Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2

News

Attacks in Minnesota / New Jersey / New York

28 replies

Puzzledandpissedoff · 18/09/2016 16:59

More dreadful attacks in USA - am surprised there's been no thread on here yet:

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/minnesota-st-cloud-stabbing-isis-islamic-state-daesh-claims-responsibility-shopping-mall-attack-a7314921.html

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pipe-bomb-explode-route-of-us-marines-charity-5-k-run-new-jersey-second-device-a7313871.html

ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/18/explosion-in-new-york-city-25-reported-injuries/

OP posts:

Report

fourmummy · 20/09/2016 12:27

I have been rather surprised at the speed with which the reports of these incidents have dropped off the front pages (indeed, if they were ever on them). This has also just popped up on the Bloomberg feed:

"The man allegedly behind the New York bombing, Ahmad Khan Rahami, was charged with five counts of attempted murder after his shootout with the police. Federal terrorism charges are also expected, an official told the Washington Post. Authorities say Rahami traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan in recent years, but there's no indication of his association with a terror cell".

The reporting is suspiciously disingenuous. It's all very odd.

PikachuSayBoo · 20/09/2016 12:34

I wonder if the media are worried that too much publicity would give Trump a platform and get him more support. If they don't want him to win maybe they're prepared to bury such stories?

Inkanta · 20/09/2016 12:35

'there's no indication of his association with a terror cell".'

No indication?

A terror cell? ISIS?

Maybe we are being moved on - nothing to see here.

sportinguista · 20/09/2016 12:41

What was it then? Was he still disgruntled about being asked to shut the chicken shop at ten?

Whenwillitrain · 20/09/2016 12:43

So many of these bloody Islamic attacks that they are no longer newsworthy for more than half a day. We have become jaded I fear.

sportinguista · 20/09/2016 12:47

It's the new normal you mean?

Southallgirl · 20/09/2016 12:53

there's no indication of his association with a terror cell

Rahami is the terror cell, at caterpillar stage.

I am disgusted at the FBI's double-speak about these attacks. Didn't the announcement by law enforcement about the NYC explosion (29 people hurt) say it did not appear to be a terror event?!

Whenwillitrain · 20/09/2016 13:03

That's exactly it Sporting.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 20/09/2016 13:06

southallgirl Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought they said originally that there was no evidence of terrorism, then later changed it as more came to light?

OP posts:

sportinguista · 20/09/2016 13:11

I think what they meant was no link to international terrorism as it was unclear whether it could be domestic terrorism. I think putting a bomb somewhere is usually described as terrorism whatever ideology is behind it as it is an action calculated to inspire terror in those it targets.

I guess there are many things which are the new normal though...

Whenwillitrain · 20/09/2016 13:19

That's the thing about ISIS. You can be a lone wolf, decide to carry out an act of terrorism without any input from others and dedicate it to the 'cause' of ISIS.

sportinguista · 20/09/2016 13:23

That's why even if they eradicate them in Syria and Iraq it won't eradicate the ideology. It's like a hydra.

fourmummy · 20/09/2016 13:47

And this is an outrageous viewpoint from Sadiq Khan. Wrong on every count. Huge disappointment:

www.standard.co.uk/news/world/new-york-explosion-sadiq-khan-says-terror-attacks-are-part-and-parcel-of-life-in-a-big-city-a3347891.html

sportinguista · 20/09/2016 13:53

Erm, I live in a fairly big city and I can safely say that I do not regularly go out expecting things to explode. Car accidents, robbery possibly, explosions no...

Puzzledandpissedoff · 20/09/2016 16:14

Huge disappointment

Indeed

OP posts:

Whenwillitrain · 20/09/2016 16:34

It's hard to know where or how this will end. Part and parcel of life? No it fucking well isn't and it certainly shouldn't be. Religious nutcases of any creed should not be tolerated.

sportinguista · 20/09/2016 17:50

Not unless you actually live in a country that is at war. Religion tends to create division not the other way round.

Whenwillitrain · 20/09/2016 18:26

The root of all evil? Not quite but not far off.

Southallgirl · 20/09/2016 18:56

fourmummy Sadiq Khan is part of the problem. He has an excellent public persona, but he is bad for London.

The demographic of London became lopsided about 12 yrs or so ago, and that is why he was voted in. I'm a Londoner, live in London, and find what he said about terror attacks being a normal party of city life ominous. We are being groomed to accept this as the norm.

Limer · 20/09/2016 21:09

The media seem to be somehow reassured that this murderous maniac wasn't directly associated with ISIS. They've massively missed the point. They should be terrified that he seems to have taken it upon himself to act alone, after a comfortable US upbringing and a couple of visits to Afghanistan/Pakistan. Is that all it takes?

The clear intent from this attack was mass murder on a huge scale. Just because the attacker wasn't very good at bomb-making shouldn't diminish this.

Inkanta · 20/09/2016 21:41

'The clear intent from this attack was mass murder on a huge scale. Just because the attacker wasn't very good at bomb-making shouldn't diminish this.'

Yes luckily he was a rubbish bomb maker but still a nasty piece of work.

Inkanta · 20/09/2016 21:42

'We are being groomed to accept this as the norm.'

Yes exactly.

But you can't groom me. This is not normal.

Kaija · 20/09/2016 23:17

Khan didn't say attacks were normal in a big city, he said you have to be prepared and vigilant, which is exactly what we've been told repeatedly by government since at least the 2007 attacks. Not sure why it's suddenly controversial for him to say it.

And what on earth does this mean?

"The demographic of London became lopsided about 12 yrs or so ago, and that is why he was voted in. "

fourmummy · 21/09/2016 00:05

Khan didn't say attacks were normal in a big city, he said you have to be prepared and vigilant, which is exactly what we've been told repeatedly by government since at least the 2007 attacks. Not sure why it's suddenly controversial for him to say it.

He's re-stating a premise that we are already aware of. We all accept that living in a big city comes with a degree of risk, whatever that may be. The controversial part is that we expect someone in his position to go beyond this and actually state how he plans to address that risk. Even if only words, with no intention of action, they nevertheless would be preferable to what we got from him, which was a circular re-stating of what we already know. This smacks of a shoulder shrug. One of the many aspects of his role is security. Saying that all there is to be done is to put up with whatever is being dished out is simply not good enough.

Kaija · 21/09/2016 00:13

What action do you think he should be taking?

Flip

1 2

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.