Wacken ban bags, BOA seem to be considering it?

[Czech's Mate]

I doubt the Taleban, ISIS or whatever have the capabilities to blow up half of Manchester like the IRA did in 1996.

Hmmm, not sure about that .....sadly 7/7 was horribly destructive.

[Gandalf the Red]

I doubt the Taleban, ISIS or whatever have the capabilities to blow up half of Manchester like the IRA did in 1996.

Hmmm, not sure about that .....sadly 7/7 was horribly destructive.

That was destructive and devastating. But it was small explosives in confined spaces. Thankfully committed by very disorganised individuals. Just think how bad it could have been if they were organised? Same with the Paris attacks recently. One of them didn't even know that you needed a ticket to get into a football match. That's a sign of being badly organised.

It was nowhere near what could have happened if warnings weren't given, were ignored or the bomb went off early in Manchester. A busy shopping area on a Saturday with thousands of football supporters in town for Euro 96. If the area wasn't evacuated then you could have been talking about thousands of casualties. The damage to the area was extensive.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Manchester_bombing

[Gandalf the Red]

I wish Wikipedia didn't put loads of crap up when you link to their website.

[V-Man]

One thing this does highlight is an interesting generational trait that I've noticed around the workplace as well. People of my age group and a little bit older (probably people born 1985 onwards) are very flustered about Islamic terrorism, we've been hearing about it most of our lives now, certainly since 2001, and it feels like a very real threat. Meanwhile a lot of people of an older generation (including those that distrust anyone vaguely brown and bearded) are absolutely convinced that the whole thing is just another example of an awful generation of young people gone to pot who have never experienced real terrorism the way that they did with the IRA.

The reality is probably in the middle, the IRA definitely committed more atrocities during the Troubles but assuming that all Islamic terror groups are incompetent idiots (a la Four Lions) just because they have managed to pull off less doesn't make it any less real. Not only because the media have been blowing it up in everybody's mind for than ten years but also because anti-terror forces in the UK are a lot more experienced in the 2000s precisely because of the experiences in the 80s and that combined with the transparent nature of online/phone communication makes it much easier for them to do their job. I wonder how many potential attacks were planned and have actually been thwarted since 2001 compared to how many were planned and thwarted during the Irish Troubles.

[Slev]

More pertinantly, many of these terrorists are independant groups or indeviduals, who feel marginalised by soiciety and are doing this to lash out while claiming alegence to a group they've never had any official links to.

[Matty_the_Emo_Slayer]

There's points to be made for both arguments of whether or not you should be more afraid of Jihadis than people were of the Provos in the 70's through to the 90's.

On the one hand because of their disorganisation and relative lack of training (since Gaddafi is no longer in power in Libya there is thankfully not as much scope for terrorists getting high level military experience) I think Gandalf is right that they are much less likely to plant a tonne-and-a-half bomb in a UK city centre.

On the other hand unlike the Provos 90's campaign where the targets were mostly political or economic and 30 minute warnings were the norm (90 minutes in the case of Manchester in 1996) all Jihadi attacks are about creating the most civilian deaths. So in that respect it is a lot more terrifying as its akin to the Birmingham pub bombings in 1974 (which killed nearly double the civilians of all bomb attacks in Britain, IRA or otherwise, in all of the 1990s) or any number of UDA/UVF attacks where killing civilians was the main priority.

Scarier still is the new soft target policy of ISIS and as Slev says the possibility of lone wolves who claim allegiance to ISIS but were never trained by them. That massively off-sets the increased technological ability to monitor suspects. At any one time all factions of the IRA/INLA numbered in the hundreds, and most if not all of them were under surveillance most of the time. Most of the active Loyalist paramilitaries would've been known to authorities as well seeing as half of them were army reserves, RUC informants or Army/MI5 agents.

Compare that to now where nearly every recently arrived young male refugee or even second generation male in a Middle Eastern migrant community in Europe could be a potential attacker. Because so many of them are in Europe illegally or travelling on fake Syrian passports the authorities don't even know who the dangerous ones are and have their hands tied by fears of "racial profiling" when it comes to trying to police them. They will also be much more difficult to infiltrate than even the post-1978 IRA which was reorganised into small cells with very little contact with the Army Council. For starters genuine ISIS operatives in Europe might not even have any central structure and the civilians in their communities even less likely to inform on them.

