Manchester Should Be Very Proud 81

Having now seen the numerous bits of video being shown across the various Breakfast news programmes, Manchester should be very proud of itself. The audience were quite remarkably orderly leaving the arena. Of course there was a certain amount of panic, but much less than you would normally expect in such a situation. The discipline and stoicism are much more remarkable than the areas of panic, especially given the age of the audience.

It also bears repeating that the social media picture is heart-warming amid the terrible sadness. So many messages last night from people offering rooms to stay, cooking food for strangers in the middle of the night, the almost universal offers of a “brew” and a landline, the reposting of countless images to help parents re-unite with their children, the people (including taxi drivers) getting their cars out to offer free transport. In the immediate aftermath of an apparent bombing, it is plain people were much more concerned to offer help than worried about putting themselves in possible danger by opening their homes or moving into the crowds.

Finally, I have been heartened by the contempt Manchester people are showing online for those seeking to use this dreadful apparent atrocity to promote racism, intolerance or a political agenda.

If it was a home made bomb, it was a remarkably powerful one. It would be very unusual for a lone terrorist to be able to make a bomb this powerful. It is hard to think of any incident where an individual acting entirely alone has successfully done that.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

81 thoughts on “Manchester Should Be Very Proud

    • craig Post author

      Not at the minute, but I am deleting all comments phrased by him as a question or implying a question. Simply trying the whole time to divert threads.

      • Harry Vimes

        I know where you are coming from here but an opportunity was missed on the tread below. That post showed everyone the kind of individual that pollutes rational discourse.

  • Neil

    Many years ago (when I was young and fit) I went on an organised 3-week bike ride from Land’s End to John O’Groats, about 200 of us altogether. One of the best holidays I’ve ever had. An excellent way of getting to know the different regions of the UK, and their people, much better than touring by car.

    Far and away the best, warmest, friendliest people I’ve ever met were those in and around Manchester. The trip was a camping holiday, and what you need on a long camping holiday is good laundry facilities, good showers and a good campsite, and the local Lancashire volunteers provided all three. Lovely people.


    Anders Breivik was able to detonate quite a substantial van bomb in Norway. But I agree bombs of this size normally require a group of some sort. I don’t think Craig is trying to imply anything other than to say a ‘lone wolf’ is not very likely.

  • Habbabkuk


    You’re a fucking coward, aren’t you.

    You delicately hint as follows :

    “If it was a home made bomb, it was a remarkably powerful one. It would be very unusual for a lone terrorist to be able to make a bomb this powerful. It is hard to think of any incident where an individual acting entirely alone has successfully done that.”

    but when I ask you what you mean by that, your Mod immediately deletes my question.


    • craig Post author

      No, I deleted myself. I pointed out to all the mods last night that almost every comment you make, rather than setting out thoughts of your own, is phrased as a question to try to divert the thread. Such interjections from you and from Anon1 will now get deleted. If you want to make a relevant argument yourself you are still welcome.

      Now again you have not given any thought of your own, just an implication I have some cunning hidden thoughts which I am hiding. Now let me try again. What is your thought on the subject you raise? Not on what you think I think. What do you think?

      • Jim

        I think Habbs thinks your non-sequitur of a final paragraph might give the impression to a reader that you subscribe to some of the inane ‘false-flag’ drivel from the contributors on the previous thread you started. None of which has been deleted.

        • craig Post author

          Yes I think that is what he is trying to imply too. I don’t subscribe to any theory as I have little or no information on the bomber. All I have observed is that I cannot recall any example of a bomber acting alone creating a hand portable improvised explosive device as powerful as this one. Funnily enough there is a guy from the University of Bradford on the BBC now saying exactly the same thing as I type.

          • Resident Dissident

            There have been plenty of suicide bombers in Israel/Palestine and Iraq who have achieved similar levels of carnage – particularly when children are involved. The facts are there if you wish to check.

          • craig Post author

            There have indeed Resident Dissident, but all the ones I am aware of or can find details of were members of well-developed organisations with support infrastructure in producing that kind of very powerful bomb, no lone wolves.

