to take over. The 'removal' of threats will go on - even amongst the 'machines' as one 'model' strives for ascendancy over 'another' and strives for even greater knowledge than before. War, as a method of domination will not be restricted to biological entities as long as 'intelligence' has the ability to 'grow'.

Where does it end -. About 15 billion years from now as the universe implodes into a billion massive 'black holes' and the next 'Big Bang'.

Was it worth it - - - - ?

It isn't known whether the suicide bomber, 22 year old Salman Ramadan Abedi, cared who he killed, but he chose a venue predictably filled with many young teenage girls.

Islamist terrorists seem to have particular interest in the abduction, rape, slave trading and murder of young teenage girls; jihadi brides, Nigerian schoolgirls, Yazidi girls in Syria, etc.

Is it co-incidence that Abedi, thought to be connected to Islamic State or similar, also targeted young teenage girls, or, is there a pattern there?

Young females are a 'commodity' for trading and comforts - always have been, always will be. White ones bring good money. There is also the fact that no civilisation can proliferate without propagation and removal of the female strain will bring that about quicker than anything else. There is always a 'method' to the madness if one looks beyond the 'act' itself. The greatest pity of it all is that the 'jihadist' doesn't 'think' for himself but 'thinks' for his 'beliefs' which have been put there by the teachings of others far more intelligent and manipulating than himself. Why use a 22 year old? That's easy. The very best age to use for military purpose. Smack-bang in the most useful grouping 16 - 26, male, sex-mad, conceited, arrogant and totally 'up for it'.

From the photos of Salman Abedi, he does look a gormless youth, his father a "well known jihadist". We hear there are too many thousands of terror suspects in the UK to monitor them. It's the population taking the brunt, being slaughtered, rather than politicians, behind their armed guards. Our politicians might need some encouragement to do what's needed.

Politicians need armed guards against us never mind jihadists. One can see the reasoning there. As for us I troll out the old mantra - 10% are expendable - so why would you bother. Also - and here's the rub - to protect the whole population would require Marshall Law and a vicious crack-down on everybody and everything. Believe me that would not go down at all well. And so we have the status quo - Keeping the lid on. That's the best and most propitious given the freedoms we demand and have come to expect. I told you this is the century of the 'terror wars'. Nothing is going to change radically. The wars will peter out as the situation in the Middle East shutters out to an accepted uneasy peace and eventual acceptance of the new status quo - whatever that may become. 50 years perhaps. Whatever it will be long after I'm gone that's for sure.

The people of Manchester, or of anywhere else in the UK are not going to accept the idea that they are "expendable". There is still an element of delayed shock. The media will move on, but this mass murder may change attitudes longer term.

We can be better protected without martial law or a "vicious crack-down on everybody and everything". More funding and personnel for intelligence and security services is needed to monitor obviously dangerous people, to review and process information that is freely available.

Existing laws like Temporary Exclusion Orders could be used to stop terrorist suspects entering the country long enough to gather information on them and their contacts, if there was the will, funding and personnel to do it. TEOs were brought into law in 2015, but have never been used.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40046562

If they, the people, studied their history and politics they would know they are 'expendable' where the 'State' and the 'country' are involved. The 'State' cannot look after ALL the people ALL the time - it's an impossibility. And so we keep the 'lid' on. And look after the 'majority'.

We are hampered by the 'Human Rights' laws and legislation which the EU has seen fit to cover ALL.

Meanwhile we stumble on towards doing the best that can be done given the circumstances.

There is no easy answers to all this. Only time will bring about a more comfortable conclusion meanwhile we dodge the bullets and the bombs and thank the times in which we live knowing it was less secure or safe in the times we were born.

Not much point us having an independent UK if the best we can do is stumble along into a future of dodging bullets and bombs.

The police have shown what they can do the last few days, tracing and dismantling a terrorist network,  they need to do it more often. Of course that's only a small part of the international problem, but Mancunians first interest is in making Manchester safe.

Independence is more to do with freedom of will than freedom of place. In or out of the EU given today's intercontinental commerce with its global aspects we will always be at some risk of the international terrorist. Border controls lessen the risk but the movement of people and the advent of the 'big voice in the corner' makes it almost impossible to eradicate the problem which , has has been seen, comes often by way of 'home-grown'. The problem will only decrease as proxy police-actions and wars decrease across the troubled regions and the people themselves see the error of their ways. It evolutional -. For example - I see the Islam wars very much like the Christian wars - a power struggle for which 'branch' rules and which 'branch' has the true faith? It took 300 years for Europe to realise the futility of Christian battles before it settled into an uneasy peace -. How long for Islam???

Making Manchester safe - for how long -? A day. An hour. A minute. There's no such thing as 'safe'. It has it's own built-in danger. Always had. Dodging bullets and bombs will continue until it changes to laser rays and nano-bugs. Fair Fortune sister -!

With another Islamist attack in London last night, obviously, it has to be stopped.

Nor will it until society finds ways of pre-empting parental, community and state bigotries. It comes down to mind-sets and the various ways the young mind operates. If taught to be tolerant and brought up in a kind and reasonable environment with little to no abuse and nurtured towards friendship and reconciliation there would be no causal effects, such as suicide bombs and such like, for the terrorist to germinate and grow his beliefs. But we are a VERY LONG WAY from such Utopian ideals. Meanwhile we will revert to building walls and tank-traps in order to facilitate our 'envied' way of life.

