22+ dead in Manchester

Will probably go more like this

 

I am still waiting to hear from major figures of the Muslim faith denouncing these attacks.
The majority of Muslims aren't terrorists, but the majority of terrorists are Muslim.

Where is the outcry from the "normal" Muslim community and leaders separating themselves from the terrorists? Calling them out for what they are?
If it were a band of Christians doing these things you can bet all you have that I would be distancing myself, and my fellow Christians from these acts.
There would be all sorts of demands from liberals for Christian leaders to speak out.
The silence is troubling to say the least. The leaders of every nation impacted by these people should band together and demand statements and comments from those with power in the Muslim community.

Enough is enough. Sorry, but being politically correct has lead to people being killed. If you think this terrorist and his buddies didn't know the soft targets would mostly be tween girls, and their moms who took them, you are sadly mistaken. They are ramping up the horror of who and where they kill, to send a message, and everyone stands around with their hands in their pockets. How far will they push? Maybe a maternity ward will be the target that pushes people over the edge.
They must be laughing their a**es off at how easy we are making it for them.

 

These links are on the first page of a google search: "muslims denouncing manchester attack". Certainly Muslims need to do more, even LEAD the "war" but their moderate religious leaders are denouncing the attack.
http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/23/musli...iana-grande-manchester-terror-attack-6655366/
http://www.newsweek.com/manchester-...ana-grande-muslims-jewish-groups-decry-614140
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...bombing-ariana-grande-explosion-a7751576.html
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/m...error-attack/story-30348230-detail/story.html
http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/i...arena-attack/story-30348785-detail/story.html
http://aboutislam.net/shariah/special-coverage-shariah/muslim-scholars-denounce-manchester-attack/

 

More: Real life example -- While their children lay dead in the street at hands of Islamic terrorism, Brit police are more worried about what people are saying online.

 

Twitter springs into action, not to denounce the terrorists, but to ban those who do denounce the terrorists. Typical.

 

As a small town boy of mostly Scots Irish Ancestry, I realize that many in my demographic are meth heads, wife beaters, cattle thieves, burglars and commit more than their share of homicides. Though I engage in none of those activities I wish to apologize for those in my demographic and submit that they commit these acts to my abject horror.

 

Why dont you guys wear underoos below the kilt?
Seems selfish and inconsiderate

 

Crockett McLiberal, when the Scotch-Irish start bombing little girls and their moms, and committing atrocities throughout the world in the name of your religion, you will have reason to apologize.

 

I've come to the conclusion that iatrogenic and Seattle Husker are mirror images of each other, one living in his universe and the other living in a negative universe. Matter and anti-matter. If they ever collide, all life will be destroyed.

 

I can't speak for my ancestors. My red haired mother taught me to put on clean underpants every morning. I can't say I always wear clean underwear, but I always start the day that way.

 

Sadly enough, a lot more Americans are killed by abusive spouses than by Muslim terrorists.

 

One has nothing to do with the other. A lot more people die from heart disease also, but that doesn't make terrorism acceptable.

 

Morissey (The Smiths) spoke up on FB daring to publicly attack politicians, even the Queen. He said politicians are safe from attacks, while the rest of the country is left vulnerable. He blamed “political correctness” for politicians’ unwillingness to specify that the attack was the work of an Islamist extremist, rather than simply an extremist.

For this, he is being called "right wing" by left-wing outlets like The Guardian, which is the biggest insult they have.

“In modern Britain everyone seems petrified to officially say what we all say in private. Politicians tell us they are unafraid, but they are never the victims. How easy to be unafraid when one is protected from the line of fire. The people have no such protections.

“Manchester mayor Andy Burnham says the attack is the work of an ‘extremist’. An extreme what? An extreme rabbit?”

“[The PM's] life is lived in a bullet-proof bubble, and she evidently does not need to identify any young people today in Manchester morgues”.

“Also, ‘will not break us’ means that the tragedy will not break her, or her policies on immigration. The young people of Manchester are already broken - thanks all the same, Theresa.”