          • Stu

            The Boston bombing used a powerful bomb what happened there is less clear.

            The 7/7 bombers and the Atocha Station bombers were not part of any terrorist network and I would imagine there bombs were comparable.

        • Alcyone

          And if it is not intended to give that impression, it can be clarified, so that people stop using this blog as a spittoon. Your “inane ‘false-flag’ drivel” refers. And if they are not deleted, it can be interpreted that they are encouraged and an integral part of what one might then call the “Non-diverted Thread”.

          Some high degree of solemnity is required here to get to and face up to the facts.

          • George

            “Some high degree of solemnity is required here to get to and face up to the facts.”

            A high degree of sobriety perhaps. But “solemnity”? Are you implying that it is an actual blasphemy to even raise the false flag possibility?

        • George

          There are two mentions of “false flag” in the previous thread. Why should these comments be deleted? The false flag scenario is possible.

          • Ray Visino

            It is all down to the bomb. Obviously the timing is highly suspicious but how did he get that bomb if it was impossible to make himself? If he was supplied by a network it will happen again, if it was supplied by false flag it probably won’t.

      • K Crosby

        I think you put that rather well, I look forward to his most eloquent silence.

      • Habbabkuk

        Fine, if you want to play that game. My thought on the subject you raise in the last para of your post is as follows:

        If they do not have expertise in explosives and the physics of explosions it is highly unwise for people to speculate whether the bomb was unusually powerful or not. If, however, it turns out that the bomb was unusually powerful, then this might show that bomb-making techniques have improved even as far as lone wolves are concerned; on the other hand it might indicate that the bomber was not acting on his own but as part of a conspiracy involving others (and even assisted by foreign elements).

        I am confident that the outcome of the investigations will provide answers to the above questions. Whether this bombing is a lone wolf action or involves others it would seem to indicate that the security services, police and public need to redouble their vigilance and efforts to prevent such attacks in the future. If that makes it necessary to step up various forms of surveillance then so be it (this should include surveillance of those who, objectively, give aid to the terrorists by claiming that bombings are false flags as well as of those who seek instruction on the internet in bomb-making). Increased co-operation and best practice sharing with foreign agencies, including in particular those of the State of Israel, also seems to be a must.

        • craig Post author

          I would agree with that. It is many years since I went on a course at the Fort and got to play around with Semtex etc, but I have had some training in bombs, yes. The expert the BBC found just came up with precisely the same explanation as me, so I am confident I was both qualified and able to make the judgement that it is very unusual for a lone individual to make a portable explosive this powerful. The video on the previous post gives a good idea how powerful.

          I therefore conclude it is very unlikely he was a lone wolf.

          I disagree with you the answer is more surveillance. We are already at the extreme limit of surveillance in a Western society and plainly it does not work. Countering alienation and improved mental health services, as well as targeted intelligence work as opposed to mass surveillance, seem to me a better plan. There is already no shortage of cooperation with Israel. The model you suggest seems to want us to live with the same degree of state intrusion in our lives as Palestinians. That seems improbable.

          I have never believed 7/7 to be a false flag attack. I think it was a wrong reaction to the appalling invasion of Iraq. I do not think, absent any evidence, that this is a false flag by the British state either. I worked at a senior level in the British state and you would not find people prepared to enact an atrocity against their own people on this scale. A false flag by another state or by a right wing group is not impossible. The most likely explanation is however a jihadist cell.

          That opens up a raft of other questions. Trump is in the Middle East forging a US/Sunni/Israel alliance, yet almost all the attacks in Europe have been by the Sunnis we are supposed to ally with. Saudi or other Gulf finance is behind almost all these organisations.

          There, a few more thoughts for you. It takes me further into speculation than I wished to go barring more information, but no harm.

          Finally, I do not delete other thoughts just because I disagree with them. I shall not be deleting comments – as some people want me to – by people who think it is false flag. They are entitled to their view. It is a cliché, but to start suppressing free speech around these incidents really is to hand a victory to terrorism.

