Explosions at Arianna Grande concert in UK
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
Uh, I've never argued for closed borders. I started out by pointing out how asinine it was to harp on Mega for being "wrong." I then pointed out that it's entirely possible that he was "radicalized" by his own family. His parents were in fact Libyan refugees. We discussed refugee/immigrant for a bit (thank goodness migrant wasn't thrown in there) and you made a point that there was a lot of speculation in a post of mine (of course, really no different than your speculation) and then added
which was also speculation but not based in reality. I pointed out you needed to brush up on Libyan history. You pasted something and asked what you missed and I replied all of it apparently with enough basic pertinent facts to refute your claim that folks left because Sharia! and thus were not likely jihadist.
Now, if your actual argument this entire time has been that the internet allows for jihadist propaganda to cross closed borders then:
1. I agree with that.
2. Your word salad needs more dressing and croutons and less whatever unidentifiable yard greens you decided to put in it.
Yeah my only disagreement was that home grow terrorism is different than foreign terrorism. I didn't expect that stance to be controversial.
And that's the problem when their country was a Sharia law shit hole. Assimilation, cha cha cha
Yeah, no. I never indicated Libya had a radical Islam problem in the past (we know they do now and that the family may have made multiple returns to Libya after Hillary killed Gaddafi), but Gaddafi was not an Islamist, did not actually put Sharia law into place, and in fact pissed off the actual Islamists. It is possible the guy who blew children up grew up in a home that was strictly Islamist and set the stage for him to wage jihad.
I was harping mega for suddenly becoming suddenly much more interested in the details and nuance of the case once he thought his narrative was vindicated. (it was he doing the victory dance not I)
You made several hysterical posts about how it didn't matter where the bomber was from.
I stated that Gaddafi instituted sharia law (true) and that it was unlikely the family fled because they were jihadis (also true)
Can't they establish a safe country where anyone that wants to leave the religious nuttiness can go? And leave the purists to do what they want?
Edit: I know. It wouldn't work. I can't believe we keep investing in this. Bin Laden was brilliant, wasn't he?
It does take a special unique personality and rhetorical skill to irritate someone by citing them favorably and agreeing with them.
I'll give you that.
Gaddafi style Sharia was made up by Gaddafi. He thought he had the power to interpret the Quran and that's exactly what he did. His Sharia didn't cause people to flee the country. His use of "Sharia" law was purely political and not in the same way it is in true Sunni or Shia Sharia law countries.
Word salad again. They likely didn't leave because they were jihadis as people were not fleeing because of religion or lack thereof, but that doesn't exclude them from being or becoming jihadis. False equivalence on your part. Again, people fled because Gaddafi took their shit. The educated and those with resources fled Gaddafi socialism. I will refer you back to the Declaration on the Establishment of the People's Authority. It actually tells you everything about the origin of Gaddafi socialism you need to understand his Green Books. In fact, it established the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. But now I'm just rambling. Maybe this will help you...
"In the early 1970s, Islam played a major role in legitimizing Qadhafi's political and social reforms. By the end of the decade, however, he had begun to attack the religious establishment and several fundamental aspects of Sunni Islam. Qadhafi asserted the transcendence of the Quran as the sole guide to Islamic governance and the unimpeded ability of every Muslim to read and interpret it. He denigrated the roles of the ulama, imams, and Islamic jurists and questioned the authenticity of the hadith, and thereby the sunna, as a basis for Islamic law. The sharia itself, Qadhafi maintained, governed only such matters as properly fell within the sphere of religion; all other matters lay outside the purview of religious law. Finally, he called for a revision of the Muslim calendar, saying it should date from the Prophet's death in 632, an event he felt was more momentous than the hijra ten years earlier.
These unorthodox views on the hadith, sharia, and the Islamic era aroused a good deal of unease. They seemed to originate from Qadhafi's conviction that he possessed the transcendant ability to interpret the Quran and to adapt its message to modern life. Equally, they reinforced the view that he was a reformer but not a literalist in matters of the Quran and Islamic tradition. On a practical level, however, several observers agreed that Qadhafi was less motivated by religious convictions than by political calculations. By espousing these views and by criticizing the ulama, he was using religion to undermine a segment of the middle class that was notably vocal in opposing his economic policies in the late 1970s. But Qadhafi clearly considered himself an authority on the Quran and Islam and was not afraid to challenge traditional religious authority. He also was not prepared to tolerate dissent."