I'm old enough to remember the worst of the lack of civil liberties in The Troubles- army searches in the city centre and on public transport, random roadblocks, being forced out of the car to have it searched, general intimidation etc. so I really feel for people in Germany and France who may have to experience that soon in an attempt to keep them safe. What worries me more though is the real steps to keep them, and us, safe aren't being taken- arresting Salafi and Wahabi imams, banning pro-Jihad users on social media, vetting migrants for anti-Western ideals... If anything the opposite seems to be happening with no go areas starting to develop in Norway and Sweden. And I don't mean the Fox News lies about Birmingham and Bradford, this seems to be the real thing. Give it a year and there'll be voices on the left calling for Islamists in government as an appeasement measure as well.

[keera_envenomed]

How does one vet people for "anti-Western ideals"? And what possible justification could anyone give to put Islamists in government? I'm not even sure how that could be achieved unless they gave them peerages!

[Matty_the_Emo_Slayer]

There's lots of other unelected positions of power throughout Europe- ministers without portfolio, EU Commissions etc. It will probably be Sweden or Germany who suggest this first (though given Theresa May's support for Sharia, maybe not) but when it happens it will be under the guise of "integration." As if Islamists have any interest in being a part of the political process and their goal isn't to destroy western civilization.

As for vetting migrants... it's not that difficult. Ask them if they think throwing gay people off a roof or raping a woman who has her knees and shoulders exposed is a reasonable thing to do. If they avoid the question then goad them a bit. Say something about Alan the sky paedo and see if they fly off the handle. It seems so obvious that it's not worth doing but I honestly reckon most Islamists are such psychos that they can't hide their beliefs in front of a westerner. Some are even arrogant enough to think they would still be let into Europe or allowed to stay even if they publicly expressed that. And unfortunately they are not wrong.

[keera_envenomed]

As if Islamists have any interest in being a part of the political process and their goal isn't to destroy western civilization.

That's pretty much why it would never happen even in the unlikely event someone suggested it.

As for vetting migrants... it's not that difficult. Ask them if they think throwing gay people off a roof or raping a woman who has her knees and shoulders exposed is a reasonable thing to do. If they avoid the question then goad them a bit. Say something about Alan the sky paedo and see if they fly off the handle. It seems so obvious that it's not worth doing but I honestly reckon most Islamists are such psychos that they can't hide their beliefs in front of a westerner. Some are even arrogant enough to think they would still be let into Europe or allowed to stay even if they publicly expressed that. And unfortunately they are not wrong.

You really need to stop paying attention to Milo Yiannopoulos - it's starting to break your connections with reality.

[Matty_the_Emo_Slayer]

Yeah it won't happen, all I'm saying is that someone on the left in Europe is going to suggest it at some point soon. They've already done nearly everything else they can to betray the rights of European women and gays by letting people with iron age ideas in en masse, suggesting those people become part of our political institutions would be the last logical step for them to make.

And you're accusing me of breaking with reality, when all I'm doing is criticizing the people whose cognitive dissonance has made Europe a ridiculously dangerous place to be?

[houston4044]

Getting a tad off topic (what's new ) I do feel that measures like these that are becoming the norm and most are merely treating the symptoms and not the causes of the problem. Not going into any tirades on here, but serious consideration will eventually need to be taken into how to properly deal with the issue. Unfortunately at the moment the left see any talk questioning current policy as racist and the right won't budge from isolationism. It's an issue like everything else that will be kicked into the long grass with a band aid put on it in the vain hope that it goes away.

[Slev]

The problem is that there is no single simple solution, which is what everyone is looking for.

What is needed is a synthesis of overlapping solutions, including, but not limited to, drawing down on neoliberalism, promoting social welfare both internally and internationally, Closing the noose on
discriminatory policies and social functions, etc.

[V-Man]

Getting back to the topic of "Wacken ban bags, BOA seem to be considering it?" I would be totally fine with Bloodstock banning bags if it were in the name of safety and a response to events on the continent over the past year. Meg and I normally do take a bag into the arena but we'd be able to find a way around it and I would rather go bagless than be blown up if that were a genuine risk. It genuinely surprises me that there are so many heavily right leaning people on here who think the government are trying to covertly introduce elements of fundamental Islam into our law system and society, that's chemtrails tin-foil-hat wearing levels of stupidity. Going back to when I first started coming on this forum in 2010/2011 I recall it being a place where people were generally sensible and open minded.

[onona]

It genuinely surprises me that there are so many heavily right leaning people on here who think the government are trying to covertly introduce elements of fundamental Islam into our law system and society, that's chemtrails tin-foil-hat wearing levels of stupidity. Going back to when I first started coming on this forum in 2010/2011 I recall it being a place where people were generally sensible and open minded.

+1

[Gandalf the Red]

I thought it was always full of political correct morons personally.

Or do people forget we've had threads calling for bands to be banned from the festival because they were offensive in someway? Or calling for bands and gigs to be boycotted because of their political views.

Hardly a sign of being open minded.