          • Alcyone

            “I shall not be deleting comments – as some people want me to – by people who think it is false flag”

            To be clear, the question of deletion or non-deletion should be viewed with the full clarity of your deletion of Habby’s question(s). I recall many more instances of suggestions/requests for less deletions, rather than more.

            “It is a cliché, but to start suppressing free speech around these incidents really is to hand a victory to terrorism.”

            Although, to speculate that it is the security services who instigated this (and I’m glad you cleared the implausibility of that), is indeed to have the jihadists laughing at us.

          • Habbabkuk

            I shall do you the courtesy of replying and shall keep it as short as possible.

            1/. I would suggest that the courses at the Fort give one as much “expertise” as the courses at the Civil Service College give one expertise in, say, economics. Commenters should refrain from speculation until the experts, working on the scene, have pronounced (including on the power of the device).

            2/.” I therefore conclude it is very unlikely he was a lone wolf”

            That’s fine. You now make a clear statement and not the vague allusions of the last para of your post. That clarity is what my deleted question was intended to produce from you. You may well be right that the bomber was part of a cell and therefore part of a conspiracy.

            3/. If this act was by a member of a cell then you are wrong to say that the limits of surveillance have been reached. The very opposite is true.

            While not wishing to enter into a discussion about whether mass surveillance is, to some extent, a necessary precursor of targeted surveillance, I agree that there has to be more targeted surveillance. For example, it’s been clear from Continental experience that Muslim jihadi terrorists often have a criminal record (fairly petty crime as it happens): so there must be more targeted surveillance of Muslim petty criminals in order to watch out for signs of radicalisation and a possible lurch into terrorist activity.

            4/.” Countering alienation and improved mental health services” : agreed, these should be part of a counter-terrorist strategy. But there are limits precisely because what you propose is (like the NHS) limitless; furthermore,one has to be careful not to fall into the “it’s not the fault of the mugger, he only mugs because he’s alienated from society” cop-out.

            There are probably millions of rather alienated people knocking around but probably none of them intends to blow up others. The worst they come up with issue threats on the internet.

            5/.” I do not think, absent any evidence, that this is a false flag by the British state either. I worked at a senior level in the British state and you would not find people prepared to enact an atrocity against their own people on this scale.”

            I’m glad to hear it.

            6/. .” A false flag by another state or by a right wing group is not impossible”

            I believe it is highly unlikely. As I am not allowed to ask you questions, I shall refrain from you which state or organisation you have considered and then rejected.

            7/. “That opens up a raft of other questions.”

            No, it doesn’t (subject to unprompted clarification by you of what those questions are; I am not allowed to ask).

            In particular, it is of little matter for the good citizenry of the UK whether the bombers are all, or partly, or not at all Sunni (or Shia). All the more so as the vast majority of Shias and Sunnis are not jihadi terrorists. For the purposes of security and prevention, it is enough to note that the only organised terrorist cells identified so far are of Muslim jihadis and not of Buddhists, Shinto-ists, animists or even satanists. Saying that they are all Sunnis merely gives people like you to get in a kick at Israel, the US and the UK.

            8/.” Finally, I do not delete other thoughts just because I disagree with them. I shall not be deleting comments – as some people want me to – by people who think it is false flag. They are entitled to their view. It is a cliché, but to start suppressing free speech around these incidents really is to hand a victory to terrorism.”

            As you have pointed out yourself, there is a difference between free speech in the public space and allowing absolutely everything to appear on your blog. That is why you have banned Holocaust denial and, I gather, individual “commenters” such as RobG.

            I think you do really have to think a little about what sort of a blog you want this to be, whether you want your blog to be taken seriously by serious people. I think you should exercise more self-discipline in posting (what, for example, did your two quick posts on Manchester really contribute?) as far as frequency, content and tone are concerned and not be afraid to lay down a number of exclusions.

