Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday May 23 2017, @02:49AM   Printer-friendly

The Guardian reports:

At least 19 people were killed and more than 50 injured after an explosion in the foyer area of a crowded Manchester concert hall, which left hundreds of people fleeing in terror. [...] Police said they were dealing with a possible terror incident and counter-terrorism officials were assessing what caused the explosion. Investigators from the police and the domestic security service MI5 were part of the investigation.

Greater Manchester Police statement:

I can confirm the details of events tonight that we currently know. At around 10.33pm last night we received reports of an explosion at the Manchester Arena in the city centre. It was at the conclusion of an Ariana Grande concert.

Currently we have 19 people confirmed to have died and around 50 people injured.

The injured are being treated at six hospitals across Greater Manchester. My thoughts are with all those who have been affected and we are doing all we can to support them.

[...] We are currently treating this as a terrorist incident until we know otherwise. We are working closely with the national counter-terrorism policing network and UK intelligence partners.

Unnamed sources, who have not been directly quoted are widely reported as suspecting this incident was a suicide bombing.

Multiple senior U.S. law enforcement officials briefed by British authorities told NBC News that forensic evidence at the scene — including a body found at the blast site — indicated a suicide attack. British and U.S. law enforcement officials said they believed they had tentatively identified the bomber.

U.S. officials said initial reports indicated that some of the casualties might have been caused by a stampede of concert-goers.

Sky News reports:

Officers carried out a controlled explosion at nearby Cathedral Gardens shortly after 1.30am, but have since confirmed the item they found was abandoned clothing and not suspicious.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by BK on Tuesday May 23 2017, @03:38AM (27 children)

    by BK (4868) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @03:38AM (#513955)

    Fighting violence with violence doesn't lead to more than more violence.

    Well sure. If you half-ass it. You can't shoot missiles at it and then look away again. If you want it to lead to something else, you have to be willing to win.

    --
    ...but you HAVE heard of me.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @03:44AM (25 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @03:44AM (#513958)

    Win what and for how long? Are we going to stay in the middle east for all eternity? If you completely destroy one terrorist group, another will form in its place. Even without terrorist groups, there will still be lone wolf terrorists. War is a non-solution for this problem, and perhaps even an anti-solution.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by coolgopher on Tuesday May 23 2017, @03:55AM (11 children)

      by coolgopher (1157) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @03:55AM (#513962)

      In its extremes, you only have two options. One is that you glass the entire planet. The other, in the words of WOPR, states that "the only winning move, is not to play".

      Anything in between pours fuel on one fire or another and doesn't solve anything.

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @04:44AM (10 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @04:44AM (#513975)

        We no longer need to glass the entire planet. We can mass-produce drones. We can build drones that fire autonomously, reducing the labor needed to operate them.

        Your so-called "winning move" is not an option. You might not be interested in war, but war is interested in you. You can not avoid conflict. This is particularly true when faced with a cult that is determined to spread and exterminate. You can respond in kind, or you can die.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @05:15AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @05:15AM (#513995)

          You can not avoid conflict. This is particularly true when faced with a cult that is determined to spread and exterminate.

          I don't much fancy pop music either, but come on.

        • (Score: 3, Disagree) by shortscreen on Tuesday May 23 2017, @06:55AM (6 children)

          by shortscreen (2252) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @06:55AM (#514031) Journal

          You can't completely avoid conflict, but you can mostly avoid it. One nation isn't going to conquer another just by hitting them with a suicide bomber once every other month. As infuriating as that would be, it's not necessary to escalate the situation to a war (and may after all be what the bombers had desired). If there is a coordinated brainwashing effort which is creating suicide bombers, it can be impeded by less drastic means (eg. cut off the funding), and the toxic ideology can be displaced by promoting an alternative ideology.

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @07:24AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @07:24AM (#514044)

            "If there is a coordinated brainwashing effort which is creating suicide bombers"

            I think importing them should count. Letting them breed on our soil should count. Coordinated brainwashing occurs in universities, where liberals encourage ideas like bringing in refugees from hostile places.

            "it can be impeded by less drastic means (eg. cut off the funding)"

            We could eliminate student loans and grants for non-technical studies.

            "the toxic ideology can be displaced by promoting an alternative ideology"

            Yes, the alt-right is much less toxic. It beats BLM, Antifa, and so many other violent self-destructive ideologies.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @07:53AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @07:53AM (#514065)

              We could eliminate student loans and grants for non-technical studies.