We are, as you say, a long way from utopia, more practical things are on the agenda, like better border control and information processing systems. General uprating of safety for the public plus a more in-depth understanding of islamic ideas might be useful.

A better understanding :- ??????????????????? When I choose to go and live in a Islamic country it will be incumbent upon me to learn their ways and adapt my behaviour to encompass their beliefs and laws and 'live' by them. Or at least not challenge or try to change them. i expect no less of those that come to live in my country or that are born into my society -. End of. It could be said of 'marriage'. For such to be acceptable between both parties each must learn to live with each others 'ways' - anything more can only lead to disaster for all concerned. Change comes by evolving the 'given' not by 'dictate'.

It's unrealistic to expect Islamic peoples to leave behind their beliefs and heritage. Islam and Europe are very different cultures, different civilisations. The middle east, including parts of north africa, is an ongoing disaster area of conflicts, we must expect people coming from there will bring some of that with them.

Islamic terrorist attacks on British cities is no surprise, security alert level has been very high for ages. The actual reality, ferocious mass butchery, the tragic destruction of people's lives, and scale of slaughter has left everyone reeling in shock, but it has been expected.

The debate now should be about practical measures to minimise further attacks, understanding the mindset is just a part of that.

The mind-sets to which you allude are not singular in context. We have immigrant terrorism and we have home-grown terrorism. Whilst the aims of both are the same the roads to perdition are vastly different. The home-grown 'terrorist' is the most dangerous as 'it' knows our ways and can blend far easier into our 'common lives' whilst the immigrant has a much harder hill to climb.

Radicalisation can only be thwarted by de-radicalisation and in order to do that you must first be aware of the individuals mind-set to commit mass murder and then if possible change his mind to a more acceptable way of changing things which doesn't involve carnage and death. The subject is too large for this form of discussion but - in order to keep the lid on the problem we need better intelligence, better communication between services, a return of community policing and, for the future, a better method of integration that fulfils the need of 'community' between and for 'all'.

The terror wars will continue for probably another 30 years or so and will have to be endured whether the populations like it or not (unless we are hit by an asteroid before then) and we can only do that which is possible with the resources available. We should worry. What comes before 2050 will seem like a cake-walk to what is coming after. We've never had it so good - believe me.

Some parts of the world are already reduced to ruin. Others under increasing threat. "Let the shipwrecks of others be your seamarks", as Tony Hancock said. 

It's a pity dear old Tony didn't live by his own words but chose instead to 'opt out' (which is his right to do so) and deprive the world of lots more of his particular form of genius. I'm sure Sheila would have preferred it that way. Still - who am I to judge?

Man cares little for ruin on the basis that for there to be radical change one must first destroy the old before one can re-build the new. Radicalisation comes from the participant being first disappointed, then frustrated, then ostracised from main stream until they reach a point of non-caring which then turns to anger and destructiveness to themselves and others. That is probably a very simple explanation and is far more convoluted in actual fact - but you can tell where they (the radical) are coming from. Man will destroy everything eventually if only through his own arrogance and conceit. So don't trouble yourself that you can do something about it. You can't -

When Islamic extremists were stabbing people in London the other day, police stopped them, by shooting them dead. In that very practical sense, something can be done about it.

On a more abstract level, the destructive aspect of humans is a general problem. To get any understanding of that involves understanding 'the human condition', which, conveniently, is readily available to us all.

After the event - - - . The trick is to prevent. A bit like health issues. Prevention is always better and cheaper than cure (or not as the case may be). We can always react and in the vast majority of cases that is what we do. Initially the 'prevention' is always far more expensive and in most cases across the globe unaffordable. And so we do what we can do - as it transpires.

Again the 'human condition' whilst well known cannot be 'adapted' for every human as things presently lie. In order for that to happen all humans upon birth would have to be 'vetted' and adapted where necessary in order to keep 'order' throughout their lives and called in at regular intervals for reassessment and re-adaption to maintain the status quo. Now who would want to go there?

Realistically, we can expect ongoing attacks, a situation not as we would wish, but, if it happens, has to be coped with. The rapid response shoot to kill method used against the Islamic terrorists at London Bridge seems the practical way to minimise further deaths of innocent civilians. Prevention, as you describe, is problematic. Strict border controls against terrorists coming or returning from abroad would be ideal, but for reasons beyond comprehension, doesn't seem to happen.

It's all about resources. What do you want - free health, free schools, free after-care, free transport, free heating, free water, - it's all affordable isn't it -?? More social housing, more and larger benefits, larger pensions, more police, more prisons - it's all affordable isn't it -?? At the present we are overspending 50 billion every year not to mention the 1.3 trillion we already owe the world banks -. If I need to say more then you haven't understood what I have already written. Not only can we not afford 'more' of anything. We cannot even afford what we have already put in place. You want to stop the 'terrorists' - easy - stop funding half of the above lists -. Which one's would you suggest we stop doing?

Any society that accepts terrorism killing it's citizens because it can't afford better security would be slipping towards chaos, definitely not a direction to choose.

Agreed - and therefore you have to sacrifice something in order to accomplish what is the more pressing - i.e. the security of the people and nation. But what are you going to give up? Prime candidates - Foreign Aid and Trident. Take your pick.