            After all, as you said yourself iro certain subjects : “if you want to post that sort of stuff, find yourself another blog, I don’t want it on mine”. There are dozens of websites dedicated to attacking Israel, pushing conspiracy theories of all sorts, discussing the failings of the NHS, spewing Trotskyite, far-left and anarchist propaganda and so on which people can go to. You should encourage them to do just that.

          • Dave Price


            Regarding your final point.

            Craig has been crystal clear in his purpose – to stimulate thinking outside the Overton window. Your mission, on the other hand, seems to be the opposite: to keep the window of discussion just as it is, and as narrow as possible. I don’t doubt therefore that this is your meaning and your intention when you ask Craig to consider ‘exercising self-discipline’ if he wants his blog ‘to be taken seriously by serious people’.

            Craig’s blog is already taken seriously by serious people. And it seems to me that you yourself take this blog seriously just as it is. Why else would you keep coming back time after time, enduring the barbs of intelligent and well-informed commenters (and some rude and ill-informed ones), simply and illogically to attempt to demonstrate that no serious person should take it seriously?

        • James Dickenson

          Should ‘we’ also follow this ‘best practice’?

          “Israel quite openly backing al-Qaeda in Syria. Interview with former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy.
          Syria to those reports worry you that
          Israel’s helping wounded al Qaeda
          aligned fighters as I said before in a
          different context it’s always useful
          also to deal with your enemies in a
          humane way and I think that when you
          have people who are wounded and you can
          deal with them in a humane way the
          considerations as to whether to take
          but Israel did not
          specifically was not specifically
          targeted by al-qaeda and therefore it’s
          a different kind of account than we have”

        • Ishmael

          “If that makes it necessary to step up various forms of surveillance” “those who, objectively, give aid to the terrorists by claiming that bombings are false flags”

          Your personal “objectivity” is frankly CRAZY. No I actually mean it.

          Yes, you would have the spooks looking at conspiracy theorists as threats? Your personal enemies?

          You clearly have a great knack for not paying attention. Nearly all attacks so far were already known to agencies. So it’s actually YOUR fault, or people who advocate what you do that these go on undetected. i.e. That somehow stepping up the haystack looking it’s whats needed.

          Objectively what you say is mad “reasoning”. A clear authoriarian view that seeks the benefits of these incidents for power over people.

          What you say is why similar attacks where not stopped. This is obvious, what’s not is how you (how any human) has the face to come here the day it happens and advocate what would make us all less safe.

    • Matt

      would you be so kind as to explain your choice of user name?

      Craig is the only person in these conversations who is completely open about his identity and stance on issues,

      your choice of username gives your posts a potentially polarised slant, I’m somewhat curious as to why you chose to post under this ‘moniker’?

    • Alcyone

      Utterly disgusting, classless stuff. I hope Craig *realises* that it is his blog that is being treated like a spittoon. I was surprised that he would engage with a casual commenter about who to ban, or his private thoughts around any consideration. But I am glad he has retraced his steps since through actual engagement.

  • Pedro

    My thoughts entirely regarding the bombs likely sophistication being beyond a lone bomber. Quite a different situation to Westminster Bridge. If it is a “cell” I expect we’ll hear more soon.

  • IrishU

    Craig , you are right – the people of Manchester should be very proud of themselves. It was amazing to see on Twitter that people were offering up their homes, Churches, Temples to those in need of shelter.

    Those who commentate on this blog and whose first thoughts were how the attack would benefit the Tories, or that it was perpetrated by MI6 etc, should be ashamed of themselves. As far as I am concerned, they are just as despicable as those who use such atrocities such as last night to whip up anti-Muslim feeling.

    I realise you probably posted your thoughts concerning the bomb before certain details had emerged, for example, the location of the blast in a glass-lined foyer. However, can I ask, do you think the bomber wasn’t working alone in so far as he was a member of a terrorist cell, or are were you providing fodder for those here who would see this as a false flag operation?

  • Ross

    And entirely predictably the Tories are seeding the ‘cancel the election’ meme into the media. There would be no question of this if their polling number hadn’t collapsed, but given that they have, why let a good crisis go to waste?