              It's not a good idea to have a complete blind spot on political and social issues. But there's a need to demand that people prove their thesis as permitted in a subjective field.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:22AM (3 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:22AM (#514132) Journal

            If there is a coordinated brainwashing effort which is creating suicide bombers, it can be impeded by less drastic means (eg. cut off the funding), and the toxic ideology can be displaced by promoting an alternative ideology.

            You know what? "Bomb" them with food - much cheaper than explosives, the logistic of "targeting" is simpler and it doesn't cost that much to transport overseas (as a ready-for-combat air carrier+support).

            Even better: include many sugary items - obese people aren't that good combatants, and I reckon neither as suicide bombers.

            Supplementary, it create more jobs than the defence industry.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:53AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:53AM (#514145)

              Don't you get it? If you don't convert to Islam it will be seen like just and a duty to kill you. Giving them food won't solve this. These people don't reason like us.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @12:12PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @12:12PM (#514152)

                (another brain-bleached)

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @02:40PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @02:40PM (#514272)

              This is retarded. Surplus food causes increase in population. You would placate them (maybe) for now, next generation the problem is 3x worse.

        • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday May 23 2017, @07:16AM (1 child)

          by isostatic (365) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @07:16AM (#514041) Journal

          This is particularly true when faced with a cult that is determined to spread and exterminate. You can respond in kind, or you can die.

          Or join the cult. As a white male who speaks English and has no strong religious feelings either way I'm part of the 'cult' that's spent the last 500 years spreading. Trouble is when the other cults fight back.

          • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @07:56AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @07:56AM (#514069)

            Islam has spent the last 1400 years spreading using extermination wars and enslavement. Even communists and Nazis would pale in historic context. What saved Europe and Christianity is technology and brains.

    • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday May 23 2017, @10:06AM (8 children)

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @10:06AM (#514102)

      > Win what and for how long?

      I completely agree with this sentiment, but I would use it to argue for exactly the opposite. What we should have done in Afghanistan, was build a nation. That takes decades - generations have to live in peace, a middle class has to flourish. Bush/Blair's childish, naive mistake was to expect that this would take anything less than 50 years. It was obvious even in the 90s that building a nation takes a long time.

      > War is a non-solution for this problem, and perhaps even an anti-solution.

      I sort of agree. War will never create peace, this is obvious. Wealth, however, will. Bringing wealth and education to the poor people in the Middle East can break the cycle of violence. Military can support this goal by providing a framework for economic growth.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:00AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:00AM (#514123)

        What we should have done in Afghanistan, was build a nation. That takes decades - generations have to live in peace, a middle class has to flourish. Bush/Blair's childish, naive mistake was to expect that this would take anything less than 50 years.

        Speaking of naive, what you're doing is looking at an alligator eating a chicken and talking about what the alligator should have done to help the chicken.

        That's so far from what the alligator was trying to do. Go look at US Gov's track record. How many nations have they destroyed. How many have they built?

        Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc are all shittier places after USA's involvement.

        Syria:
        http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-syria-wikileaks-idUSTRE73H0E720110418 [reuters.com]
        http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all [nytimes.com]
        http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-declassified-u-s-government-documents-the-west-supported-the-creation-of-isis.html [washingtonsblog.com]

        Libya:
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html [telegraph.co.uk]
        There's more if you bother looking. And many of these are mainstream sites not conspiracy nutjob sites.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:25AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:25AM (#514135)

        That takes decades - generations have to live in peace, a middle class has to flourish.

        The Marshall plan didn't take that long. Granted, there's a difference between Germany and Afghanistan.

        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday May 23 2017, @12:29PM (1 child)

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @12:29PM (#514166) Journal

          The Marshall plan didn't take that long. Granted, there's a difference between Germany and Afghanistan.

          People today forget that the Nazi die-hards continued a terror campaign of resistance [wikipedia.org] after the official surrender.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @12:29AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @12:29AM (#515223)

            Your link says the exact opposite.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday May 23 2017, @12:40PM (3 children)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @12:40PM (#514171) Journal

        Bush/Blair's childish, naive mistake was to expect that this would take anything less than 50 years.

        The history of that region would indicate it would take much, much longer than that and would have to be a much, much more severe campaign of indoctrination and identity formation than democracies generally care to undertake. The Persian Empire controlled the area for a long time, but those people never came to think of themselves as Persians nor to have Persian values or behave as Persians do. The Romans took their turn later, and those people did not give up calling themselves Jews and Assyrians and become Romans and think of themselves as such. Still later the Ottomans took over, and the tribal identities of the people they conquered did not change.

