Mr Rogers famously said something which I find useful:
When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, "Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.
The reason why the political Right wins so many elections is because the political Left cannot bring itself to pronounce the phrase "Islamic terrorism".

Many of the young people on that audience may have opposed Brexit before the show. Now, they're going to ask themselves how the bomber got into England so easily. Then they will consider the open border, and Brussels' refusal to allow them to profile on the basis of religious affiliation. After that, they will support Brexit.

In the US, we heard so much sanctimonious bullshit about how Islam is a warm and cuddly religion of peace. Yeah, right. There ARE no religions of peace. ALL religions are violent. And if youre so passionate about your imaginary friend in the sky that you would take human life if his imaginary voice told you to, you need to be kept away from innocent people. That's true no matter what you call that voice in your head- Allah, Jesus, Jehova, whateva.

What a tragedy. Kids, girls with their mothers.
Here we go again.

If you want a reason for the rise of nationalism in the US and especially Europe, it is happening right before you. People are tired of seeing their countrymen run over, blown up, and stabbed and are going to look for answers that the globalists do not have, or care about.
@2 Strangely, Trump couldn't pronounce "Islamic Terrorism" when he was fondling the orb with his oil dictator buddies.
@2: WS. How about we remember to include in the story the American and allies invasion? these mad men are nothing to do with any religion. This is revenge. You guys come bomb our countries. We'll give it right back to you. They might lie to themselves that they are following some scriptures, as the Christians do, when they are acting from their lost humanity.
These people are non humans, no empathy. Just like the white, probably Christian,
police, who are shooting unarmed Black men and boys.
@7: yes, they are without empathy. Crosses the board, see? Nothing to do with religion or skin colour and everything to do with growing up in an enlightened environment. The white cops who do that, their dads or moms probably beat the shit out of them. Justified with all sorts word salads.
The bombers, alienation in GB and mad in Iraq etc. The organisers are in the ME. Their rage is in their bones. Their countries ripped apart for years and years. And they blame the west.
It's everywhere, it's in our own minds when we label whole groups because of the behaviour of a few. And religion is the excuse.
psychopathic humans are everywhere.
I'm not saying borders shouldn't be secure. Against any people with a dubious past. Not because of their skin colour or religion. If we ban one religion, let's look to ban them all.
@8: If it has nothing to do with skin color or religion, why did you specifically identify one skin color, and one religion? Especially when you follow that with condemning the labeling of whole groups by actions of a few.

Genuinely curious. I mean, I imagine it was for internet points, but still curious.
I look forward to our local Islamic community protesting the horrors of this terrorist attack this Friday down at Westlake while they protest Israel.
everything is awful. slog is awful.

@2 is wrong. words aren't magic. odds are the bomber(s) were born or were raised in England.

Wouldn't matter. You will hate them no matter what they do.
@12: That was rude.
@ 13 but true
@14: No, it is false. As cute as it may be for a snarky retort, nobody can ascertain racism, hate, or whom somebody voted for unless it was expressed in written words.

GermanSausage started this silly fad; it's depressing to see seatackled pick it up.
Strange how people can focus on the religion of the killer (which so far isn't even known despite Daesh's claim of responsibility), and apparently ignore the same religion of the doctors who treated the dying and wounded, the cab drivers who transported people away from the scene, the many who voluntarily donated blood in the aftermath, and the roughly 9% of the population of Manchester who had nothing to do with this heinous attack and have unequivocally condemned it.
@16 You willing to take a bet on the religious affiliation of the attacker?
@12, I hate any group that stands quietly by while some of it's members willing go and kill in the name of their cloud being. Again, why don't we ever hear our local Muslims protest these acts of violence done in their name while they protest Israel?
@16: Does that mean we should not be concerned with the race of a white cop who shoots someone of another race if white people were the paramedics or doctors who helped him?

I mean, strange that people would obsess over the race of the shooter when people of that race also helped the victim, and most people of that race condemn the violence, right?
@18 The few Muslims I know engage primarily through community activism and days of service. Kinda like everyone else..
@2 gets it.