And
"Remaking of the economy was parallel with the attempt to remold political and social institutions. Until the late 1970s, Libya's economy was mixed, with a large role for private enterprise except in the fields of oil production and distribution, banking, and insurance. But according to volume two of Qadhafi's Green Book, which appeared in 1978, private retail trade, rent, and wages were forms of "exploitation" that should be abolished. Instead, workers' self-management committees and profit participation partnerships were to function in public and private enterprises. A property law was passed that forbade ownership of more than one private dwelling, and Libyan workers took control of a large number of companies, turning them into state-run enterprises. Retail and wholesale trading operations were replaced by state-owned "people's supermarkets", where Libyans in theory could purchase whatever they needed at low prices. By 1981 the state had also restricted access to individual bank accounts to draw upon privately held funds for government projects.
While measures such as these undoubtedly benefited poorer Libyans, they created resentment and opposition among the newly dispossessed. The latter joined those already alienated, some of whom had begun to leave the country. By 1982 perhaps 50,000 to 100,000 Libyans had gone abroad; because many of the emigrants were among the enterprising and better educated Libyans, they represented a significant loss of managerial and technical expertise.
Internal opposition came from elements of the middle class who opposed Qadhafi's economic reforms and from students and intellectuals who criticized his ideology. He also incurred the anger of the Islamic community for his unorthodox interpretations of the doctrine and traditions of Islam, his challenge to the authority of the religious establishment, and his contention that the ideas in The Green Book were compatible with and based upon Islam. Endowed Islamic properties (habus) were nationalized as part of Qadhafi's economic reforms, and he urged "the masses" to take over mosques."
From here (always a good read for the history of some countries)...
http://countrystudies.us/
Click Libya. You're welcome.
He was CIA trained. He knew all about bankrupting the enemy and the process for destabilization. There is video of him stating his goal was to bankrupt the US chasing jihadis everywhere.
I'm not against a venue for those wanting to escape the fundamentalists/purists or those wanting religious freedom. The problem is how do you actually vet them?
Some reports coming out that Salman Abedi regularly travelled to Libya with family and may have travelled from Libya to Syria several times, possibly receiving training and support from ISIS linked people while in Libya and Syria. The Times (UK) is actually reporting that Abedi may have recently flown back from Libya to carry out the attack. If this is the case, his family and their connections are going to be the highlights of scrutiny. His father is reportedly currently in Tripoli.
*Not sure of the credibility of the UK publications.
*Not sure of the credibility of the UK publications.
Hey I'm just a big idea guy on this one.
Would the wackos try to infiltrate and destabilize it?
Yes, because that's what they do. But unlike abortion clinic bombers and Timothy McVeigh, their numbers are very impressive. Of note, when we help them, they have even more success, i.e. Iraq (thanks Dumbya), Libya Syria Yemen (thanks Obama), and almost Egypt (almost thanks Obama but foiled by the smart people of Egypt).
One of my questions is what is Oman doing differently than the others? They almost seems immune to Islamic terror. They're a very secular country that has laws similar to the West when it comes to persecution of religious minorities and promotion of sectarian strife. They don't tolerate it. Apostasy is not criminal even though the predominant religion is Islam. They do not seem to be indoctrinated with the intolerant teachings of Wahhabism like most of their neighbors.
Why do Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Kuwait not have the same terror issues that Iraq, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan have? I'd hate to think it's because they are like minded and fund it (eye roll).
There is a dynamic in the Gulf States that our leadership seems to either ignore or they're completely ignorant of and it has nothing to do with Syrian refugees (although those Wahhabist countries don't allow them in because they are Syrians which aren't like the rest of the hardline Sunni Islamists). The West is collectively the idiot monkey helping those countries fight their proxy war with Iran. Those Gulf States will gladly fight to the last American. Why do we continue to be their monkey?