        You'd really have to have a very strong system yourselves that can outlast the millenia it would take to beat the tribal out of the Middle East and form them into something else.

        But, why would you bother? It's far less trouble to dump fossil fuels, which is the only thing that region has that the rest of the world wants and is the only reason why anybody from anyplace else gets involved in that clusterf*k. We don't need their falafel, because we can make our own now (we have the technology!). We don't need their, I dunno, their gaudy gold jewelry or hijabs either.

        The best thing to do is walk away from the whole catastrophe, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia...the whole lot. Then dump fossil fuels for renewables to deny them the income they need to project their hatred and violence elsewhere. Then, if they persist in sending suicide bombers and the like to other parts of the world, then we glass the whole fucking place and put a sign in the middle of the wasteland for posterity: "This is What Happens to Those Who Refuse to Play Well With Others."

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 23 2017, @01:09PM (1 child)

          by kaszz (4211) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @01:09PM (#514196) Journal

          Israel would do very well without any petroleum product exports. Regardless, oil corporations in USA profit from the whole deal so they will run with it until they can't.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday May 23 2017, @01:21PM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @01:21PM (#514201) Journal

            If Israel can do perfectly fine without anybody else, they should. America can cease its support of that country categorically.

            You are right about oil companies. Nevertheless dropping oil is the obvious solution to the problem of Middle East terror and Islamic extremism. I offer the evidence of the Janjaweed in Darfur. They're as nasty as any, but they have no oil that allows them to project their hatred elsewhere. They remain nasty, but are contained as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

            So I raise the connection of oil to terror with each such attack. No oil means reducing global Islamic extremist terror to a local phenomenon. Then the people in those localities can decide if they're ever going to get sick of it and put an end to it, or put up with it the way they always seem to have done.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday May 23 2017, @01:52PM

          by PiMuNu (3823) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @01:52PM (#514237)

          > The history of that region would indicate it would take much, much longer than that and would have to be a much, much more severe campaign of indoctrination and identity formation than democracies generally care to undertake.

          By the same argument, Europe (and US!) were fighting over "the tribal identities of the people" up until 20th century. It turns out that "country" is just a code word for "tribal identities of the people". The Italians have been trying to suppress the British for 2000 years! The Holy Roman Empire took over where the Romans failed! etc etc. I am trying to say that your interpretation is very superficial.

    • (Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday May 23 2017, @10:06AM (2 children)

      by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 23 2017, @10:06AM (#514103) Journal

      As long as there is religion, resources and human beings, there will be conflict.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @12:20PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @12:20PM (#514158)

        And removing one of them stops the conflict..

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @12:47PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @12:47PM (#514177)

          So let's remove all the human beings!

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by BK on Tuesday May 23 2017, @02:01PM

      by BK (4868) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @02:01PM (#514244)

      Win what and for how long? Are we going to stay in the middle east for all eternity? If you completely destroy one terrorist group, another will form in its place.

      What makes WWII different from WWI?

      WWI ended with a political solution. The 'injustice' and general impracticality of that solution festered. 20 years later, everyone got to try again.

      WWII was ended by the total defeat of various nations. The defeated had no capacity to resist the terms of the victors. The victors administered their countries, wrote constitutions, established institutions, and generally made all of the rules that mattered. This doesn't mean that Germany or Japan or their successors won't ever be involved in a war again, but that the issues that caused those wars were settled and remain so generations later.

      The victors in WWII smashed and burned cities, impoverished nations, and fought until the other side surrendered. Berlin, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Tokyo were _Destroyed_.

      "It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it." -- I'm sure you've heard the phrase before. To be clear, the defeat of the South in that war was assured, not by the surrender of Lee at Appomattox, but by Sherman's March to the Sea.

      Since WWII, the western position is that we should make war less terrible. That we should focus on 'cutting off the head of the snake' and letting be the rest. Precision missile strikes. Drones. Etc. The analogy is flawed though. We fight continuously because the snake keeps growing a new head. Cutting off the head doesn't kill this type of snake. The lesson is that we need to burn the whole damn snake.

      Now I'm not saying that the snake _should_ be burned, that war is _necessary_. At least, I'm not saying that here. What I am saying is that, if we aren't willing to win, to burn the snake until it's dead, we should leave it the fuck alone.

      War is a non-solution for this problem

      Bull. Better: War is a solution to this problem IFF we are willing to win, with all that would entail.

      --
      ...but you HAVE heard of me.
  • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday May 23 2017, @02:21PM

    by LoRdTAW (3755) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @02:21PM (#514255) Journal

    You gotta define what "win" means.