The way the left constantly whiteknights for Islam ("terror has no religion! The hijab is, like, empowering and stuff! Remember the Crusades!) is nothing short of rank appeasement. It's like a woman who sticks up for her abusive boyfriend.
@20: I suggest you visit CAIR.
@22: I'm on "the left", and I don't "whiteknight" for Islam. Islam sucks, but I don't get to choose what others believe.

I think the reason that "the left" avoids saying "Islamic terrorism" is 1. to not screw the pooch with our muslim allies, and 2. to prevent discrimination, and worse, against muslim citizens of the US, who have freedom of religion. if they CHOOSE hijab, or burka, then we get to TOLERATE it, even if it is not in their best interest, or even if it offends us (and it offends me as a feminist).
You're usually so on point, I'm a little surprised that people like Bill Maher have managed to convince you that this is about religion.
Religion is just an excuse.
What this is really about is the West's attack on the Mideast.
You can only beat a dog for so long before it bites you.
Many years ago, before Middle Eastern terrorists used Islam as their rallying cry, they used Arab Nationalism as their Call to Arms.
I don't defend what these terrorists are doing in any way, shape or form, but that doesn't mean I don't understand their motivation.

You need to understand what's really going on. The right-wing is turning their war-for-profit into a war of ideas and a clash of cultures.

Don't let yourself be fooled.
All you, and people like Bill Maher, are doing is helping to feed the right wing propaganda machine.

'Muslim Allies'? We have no 'Muslim Allies'.

Islam-like Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism- is a reactionary political force. It is the antithesis of the Left. Marx himself famously railed against it, and yet you claim the Left has 'Muslim Allies'?

What the hell is the Left, then? If it does not support full equality for all women everywhere, including the right to drive a car- if it does not support the right of a gay man to marry his boyfriend, and not be thrown off a wall or beheaded for it- if your version of Leftism would ally itself with those who pretend that the working class who emigrate to the Middle East looking for work should be treated as slaves- then sir, neither I nor Marx before me would be Leftist.

You know nothing of what we stand for.

Sure, but only if I also get side bets on the religious affiliation of a Timothy McVeigh, or a Dylan Roof, or an Anders Behring Breivik, or - well, presumably you get the idea.


News Flash: Race =/= Religion
you guys like to point to the violence from this religion or that religion when the real villain here is toxic masculinity.
@28 You wrote; "Strange how people can focus on the religion of the killer (which so far isn't even known despite Daesh's claim of responsibility)", to which I responded.

Emphasis added for the slow. Do try to keep up.

Good one.
@26 What do you say to the muslima who does not wish to wear a "scarf" (as you put it)? I am sure you are aware that many, even here, have no real choice in the matter, not if they wish to avoid censure or even violence from their own community. So what do you say to them about religious freedom if they choose not to wear one and they are then ostracized (or worse) by their families and community? Do they really have the freedom you say they do?
Yeah it is a good one and it's the truth. All this violence to solve every problem, is coming mostly from men. You not notice that.
You all notice their religion yet you don't notice their sex. Religion is an excuse.
Not all men exhibit toxic masculinity, to be safe though, women and children need to fear all of them. This is the same rational expressed here, reject all who practice one or other religion because of the actions of the few.

I guess everybody forgot about 70 years non-Muslim IRA terrorist attacks.
@2 Per NYT, this was done by a British citizen, so borders and Brexit were irrelevant - but your narrative will likely survive regardless. Hope you feel good about that.
I just the problems as young males, with their underdeveloped brains. I don't understand why all young males are not taking a stand and condemning these horrific terror attacks. All the recent terror attacks have young males involved, mainly manipulated by others to violent, senseless and dumbass acts. Plus many are fed speed, (like the multiple Paris attacks) to make do their heinous acts..

We need to rounds up all young males, (under 25, when the brain is still developing and inhibits thought process) to stop prevent these gruesome attacks. Besides cut them off from their amphetamine supply.
And Max Solomon was spot on - both at 11 and 24. We don't want a religious war - that's what this tiny minority of zealots is trying to provoke. That's not "White Knighting", that's Realist foreign policy. As horrendous as these attacks are, the numbers are nothing like the casualties that would come with another war.