"[London mayor Sadiq Khan] failed to condemn the Islamic State group after it claimed responsibility for the attack.

[The Queen] received “absurd praise for her ‘strong words’ against the attack, yet she does not cancel today’s garden party at Buckingham Palace – for which no criticism is allowed in the Britain of free press.”​

 

Yes, I saw that. Who knew that a gay British singer of morose songs had a backbone?

 

England is lost

 

Tucker with many great points tonight in this opening dialogue
Worth a look

 

I object to terrorism as much or more than the next guy. I honestly think it pretty stupid to take a man like me -- who has served as a foster parent, child welfare board volunteer, fund raiser for cause of the abused -- and lump me in with a group of similar background and culture who are wife beaters. I hate ISIS and terrorism. I pretty much love the Muslim doctor who diagnosed Lyme disease and put me on the road to recovery after a few months of misery.

 

Posts: 12714

Just now

Much of my suspicions confirmed. Killer's parents belonged to a radical anti-Ghadafi tribe in Eastern Libya. The bomber also is believed to have gone to Syria instead of visiting in Libya and most likely was trained there by one faction of the anti-Assad jihadis. The belief is he became radicalized in England.http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/0...r-support-in-its-wars-on-libya-and-syria.htmlhttp://m.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11862181

 

I thought he was "asexual."

 

The difference is Islam teaches oppression of others, and most Mulims want sharia law.

The Scots don't teach wife beating as a lifestyle, nor are they against acculturation.

I realize my position and that of millions of others seems unfair to you and many Muslims, but my culture did not instigate the terrorist problem, and I just cannot agree to accept the problem of terrorists as a "fact of life". For an example of a country that has made that mistake, just look at France.

 

Radical Muslims dream of killing westerners. Moderate Muslims dream of radical Muslims killing westerners.

 

Apparently the U.S. leaked the attacker's name before British Intelligence was ready for it. U.K. media started giving out his name citing U.S. officials.

The British were in the process of tracking down the network that supported him (i.e. manufactured the bomb, etc.) and were not pleased.

http://time.com/4791987/manchester-attack-us-intelligence-salman-abedi-attacker/

 

As if the network didn't realize who was the bomber?

 

In past British terrorist events, they waited until after key raids the next day before releasing the name(s) of the initial perpetrators.

 

That's true, but many of the bad guys think they have done their due diligence on covering their tracks. They don't realize all the figurative fingerprints they leave behind. When they start announcing names, they give the bad guys a head start in destroying laptops, cell phones, etc and even trying to get out of the country. It's ALWAYS a bad idea to tip off the bad guys to what you already know. The longer you can keep that quiet the more likely you are to get more intel. The only reason to ever make it public is because the public has a right to know....eventually.

 

I agree. Radicals Muslims may be a small component but they can't pull all this together without tacit approval and financial support from "moderate Muslims". There are without a doubt peaceful, tolerant and "good" Muslims but I don't think they add enough to American society to warrant the risk of a liberal immigration policy. It's a risk versus reward equation. We have no legal, or IMO, ethical obligation to the global community to let them come to our country. If we can't vet them to a very high degree, we don't let them in. If that means that the system can only accommodate 500 per year, then we should only let in 500 per year, no matter what the refugee situation around the world is.

 

Much of the medical care in rural Texas is supplied by Muslim immigrant doctors. I'm all for vetting and only allowing immigration by people in who share American values and whose projected contributions to the country are valuable. The current vetting procedures -- even for prosperous Western Europeans wanting to retire here -- are pretty stringent. Nothing about immigration should be "liberal" if by that you mean lax, haphazard or rushed. Slackers, Dullards, liars, those with history of criminal violence, etc. have no business even trying.

 

The UK has quit sharing intel with the US. They are furious over multi leaks. Why would US intelligence dole out this info to the American media?

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...ed-states-following-manchester-bombing-leaks/