    • RogerH

      Indeed there is the Malcolm Tucker phrase “Never look a gift corpse in the mouth”

      The Tories will use this to ramp up the “Corbyn is a friend of terrorists and caused many deaths by sucking up to the IRA” meme.

      In today’s Sun the editorial is saying precisely that, and many right-wing tweeters piling in. Very convenient for May as her poll numbers are collapsing.

    • Shatnersrug

      The important paragraph is this one,

      “Corbyn vowed to cut off the flow of British arms to Saudi Arabia. This would go a long way to undermining the Saudi war against Yemen. British arms sales to Saudi Arabia are a major part of the relationship between the two countries. It’s not just about oil. The Saudi royal family spends billions on the West, whether it’s government bonds, the stock exchange or the London property market.”

    • Flaminius

      Havent seen anyone make what I view to be a crucial correlation. In US, while the eager cooperation of the MSM, the national security/intelligence apparatus is moving swiftly to unseat a president it has already delegitimized. (This is not a defence of Trump, but a refusal to be so naive as to believe those who are moving against him so swiftly and powerfully are well-intentioned and public spirited!). Simultaneously, the national security/intelligence apparatus in the UK may well be manipulating events to determine the outcome of an election. I dont believe they instigated the Manchester bombing, but I am perfectly capable of conceiving that when they sat around to decide raising the threat level of another terrorist attack, one of their conscious or unconscious considerations was how this would help prevent their enemy from gaining further ground against their spokeswoman.

  • Dave

    The lone wolf narrative is necessary but illogical to sell the story. The lone wolf narrative is used to explain the success of the attack, because if someone decides to go solo its difficult to know about it to stop it. Whereas if there’s a gang its likely the plot would be discovered.

    This matters because when May was Home Secretary she raised the alert to severe, but this was based on a nonsensical “not if but when” rather than any actual evidence of an impending attack. If you have evidence you can stop an attack. If you have evidence you raise the alert. But without evidence you shouldn’t raise the alert, because you cannot operate at severe for long periods, without undermining the purpose of different levels of alert.

    But real lone wolfs are rare, because in practice even if someone gets very angry and feels like killing people, they don’t, because once they calm down they realise that there is nothing they can do about it. That is you need to be in a group, like an army, to get the motivation and support to carry out an attack.

    And lone wolf’s who are also suicide bombers is even rarer still, because its so stupid, particularly against an easy target. Why kill yourself when you can kill again on another day. The suicide narrative is the cover story to explain why they die before they can talk.

    • Stu

      There is quite a history of bomb throwing in the USA, Western Europe and Russia. It receives very little cultural or academic attention.

      A lot of rational people decided to throw bombs at those they felt were oppressing the working class even though it was almost guaranteed to end horribly for them. Suicide bombing is often portrayed in the UK as religious hysteria but alienation and injustice are likely to be stronger factors. Craig has referred to the non Islamic behaviour of many recent terror attackers previously.

  • Sharp Ears

    Trump has added to more of his anti terrorist (anti Muslim) rhetoric. It was ‘Drive them out’ in Riyadh. Today standing in front of the American and Palestinian flags and alongside the PA stooge, he is intoning ‘losers’.

    A very sad time in our own time on earth. I say ‘No child shall be harmed.’


    Separately, what lay behind the early announcement on the news channels.

    Tue May 23, 2017 | 1:56am BST
    Suicide bomber suspected in Manchester blast – two U.S. officials

    Is the US in control of our SIS?

      • Monteverdi

        Hopefully CCTV will provide some answers, but I would remind you that at the time of the Westminster Bridge/ House of Commons attack only a few weeks ago, ALL CCTV cameras in the area, and covering this major London bridge beside Parliament had been shut down by Westminster Council a few weeks previous to the attack.

    • IrishU

      “Is the US in control of our SIS?” – FFS!

