Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Manchester Arena incident - many reported dead

Ah never mind. I have tried to explain myself. Yes atomisation is the problem of our time. But ISIS is a perfect example of a solution to that, through "community", creating shared identity & making meaning.
So it is necessary to think about this a bit better imo not just lament the demise of football clubs and church.
 
No, I agree. My point since the start is that it's not Islam that is the problem. It's people taking a scripture and twisting it to fit their own ends, getting angry kids to want to die for them because they desperately want to believe it's the right thing to do and god wants it.

I've also been admitting since the start that not only do I have no idea how to fix it, I'm not actually sure there is a way.

I'm not sure it makes sense for people who aren't Muslims, or aren't a member of whatever religion we are talking about, to think of things in this way. Surely to think of others as twisting scripture, we need to believe in it ourselves in some way or another. I'm not religious, so I don't really think I have any position on whether Twelvers or Deobandis have the right 'take' on Islamic scripture just as I don't really know whether Quakers or the Russian Orthodox have the right interpretation of the Bible.
 
Last edited:
Remembered this anecdote from Tony Wilson's book from 2002: '24 Hour Party People'. Hopefully, it illustrates how and why Mancunians will ultimately overcome such horrific extremism.

But ask again, and again, why Manchester?
A half-hour profile - sorry - small, cheap documentary, of the textile
billionaire David Alliance, big boss of Coates Viyella, answered the ques-
tion, 'why Manchester?' once and for all. Alliance was answering the
question from Wilson the interviewer: 'Why do you, one of Britain's rich-
est industrialists, keep your head office in Manchester and continue to live
in Manchester?'
'I'll tell you why.'
Forty years in England had only mellowed the delightful Middle-Eastern
lilt of his speech. Alliance was a handsome, charismatic man in his mid-
fifties who once tried to warn his friend the Shah of Iran, 'You're feeding
their bellies, you've got to start feeding their minds.'
I'll tell you why. When I had been in this country from my home in Persia
no more than ten days, I was looking for my uncle's house in Clyde Road in
West Didsbury. I was sheltering from the rain under the awnings of the old
Rediffusion cinema in East Didsbury. I spoke maybe ten words of English. I
had the address on a piece of paper. I saw a woman pushing a pram, I
showed her the address and she indicated I should follow her. We walked,
perhaps a mile and a half, through the rain, and finally got to Clyde Road
and got to my uncle's house. I knocked. He opened the door and flung his
arms round me, shouting, "Davoud, Davoud." And I looked back and the
woman waved and walked back the way we had come, pushing the pram.
'I turned to my uncle and said, "She wasn't coming this way, why did
she come all this way if she wasn't coming this way?"

"Davoud, because this is Manchester."'

(Page 205)
 
How Manchester bomber Salman Abedi was radicalised by his links to Libya

After his father returned to Libya, Abedi reportedly shuttled back and forth between a bustling Manchester and a traumatised Tripoli. Some reports suggest he was in Libya for the uprising in 2011 and was injured in 2014 in Ajdabiya in eastern Libya while fighting for an Islamist faction. But in neither country did he find a sense of belonging

How? Why was someone who 'was known' to the security services as a (potential?) Salafist terrorist who was a member of a family connected to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group allowed to 'shuttle back and forth' between Manchester and Tripoli? Who was shuttling him back and forth? Did no one notice this constant movement to and from a warzone in which Al-Qaeda played such a prominent role? Why is no one asking these questions? Why isn't this article asking those questions?
 
How Manchester bomber Salman Abedi was radicalised by his links to Libya



How? Why was someone who 'was known' to the security services as a (potential?) Salafist terrorist who was a member of a family connected to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group allowed to 'shuttle back and forth' between Manchester and Tripoli? Who was shuttling him back and forth? Did no one notice this constant movement to and from a warzone in which Al-Qaeda played such a prominent role? Why is no one asking these questions? Why isn't this article asking those questions?

They are asking them, what will come of it who knows.
MI5 opens inquiries into missed warnings over Manchester terror threat

There's also this:
"Suspected Islamist terrorists are being prevented from returning to the UK for the first time, the home secretary has disclosed".
So until yesterday that wasn't happening at all, the 23,000 or so people on the list were able to come and go to wherever no questions asked, now they'll have to go 'engage with authorities' on their return from travels.
 
Good article, and very relevant to what was being said here yesterday. Takes as its starting point a 18 year old neo-nazi turned Jihadi who shot a bunch of people in Florida last week:
Pathway to extremism: what neo-Nazis and jihadis have in common

"But Arthur’s switch in allegiance raises a key question for analysts looking at the process of radicalisation: to what extent the factors that attract people to extremism are specific to a particular ideology at all..

Though it is almost impossible to create a typical terrorist profile, some research shows that “seekers” who are looking for a particular form of “brotherhood” or cause that can give their lives meaning are particularly prone to radicalisation."
 