Interesting new info. Authorities are reporting it's doubtful he acted alone and was probably a mule based in the sophistication of the device. They are also trying to figure out how often he travelled to Libya and Syria. Some additional that sheds some light on the members of the Manchester Libyan community. It appears homegrown might be completely accurate but not in the sense we're used to.
@MegaPoke, you were spot on with the Syria slant, but since he wasn't a refugee himself, it doesn't count.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.tele...an-abedi-named-manchester-suicide-bomber/amp/
@MegaPoke, you were spot on with the Syria slant, but since he wasn't a refugee himself, it doesn't count.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.tele...an-abedi-named-manchester-suicide-bomber/amp/
Kinda seems like this could've been avoided if there was some kind of control on travel in that part of the world.
What would you have changed to prevent it from happening? Serious question. What are you proposing?
Hey @07pilt, apparently Manchester's Libyan community has had some notable LIFG members. Makes me wonder if Salman Abedi's father had any connection to them.
You assured me Gaddafi enacted Sharia law. I'm not trying to doubt your expertise, but this LIFG group appears to have been formed in the 1980's by jihadists who opposed Gaddafi's apostasy. Some of those jihadists appeared to have landed in Manchester.
Thoughts?
http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/groups/view/675
You assured me Gaddafi enacted Sharia law. I'm not trying to doubt your expertise, but this LIFG group appears to have been formed in the 1980's by jihadists who opposed Gaddafi's apostasy. Some of those jihadists appeared to have landed in Manchester.
Thoughts?
http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/groups/view/675
OK. Sounded like you had at least an outline of a solution in mind. Guess not.
No it wouldn't have.
If you're referring to Trump's EO....and even if it had occurred in the United States where the EO would have had some application.
No. Not even close to accurate.
The terrorist was a British citizen. True he traveled to Libya and back, but the most the EO would have done is prevent that travel for 90 days and delay his plans.
(applying the U.S. EO to GB)
I was implying that it would've prevented it from happening here if it were enforced.
I didn't think that wasn't obvious.
I didn't think that wasn't obvious.
alpha, why wasn't Biff competent enough to make it stick? The second roll out his booger eatin' Miller sidekick runs out and says it's the same as the first. Assuming it was all that great, make it work instead of eff it up and then blame everyone else.
Not only are they wrong, they're just flat unfit to govern. He photo-ops and eff's up instead of actually getting something done.
Not only are they wrong, they're just flat unfit to govern. He photo-ops and eff's up instead of actually getting something done.
Even then, you are wrong.
So are you saying it would have stopped a British citizen of Lybian descent from coming here from Manchester or are you saying that it would have stopped a similarly situated American citizen from being in the country.
Let in? He was already in GBR. He was living in Manchester.
The only way your scenario works is if the timing works out perfectly so that he happens to be on one of his trips to Libya when the E.O. gets signed.
Even if that happens, the EO expires in 90 days and he is back in GBR.
Maybe you don't fully understand what the EO does.
It was put in place to stem the flow until we had a better grasp on the flow from the region.
It was tuned into a H1b issue.
It was tuned into a H1b issue.
Oh. It was just temporary, it wasn't supposed to work or be legal. Got it.
What is it you think I don't understand? Timing? This guy was already on the radar. He wouldn't've been let in here. He's exactly what the EO was for.
Bag on Trump all you want but he was just acting on the judgment of people who had watched the same flow from the Iraqi theater.
Bag on Trump all you want but he was just acting on the judgment of people who had watched the same flow from the Iraqi theater.
Sec. 2. Temporary Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern During Review Period. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall conduct a worldwide review to identify whether, and if so what, additional information will be needed from each foreign country to adjudicate an application by a national of that country for a visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual is not a security or public-safety threat. The Secretary of Homeland Security may conclude that certain information is needed from particular countries even if it is not needed from every country.
Ask yourself what country Salmen Abedi is a national of.
Keep in mind that term has a legal meaning and definition irrespective of how you might want to define it.
Ask yourself what country Salmen Abedi is a national of.
Keep in mind that term has a legal meaning and definition irrespective of how you might want to define it.