      I would argue with your use of the word ‘early’ to describe the announcment on the news channels. The blast occurred three hours before the news suggested it was a sucide bomber. Three hours would seem like an appropriate amount of time for a journalist (s) to speak with people who were in the arena about what they saw, then to verify those accounts will addtional sources such as the Police before breaking the news on the wires.

      Alternatively, SIS were so sloppy that they leaked the news to American newscasters too early and clever people like you were able to uncover the conspiracy…

      • Sharp Ears

        I was awake all night due to my dog’s illness. The strapline came up much earlier than that,

        • Sharp Ears

          The first mention on the BBC website came at 1.50

          ‘Manchester explosion: Latest updates
          ‘Screaming and running’

          BBC Home Affairs Correspondent Daniel Sandford said senior counter-terrorism officers were assembling in London and liaising with the Home Office.
          Unconfirmed reports from two unnamed US officials suggested the attack was carried out by a suicide bomber. ‘

          The strapline had been showing on their News Channel for some time before.

          I ask again how did the US know?

          May speaks shortly.

          • Sharp Ears

            Sorry bleary. That time should have been 1.35

            Manchester Arena blast: 19 dead and about 50 hurt
            2017-05-23 01:35:06 UTC

          • IrishU

            1.50am? The explosion occurred just after 10.30pm? Therefore, the first suggestion that it may have been a suicide bomber emerged around three hours after the event, yes?

            US officals could know through a variety of sources:

            1) report from US Embassy Staff in London who would have close contacts with Metropolitan Police
            2) report from MI5 to FBI Liasion at Grosvenor Square
            3) Politcal contacts – US Secretary of State (or junior appointee) to UK FCO Minsters

            Let me guess, you still want to believe that you have uncovered evidence of a conspiracy?

          • Alcyone

            “Let me guess, you still want to believe that you have uncovered evidence of a conspiracy?”

            Well said. Honestly! Is it a secret that the UK and US share everything realtime?

          • Stu

            Have you read the Snowden files?

            If you have you shouldn’t have to ask how they know.

    • Alcyone

      Craig, if you want to know what ‘diverting every thread’ looks like, it’s on display here especially in the first part of the leading comment.

      Of course no sympathy for the children of Manchester expressed here.

      • Alcyone

        There is an Israel spittoon, a Security Services spittoon, and an equivocal BBC spittoon.

      • Sharp Ears

        You’re trolling me again. You refer to my comment about Trump which was NOT diversion. He was speaking about Muslim terrorism.

  • Ian

    Well said, Craig. Tbh, I think a lot of comment at this stage is superfluous.

  • Dave

    Saying its not a false flag is aiding and abetting terrorism because you are immediately excluding a line of enquiry and so trying to obstruct an impartial investigation, before its begun.

  • mark golding

    Much love and condolences to the family of Georgina Callander. Retribution is near-at-hand since I knew this was a plan in the making…

  • Clark

    Terrorism is defined as violence against innocent people for political objectives. For an act of violence to be terrorism, there has to be a verifiable claim of responsibility, with stated demands and objectives.

    If the UK government have received those but is concealing them from the public, then it is acting undemocratically. If it has not established communication with the attackers then it is incompetent.

  • MJ

    If Craig’s analysis of the available evidence is correct and the bomb went off outside the arena, the inside was largely unaffected and people left in calm and orderly manner, then the issue remains of how the 22 deceased actually died. Presumably they were outside the building and near the device when it went off.

  • Peter Beswick

    I know a little bit about explosives and can support Craig’s conclusion but regardless this thread got hijacked by someone confronting Craig’s honest felt assertion and, the outcome was that the thread was diverted from its intended purpose of praising those caught up in the blast and those that leant selfless support.

    I grew up in the Manchester area, then Lancashire, the people generally get along well in a multi-race / ethnicity environment. Indian subcontinent immigrants found work in the cotton mills from the 1950’s until the industries’ decline, many of the families stayed in Britain and now reach several generations standing but without question they are British and are accepted by the vast majority of white British as equal and essential to the economy and wellbeing of society where they live.

