Crosswords0 min ago
Islam.
233 Answers
There is a lot of anti-muslim feeling here on AB, and also some anti-christian feeling. I'd be interested to hear from muslims who have thoughts on this.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Atheist. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You are taking it too, literally, naomi. My point is, as sb says, police officers were worried about chasing after grooming gangs, in case they were described as racist.
That should be entirely irrelevant, with criminal or inappropriate behaviour towards young, vulnerable people.
I don't find it a worthwhile excuse- they should have continued and charged perpetrators, whatever names got thrown at them.
If that was a genuine issue, they need better training.
That should be entirely irrelevant, with criminal or inappropriate behaviour towards young, vulnerable people.
I don't find it a worthwhile excuse- they should have continued and charged perpetrators, whatever names got thrown at them.
If that was a genuine issue, they need better training.
Again, you are taking it too literally. That wasn't a quote. You can obviously reread both mine and his responses- and see, he absolutely missed what I actually posted.
I agree about derogatory labels- to a degree... however, I also don't accept that as an excuse for not doing the job you are paid for. And particularly so, when it involves young victims.
Perhaps, professionals need to be less snowflaky- and stop trying to blame members of the public....
I agree about derogatory labels- to a degree... however, I also don't accept that as an excuse for not doing the job you are paid for. And particularly so, when it involves young victims.
Perhaps, professionals need to be less snowflaky- and stop trying to blame members of the public....
pixie374
SB, surely that's even more cowardly for them to let that continue, for fear of being called racist?
As usual you are missing the point
It is outrageous that fear of upsetting Islam or being accused of racism stopped the police from doing their job but that is in fact what happened
Maybe you need to look at the root causes instead of calling actions cowardly
You do not seem to accept that police forces did indeed act in such a manner
What were the factors that brought about such a mindset from the police ?
Try looking at those instead
SB, surely that's even more cowardly for them to let that continue, for fear of being called racist?
As usual you are missing the point
It is outrageous that fear of upsetting Islam or being accused of racism stopped the police from doing their job but that is in fact what happened
Maybe you need to look at the root causes instead of calling actions cowardly
You do not seem to accept that police forces did indeed act in such a manner
What were the factors that brought about such a mindset from the police ?
Try looking at those instead
"Elephant in the room
The inquiry was launched on 15 June this year. Since then Sir John Saunders, the chairman, has devoted his time to a minute examination of the response of the emergency services and security arrangements at the Manchester Arena.
But he has side-stepped the elephant in the room: Britain’s role in the downfall of Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in the war of 2011.
Yet the facts are hard to ignore.
The Manchester bomber was Salman Abedi, a 22-year-old with a Libyan background whose family had fled and settled in Manchester to escape Gaddafi’s regime.
Abedi’s father, Ramadan, was a long-standing member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which was founded to overthrow Gaddafi. The primary opposition force to Gaddafi, the LIFG was until 2009 an affiliate of al-Qaeda.
In 2011, both Ramadan and a young Salman Abedi returned to Libya to fight in the civil war that toppled Gaddafi, partly thanks to a Nato bombing campaign in which the UK played a key role.
Salman was later known to have made repeated trips to Libya, including one shortly before his attack in Manchester.
Perhaps Salman Abedi’s links to Libya are irrelevant. It would be wrong to rule out the idea that Abedi was “radicalised” in Britain.
Yet questions abound. Questions which scream out to be asked. Questions which Saunders has so far shown little sign of examining.
The first concerns Britain’s “open door policy”, which allowed Libyan exiles and British Libyan citizens, most of whom lived in Manchester, to join the 2011 uprising.
Some of these British Libyans had previously been under control orders, which subjected them to electronic tagging and required them to remain at a registered address for 16 hours a day.
Control orders are designed for the purpose of “protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism”.
Yet in advance of the Libyan intervention, the British government had decided that the Manchester Libyans no longer posed a terrorist threat.
An article by Middle East Eye interviewed Libyans who claimed strings were pulled by Britain’s domestic security service, MI5, to allow them to travel to Libya and fight with “no questions asked”.
In other words, the UK was allowing individuals they suspected of involvement in terrorist activity to travel to Libya and join up with radical Islamist groups, including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.
Why were these control orders lifted and on whose advice? What caused the government to change its mind? Were the control orders lifted in connection with the Libyan conflict – or is there some other explanation?
CCTV of Salman Abedi, the Islamist terrorist who killed 22 people in the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017.
Ministerial accountability
Saunders has the power to call then home secretary Theresa May and probably her immediate predecessor Alan Johnson and ask them. He should do so.
He also needs to call Cameron, the prime minister who ordered Britain’s military intervention in 2011. We need to know whether he was advised that domestic consequences might flow from his Libyan mission.
MI5 warned in advance about the danger of bloodshed on British streets as a result of the Iraq invasion. Was a similar warning issued in private ahead of British meddling in Libya?
The inquiry also needs to hear about Britain’s relations with the LIFG, which in the 1990s seems to have been in hock with MI6, and paid by the agency to carry out an assassination attempt against Gaddafi.
When their attempts at regime change failed, the Libyan radicals fled to Manchester – sometimes called the “second capital” of Libya.
After 9/11, the British state changed its approach and Gaddafi became an unexpected ally. Now, LIFG exiles in Britain were deprived of their passports.
In 2011 the LIFG came back into favour as Cameron ordered airstrikes and secretly deployed some ground troops to help local forces remove Gaddafi.
This has rarely been acknowledged."
