Once again Islamic terror

It is difficult to understand what more can be said about events like the explosion of a bomb in Manchester. What else can do security besides what they are already doing? Salman, Abedi (Abedi Salman), a suicide bomber, was born in Britain, he was the son of refugees from Libya. Pretty soon we’ll know what kind of life he led and who could be his accomplice, but as many times already mentioned, young Muslims subordinasiya via the Internet. It’s very possible that he acted entirely on his own initiative.


How can you protect yourself from such kind of events without turning into a police state? And is it even possible?

British commentator Rod Liddle (Rod Liddle) quite poignantly summarizes what, according to him, it was said this morning on the BBC.

Here’s what he said: “We must all unite. Hope, not hatred. (The incident) has nothing to do with Muslims. Just a bad person. Perhaps he was acting on the instructions of some mysterious foreign company. Just terrorism, bad people. Unfounded anger. Nothing to do with religion. We must all unite. And to demonstrate love. And solidarity. Hope, not hatred.

Je suis Ariana Grande. Anger has already been reflected in the pages in social networks. People quickly come to very different conclusions. Horrible, horrible people — no better than the murderer himself. He could be a Methodist. Remember Joe Cox (Jo Cox)? But it wasn’t them, isn’t it? Here, see for yourself”.


I share the disdain in the typical, hackneyed phrases. But Alex Massey (Alex Massie) correctly notices in the Spectator magazine: “After what happened, the nuances are easily lost, but they are no less important than usual. To say that the attack was motivated by religious, does not mean that the responsibility for it is shared by all members of the same religion as the culprit. However, it is reasonable to ask what motivated this terrorist who inspired him, whose writings, teachings or words have given him based on “righteousness” serenity and confidence, and to ask what can be done to counter this phenomena? We’re asking because we need to know and also due to the fact that knowing the answer to this question can help to take some — even imperfect — steps in this issue.


In pain the moment it may seem that these steps are the same, that it is inadequate and even offensive response to the killing of this magnitude. But, nevertheless, the alternative — not better, and often worse. Over-reaction has done little to ensure that such events become less likely in the future. And any response, not able to pass this test — a test to see if it makes such attacks more or less probable — is likely to be not very wise.

The hackneyed phrase that the society should unite, that we have more in common than what divides us, that we, the citizens of Manchester will meet such horror with a certain resistance, have already become the usual clichés. However cliche and formulaic truth does not become less true due to the fact that they are so famous and so run the risk of sounding too simplistic. The official response to the events of last night from the Prime Minister and on down — consists of correct application, and everything is done right, inexorably known.”


If you can’t say anything useful, then it is better not to say anything. I turn to you Christina of Camerucci (Christina Cauteruscci) from Slate magazine: “Like its predecessor, pop superstar Britney Spears, Grande promotes unconventional, semireflexive sexuality, which threatens the established hetero-Patriarchal order. If the explosion of a bomb in Manchester was an act of terrorism, it indicates that the suicide bomber wanted to strike fear into young girls who worship the image of the Grand… These girls were able to survive during the organized attacks on girls and girlhood, it was a massive act of violence on the gender basis”.

The arrogant stupidity of the imaginary awareness. You, you idiot! These girls were not killed by hetero-Patriarchy. They were killed by radical Muslim.

We’re all trying to say something — partly because of the desire to curb the terror by means of rationality and to restore a sense of control.


But this is an illusion.

Appendix 1:


That’s what the “Islamic state” (banned in Russia as a terrorist organization): “Frightened to death of the witnesses who survived the attack in the Manchester Arena complex, described a horrific scene last night. One of the Teens says: “the Human skin and blood was everywhere.” Homeless people are next to this room “pulling out the nails, got in the faces of children,” and “keep victims on their hands” after it exploded an improvised explosive device.”

Have no choice but to kill them all.

Appendix 2:


To kill members of the “Islamic state” (is necessary) as we would kill of the SS group, the Khmer Rouge. I believe that they will never, ever stop. They do not use terrorism as a means to achieve their goals. They just like to kill infidels.