    Paki was not a derogatory term when I was growing up it was never used to humiliate or marginalise. It never caused offence, as far as I know, a little frustration perhaps if it was mis-aimed at an Indian Sikh. I had very ginger hair in those days and that did attract quite a bit of abuse, I was small for my age so it was useful in my development as a fighter.

    There are some rotten bastard whites now, in that area, not all with roots in Britain, there are some rotten bastard Asians, the influx of immigrants resulting from US & UK wars have exacerbated an already racist agenda of a small minority.

    A Tory government was not capable of addressing the rising tensions and problems, they are not capable of dealing with the problems in the future. The May Days violent protests throughout the world have demonstrated the level of distrust and dissatisfaction with our politicians. The pressure cooker is about to blow.

    Craig for all his heartfelt a and genuine political beliefs is however absolutely wrong about Scottish independence beings a priority issue, it is a side show and nothing more. I expect we will agree to disagree.

    Homemade explosives are usually of the pyrotechnic type but by the right process can achieve a big flash bang from say a biscuit tin size (this is absolutely very dangerous to do at home) but the thing you want from a maiming device is brisance and a frangible or fragmented hostile penetrating missile (a nail). High explosives (HE) fill less volume and give a bigger punch and therefore are concealed more easily. Even professional HE experts encounter unsafe incidents when this happens the accident that sometimes follows is very rarely forgiving.

    Both Pyrotechnic and High Explosive materials can be sniffed out by dogs, terrorists try and disguise the scent or confuse the dog the the sniffer dog or dogs ant the entrance to such venues would have a useful purpose but then I suppose that a lunitic hell bent on hatred and revenge is happy to blow him/herself up in the entrance crowd as much as they would in a exit crowd. Searches also suffer the same drawback.

    I hoped I would not say this in my lifetime but the death penalty for individuals caught; planning, inciting, manufacturing and attempted delivery of such devices should be considered as a short term deterrent until a British government is put in place that doesn’t glibly follow US foreign policy of genocide against non-pliant Arab and Muslim states creating the problem that Blair, Cameron and May have fomented; none of them giving two fucks how or if a solution can be found. “Bomb them into submission” has not, is not and will not work.

  • Anon1

    So yet another Islamic fanatic blows himself and dozens of infidels to pieces and all that Craig is worried about is ‘Islamophobia’? This is the problem.

  • David

    I’m a manc lad, through and through. Lived here since I was 5. It doesn’t surprise me at all that Manchester came together in a time of need, it would have surprised me if we didn’t. I’ve been in the arena a lot over the years and you would need a massive explosion to damage the building, the space inside is huge.

    Instead of debating and arguing over what type of bomb, who did it or why, with so little evidence as yet to draw any type of conclusion it would be better for people here and every where to simply condemn the attack, wish those injured a speedy recovery and express sympathy with the family and friends of those who died.

    People looking to some how cause more trouble online or else where should be deeply ashamed of themselves, irrespective of your own personal feelings or opinions.

    In memory of the 22.

  • George Brennan

    “Our first thoughts are with the families” say all politicians and activists. So they ought to be . But we are made of ignobler stuff. Our first secret thought will be: good news for some, bad news for others. An atrocity is good news for incumbent office, especially if it wants attention diverted from some domestic scene. Strike a statesmanlike note; say that your thoughts are with the families; that they will not divide or frighten us – then spread a bit of fear. Be photographed at the scene of the crime; visit relatives; threaten to be even tougher on terrorism. Oppositions leaders can only sound like an echo. And woeto that opposition leader who has seriously sought to be tough on the causes of terrorism.

    The hypothesis of a Lone Wolf seems to me a useless, even if eventually proven true; it leads merely to biographical speculations about an individual. The alternative leads to search for confederates, contacts, influences.etc etc. That is the way to go.

    Security chiefs will always ask for more powers and more resources, whatever happens. But more police resources for TARGETED surveillance seems to me a plausible demand

    • K Crosby

      “Tougher on terrorism” but not the cause, which is the British state’s participation in American crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Middle East.