The inquiry was launched on 15 June this year. Since then Sir John Saunders, the chairman, has devoted his time to a minute examination of the response of the emergency services and security arrangements at the Manchester Arena.
But he has side-stepped the elephant in the room: Britain’s role in the downfall of Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in the war of 2011.
Yet the facts are hard to ignore.
The Manchester bomber was Salman Abedi, a 22-year-old with a Libyan background whose family had fled and settled in Manchester to escape Gaddafi’s regime.
Abedi’s father, Ramadan, was a long-standing member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which was founded to overthrow Gaddafi. The primary opposition force to Gaddafi, the LIFG was until 2009 an affiliate of al-Qaeda.
In 2011, both Ramadan and a young Salman Abedi returned to Libya to fight in the civil war that toppled Gaddafi, partly thanks to a Nato bombing campaign in which the UK played a key role.
Salman was later known to have made repeated trips to Libya, including one shortly before his attack in Manchester.
Perhaps Salman Abedi’s links to Libya are irrelevant. It would be wrong to rule out the idea that Abedi was “radicalised” in Britain.
Yet questions abound. Questions which scream out to be asked. Questions which Saunders has so far shown little sign of examining.
The first concerns Britain’s “open door policy”, which allowed Libyan exiles and British Libyan citizens, most of whom lived in Manchester, to join the 2011 uprising.
Some of these British Libyans had previously been under control orders, which subjected them to electronic tagging and required them to remain at a registered address for 16 hours a day.
Control orders are designed for the purpose of “protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism”.
Yet in advance of the Libyan intervention, the British government had decided that the Manchester Libyans no longer posed a terrorist threat.
An article by Middle East Eye interviewed Libyans who claimed strings were pulled by Britain’s domestic security service, MI5, to allow them to travel to Libya and fight with “no questions asked”.
In other words, the UK was allowing individuals they suspected of involvement in terrorist activity to travel to Libya and join up with radical Islamist groups, including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.
Why were these control orders lifted and on whose advice? What caused the government to change its mind? Were the control orders lifted in connection with the Libyan conflict – or is there some other explanation?
CCTV of Salman Abedi, the Islamist terrorist who killed 22 people in the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017.
Ministerial accountability
Saunders has the power to call then home secretary Theresa May and probably her immediate predecessor Alan Johnson and ask them. He should do so.
He also needs to call Cameron, the prime minister who ordered Britain’s military intervention in 2011. We need to know whether he was advised that domestic consequences might flow from his Libyan mission.
MI5 warned in advance about the danger of bloodshed on British streets as a result of the Iraq invasion. Was a similar warning issued in private ahead of British meddling in Libya?
The inquiry also needs to hear about Britain’s relations with the LIFG, which in the 1990s seems to have been in hock with MI6, and paid by the agency to carry out an assassination attempt against Gaddafi.
When their attempts at regime change failed, the Libyan radicals fled to Manchester – sometimes called the “second capital” of Libya.
After 9/11, the British state changed its approach and Gaddafi became an unexpected ally. Now, LIFG exiles in Britain were deprived of their passports.
In 2011 the LIFG came back into favour as Cameron ordered airstrikes and secretly deployed some ground troops to help local forces remove Gaddafi.
This has rarely been acknowledged."
Naomi, 17:00, as you didn't realise it was rhetoric. Both your idea that you speak for others and my "preceded reputation" were both quite sweet. Plus your blatant misunderstanding, that I "had" addressed sticky- and you only decided to butt in,until you realised you had the wrong end of the stick.
No worries, it was genuinely quite endearing.
No worries, it was genuinely quite endearing.
naomi: "Stickybottle at 17:52 Wed, It appears your question has been overlooked."
That was answered before Stickybottle entered the thread, perhaps you missed it naomi ...
Peter Pedant @12:44 Tue 14th Sep 2021 ~~" // The Manchester bomber did what he did because no one had the guts to question him for fear of being branded Islamophobic.//
nope
a word to the wise - read the transcripts. ( 250 000 words a day) that is NOT what happened."
That was answered before Stickybottle entered the thread, perhaps you missed it naomi ...
Peter Pedant @12:44 Tue 14th Sep 2021 ~~" // The Manchester bomber did what he did because no one had the guts to question him for fear of being branded Islamophobic.//
nope
a word to the wise - read the transcripts. ( 250 000 words a day) that is NOT what happened."
And yes, sevenOP, that was what happened. Here's the link I posted earlier. Perhaps you missed it.
https:/
https:/
"pixie374
SB, surely that's even more cowardly for them to let that continue, for fear of being called racist?
As usual you are missing the point
It is outrageous that fear of upsetting Islam or being accused of racism stopped the police from doing their job but that is in fact what happened
Maybe you need to look at the root causes instead of calling actions cowardly
You do not seem to accept that police forces did indeed act in such a manner
What were the factors that brought about such a mindset from the police ?
Try looking at those instead"" Stickybottle @ 17:52 Wed 15th Sep 2021
What relevance has a security guards evidence to Stickybottle's question?
SB, surely that's even more cowardly for them to let that continue, for fear of being called racist?
As usual you are missing the point
It is outrageous that fear of upsetting Islam or being accused of racism stopped the police from doing their job but that is in fact what happened
Maybe you need to look at the root causes instead of calling actions cowardly
You do not seem to accept that police forces did indeed act in such a manner
What were the factors that brought about such a mindset from the police ?
Try looking at those instead"" Stickybottle @ 17:52 Wed 15th Sep 2021
What relevance has a security guards evidence to Stickybottle's question?