Good article, and very relevant to what was being said here yesterday. Takes as its starting point a 18 year old neo-nazi turned Jihadi who shot a bunch of people in Florida last week:
Pathway to extremism: what neo-Nazis and jihadis have in common

"But Arthur’s switch in allegiance raises a key question for analysts looking at the process of radicalisation: to what extent the factors that attract people to extremism are specific to a particular ideology at all..

Though it is almost impossible to create a typical terrorist profile, some research shows that “seekers” who are looking for a particular form of “brotherhood” or cause that can give their lives meaning are particularly prone to radicalisation."
Pretty sure I linked this elsewhere, but it's worth putting up again:

Opinion | The Jihadi State of Mind


It's Kenan Malik, making a similar point.


"I have written before about the increasingly blurred lines between ideological violence and sociopathic rage. There is now what we might call a “jihadi state of mind,” in which some mixture of social disengagement, moral dissolution, unleavened misanthropy and inchoate rage drives some to see the most abhorrent expressions of violence as a kind of revolt."

"It is a state of mind that finds its most vicious, barbaric form in Islamist terror. But it’s not only in Islamist terror that it finds expression."
 
I'm not one of these liberal people who is doing one of these no true Scotsman routines about Islamist terrorists, but some of the kindest, most community minded people I know are practising Muslims. The loneliness and atomisation that you are talking about has nothing to do with Muslims, the atomisation of communities is something that happens across the country and it occurs in places where there are no Muslims at all. I think that it is far more linked to the decline of collective institutions which includes but is not limited to religious groups, trade unions and football clubs, the ever increasing number of hours we week on average and technology.
I appreciate the point you are making and think it is a good one. Practising Muslims are good and noble people. Politeness, kindness and respect go a long way but for me the issue is that communities don't really grow together in true strength unless they can intermarry easily. That's where the true bond of interconnection takes place, in my opinion, children and families mingling. Property and money coming together. But for the most part Muslims are a society within our society, not the only one of course but it's very difficult for both parties, Muslims and non-Muslims to really get close together.

Charming educated Muslim students and co-workers are delightful but when it comes to marriage it separates off. I'm generalising enormously, is different for kids of the original immigrants from the seventies and eighties. But in my opinion there is a constant stream of new very traditional, and recent immigration which keeps the division going and the strictness of Islam up. Also it is very common particularly in Arabic communities to have very large families all of a very separate identity to British values. There is an aspect of survival of the fittest and you can be bred out of your country, it goes back to the old Testament with Egypt. The point is problems are going to occur when you get to polarised groups that can't really get to know each other through traditional or language barriers. It's hard to get to know people at the best of time when there are language and cultural barriers it even harder, this works both ways.
 
The demise of collective institutions like religious groups, yes that's where the problem lies.

Oh dear.

He mentioned religious groups as an example, not as an exemplar. His focus was on the demise of collective institutions. The issue is - or should be - that the solidarities that come with membership of collective institutions have been deliberately eroded along with the institutions themselves.
 
Ah never mind. I have tried to explain myself. Yes atomisation is the problem of our time.

But what is "atomisation" at the end of the day? The term gets bandied around to supposedly describe an existential state, but it seems to me that what it often actually describes is an induced state of aloneness, of people indoctrinated with individualism so deeply that collectivity has been made to seem somehow "wrong".

But ISIS is a perfect example of a solution to that, through "community", creating shared identity & making meaning.
So it is necessary to think about this a bit better imo not just lament the demise of football clubs and church.

ISIS aren't an example of "community", they're an example of individuals interpollating with a particular religious identity, and then calling their (rather loose) collective a "community". As for "shared identity", half of the twats are foggy about what the fuck Islam is. What they share is an antipathy to the society they're attempting to leave behind (although a significant minority want to leave ISIS behind in turn).
 
Not sure what the complex and detailed truth behind Bastani's tweet is, or if he has some inside tip, or if he's just repeating what's been said/hinted at elsewhere.

Okayed? Really? Or just let go as legally it's really hard for someone to be stopped from leaving the country. On the arguments people are using you could say both people going to fight with IS and the YPG have been 'okayed' by the security services.
 
Not sure what the complex and detailed truth behind Bastani's tweet is, or if he has some inside tip, or if he's just repeating what's been said/hinted at elsewhere.

Okayed? Really? Or just let go as legally it's really hard for someone to be stopped from leaving the country. On the arguments people are using you could say both people going to fight with IS and the YPG have been 'okayed' by the security services.

People fighting with ISIS, YPG etc are breaking the law, and they can be put on trial if the authorities become aware of their plans, and either put on trial if they return or (only if they have dual nationality) denied re-entry to the country. If any of those options were considered and decided against, then "okayed" doesn't seem like a ridiculous description.
 
I'm confused. That would be 2011, when his parents went back to Libya - but afaik, he didn't. I'm as confused as others with the world 'cleared', but that aside, is the claim that he was cleared, but didn't actually go?

All of this is very confused, there are reports that he fought in 2011 as well. In a sense it doesn't matter, since plenty of people like him went to fight in Libya and their travel was faciltiated by Mi6 and in any case the destabilisation of the country was what allowed ISIS to gain a foothold there anyway, but it would be good to have clarification.
 
Back
Top Bottom