  • Seth Rich in Paradise with Maidens

    But if they shoot off a bomb every time May fucks up, England is going to look like the Plain of Jars.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Monstrous. Physically sickening. Islamist supremacist ideology. Damn it to Hell.

    On the same day as this carnage of children, the USA does an arms deal with Saudi Arabia worth hundreds of millions. Saudi Arabia is the font and active generator of this brand of Islamist supremacism and the ocean of blood that pours forth from its hideous mouth.

    • Peter Beswick

      Recent events
      Monday 22 May : 23 killed

      Hawija: 18 executed.
      Abu Taba: 2 by gunfire.
      Mosul: 2 by mortars, IED.
      Khan Bani Saad: 1 by mortar.
      Sunday 21 May: 11 killed.

      Mosul: 5 by rockets; 1 by IED.
      Karma: 4 bodies.
      Tal Afar: 1 execute

      Source: Iraq Body Count

      Day in, day out, 24/7/365.25

      God Help Us

      • Nick

        The world over can we,as a race stop targeting children…be it this tradegy in manchester… schools in gaza…drone attacks across swathes of the middle east? This applies to all races,creeds,religions.

    • Clark

      Well said Suhayl. You’ve been saying it here for about a decade. Some have listened, including me.

      Best wishes to you, because suspicion and fear of everyone who looks Muslim increases with each event like this. The alliance with Saudi Arabia, and the Western exploitation of those it indoctrinates, must be ended.

    • mark golding

      The ocean of blood pours from our own security services; the Borg in Babylon-on-Thames Rm22 are the prime movers, the assimilative absorbing the sensibility of the innocent, the vulnerable, the weak and assailable.

      The dark actor’s ways and means have been exposed by whistle-blowers, fine minds such as the sapience of Craig Murray, Annie Machon and the few unnamed who have exposed double agents. This penetrating light is unfolding the game, exposing the diabolical, merciless core of rabid operators hell-bent on crisis levels of threat crafted to crush dissent, crush truth and crush YOUR minds.

      Will you succumb?

    • James Dickenson

      As I surmised, the ‘terrorist’ was not treated by the Israeli state.

  • Republicofscotland

    My sympathies to those who have lost loved ones in Manchester, it’s a terrible and shocking attack.

    An interesting point, you touch on, is the insistence by the media that the perpetrator exploded a IED. However viewing the explosion it does appear a particularly poweful blast.

    Could the explosives, be something a little more sophisticated? And if so, wouldn’t such explosives leave a signature mark, that could be traced forensically, to its point of origin, or manufacturers.

    Media reports also say that Islamic State, have claimed responsibility. Surely in this day and age of technology that claim, however it was delivered, can also be traced to its point of origin.

  • Ishmael

    The people yes, NHS staff yes, low level police ok, should be proud.

    What about manchester security services. ?

    • Ishmael

      And ill add to that, what about those in government who have allowed \ helped divert them into a known ineffective mass surveillance model of “security”.

      Effectively they have been turned into political agencies protecting government interests of power over citizens. it’s clear this has nothing to do with our security. The proof of this is now obvious.

  • Justin Glyn

    Craig, thank you for this post. I am a New Zealander studying in Canada and so have been watching from afar with horror.

    One thing about which I am confused though (and which seems, on the face of it, to nullify the arguments of those calling for greater surveillance and loss of liberty). It seems that the bombing suspect here was “known to the intelligence services”, as was the case also with the last British bombing suspect, the Tsarnayev brothers and at least some of the suspected attackers in France.

    Am I missing something, or does this suggest that the intelligence services, far from lacking the information needed to combat such attacks, are in fact drowning in information and therefore unable to sift the relevant from the red herrings? If I am right, that would, in turn, suggest that effective security policing requires fewer invasions of civil rights, less surveillance, and better handling of the existing information. (Leaving aside for the moment the causal relationship between being preemptively treated as a suspect and turning into one.)

Comments are closed.