Not so quick ferret@38. Yes, the young men, with their culturally sanctioned assumptions that their feelings must be acted out rather than processed. Let's blame it on brain development or lack of, that's convient. It's the old men who have the power.
Bush. Blair. Howard. Putin. Trump. Etc etc etc.
All religion is full of shit, lies and stupidity and of no use to us all thousands of years later. And they were all written by men.
* convenient. These children, young people and their mothers have died because of hate.
@34. OMG. You were serious. I really thought you were trying to be funny. Wow.

@35 You don't understand the framing of my question? Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. Maybe I can re-frame it so I'm clear - you called the right out on their defense of religious freedom when it comes to discriminating against gays but that they don't defend religious freedom when "Muslims want to, like, wear a scarf." My comment was to suggest that many muslim women here are not really free to choose to "wear a scarf" and that lack of freedom doesn't come from the political right - it comes from their own family and community.
@42. There's no wow about it. There is a world wide problem with toxic masculinity, and it's getting worse. You not notice that? Women in your country denied autonomous choice over their bodies, rapists who get off jail time.
The Middle East, I weep for those women. Such assumption of power by those men. And look at the sort of men they become when they treat women like slaves.
And there's trump, a gross, sexist, racist, hates religion when it suits him, greedy idiot and he got chosen over a flawed yet competent woman.
@43. I should qualify, In some Middle Eastern countries.

Ah, so you happened upon a news item identifying the attacker, which went out on the wires a whole 30 minutes before I posted my comment, and elected to respond 15 minutes after that.

Clearly, you are the swiftest one in the race today; a veritable hare amidst a herd of tortoises.. I tip my hat to you, sirrah.

Not Maher. Marx. Read his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. The Left was atheist long before atheism was popular.

I think some of you have a confused idea of what the Left is. You seem to think it (and I) am (are) the same thing as Liberalism. Nothing could be further than the truth. I am a Red. I support the Old Left. Not the fluffy headed new age bullshit 'left' which purports to support working people and yet sits on the board at WalMart. While you and those you confuse me for say you support LGBT civil rights, you have no problem with supporting groups such as teh Muslim Brotherhood and the Free Syrian Army- groups who vocally support my execution in teh most grisly fashion should my gay ass ever set foot in their country. You (and those you wrongly assume I hang out with) say youre in favor of a woman President, yet you love Saudi Arabia, a country which treats women as if they were children.

If a worker comes to Qatar from say, the Philippines, looking for work- their passport is siezed by their employer. They will be paid next to nothing, often, nothing at all. If female, they will be raped. If male, they will live in a tin shack in the hot desert sun with no running water, and be expected to perform hard physical labor until they die of exhaustion. But that's okay by your lights. Because it's Islam, and we have to respect that religion. I don't have to. And I won't, either. I oppose all religions. And I assure you, my socialism is not rooted in Bill Maher. That gentleman is very much a capitalist.

Do you idiots even know what the Left is? Have you read any socialist books?
Who said they loved Saudi Arabia, WS@47. The old left you say? The one the feminists had to stand up to in the late sixties? Full
of self importance and little game plan than there are the baddies. No different from the right. Pig headed responses to complex questions about humanity.
The only person that replies to one of LavaGirl's posts directly is.... LavaGirl. The rest of us react the sme way we all do when the person on the seat next to us begins talking to herself. Back away slowly, and try not to gag on the smell.
The new left has women in it. Pure theory won't cut it any more. Socialism, democratic socialism will come to the US, first steps first. Attitudes have to change re extreme capitalism, which has created this situation in the US, and thinking of steps out of it. Oh look. There's Bernie.
So Elizabeth Gurley Flynn wasn't a woman? Nor was Mother Jones or Louise Bryant or Helen Keller or Margaret Sanger?

You're not only completely ignorant of the Left, you know nothing of women, either.
Emma Goldman, Rosa Luxemburg, Anissa Armand, Jenny Marx, Eleanor Marx, Lucy Parsons, Susan B Anthony, all proud members of the Old Left.

Some of you may not know who those are, since you think the Left began with Bernie Sanders. That's because youre still girls, not yet women. When you grow up, maybe you will have read something about history.
I've heard of those women and they were strong women. It was still the men who wrote the books. Devised all the theories. And don't insult people's intelligence by saying people here think socialism started with Sanders. These theories go way back. Just when they were attempted to be enacted say Russia, say China, something got lost in the translation. Because pure economic/ political theory is not enough.
@16 - Thank you. Excellent post. This is what we should all remember.

Yes, he did turn out to be someone from a Muslim background. But he was not a Muslim. He was just a stupid, pointless, hate-filled, maladjusted little shit.

The 9% you mention in your post... Yes, they are Muslims. They're doing the stuff they were told to do by the prophet. And they had nothing to do with this attack, other than helping - like the people of other religions and no religion - to deal with the aftermath.
@2 (and, while we're at it, @4 and @10 and @18 et al. Especially @18.)

My sister and her friend got stuck in Manchester during the last terrorist bombing there, in 1996.

Forgive me - the Internet was new then and I may have missed it. But did any of you then have the balls to say "Catholic Terrorism"?

Did you condemn Dan - a person of Catholic background - or indeed me, as I'm from a Catholic family too, for being part of a "group that stands quietly by while some of it's [sic] members willing [sic] go and kill in the name of their cloud being"? Did you fuck.

Did you call for an end to Catholics living in Britain, and say that it was no wonder there was so much anti-Catholic sentiment? Did you fuck.

Why's that? Because Catholics aren't brown enough? Not foreign enough?

I am of an Irish Catholic background, with an identifiably-Irish surname, and no-one treated me as a person worth of suspicion because of what some stupid shits with a similar ethnic background to me decided to do. I wasn't asked to condemn the violence, or abused for allegedly failing to do so when I actually had.

What could the difference possibly be this time round?
Let me just get this out of the way:

Fuck you, you condescending asshole.

I never said I support Islam, or any other religion.
I don't, I'm an Atheist.

What I said was that the terrorism we are seeing isn't about Islam, it's about powerless people trying to get revenge against powerful nation's that have murdered there countrymen and stolen their natural resources for generations.
Religion is just a rallying cry for them, just like Arab nationalism used to be.
God didn't tell them to take revenge against the West, their gut did.

The right needs terrorism to continue their war for profit. It's all part of the vicious circle they have created. The right doesn't care if the terrorist wave religious flags or nationalist flags, they just want them to cause unrest so the war and profiteering can continue.

As for your "I'm a Red, and Reds were atheist before it was cool" bullshit, you should realize that some atheist are able to coexist with religious people.

LGBTQ people have faced persecution and violence all over the world and from believers and atheist alike.
The reason many countries in the Middle East have such horrible human rights records isn't because of religion, it's because Western powers have backed dictators and strongmen for generations instead of supporting democracy and human rights.

Finally, where did you get the idea that the "Old Left" was pro-LGBTQ?
Communist leaders and intellectuals took many different positions on LGBT-rights issues. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels said very little on the subject in their published works. Marx in particular commented rarely on sexuality in general. Norman Markowitz, writing for, writes that: "Here, to be frank, one finds from Marx a refusal to entertain the subject, and from Engels open hostility to the individuals involved." This is because, in private, Engels criticized male homosexuality and related it to ancient Greek pederasty, saying that "[the ancient Greeks] fell into the abominable practice of sodomy [original German Knabenliebe, meaning "boylove" or pederasty] and degraded alike their gods and themselves with the myth of Ganymede"; Engels also said that the pro-pederast movement "cannot fail to triumph. Guerre aux cons, paix aus trous-de-cul [war on the cunts, peace to the arse-holes] will now be the slogan". Engels also referred to Dr. Karl Boruttau as a Schwanzschwulen (faggotty prick) in private.
And this:
In 1933, Joseph Stalin added Article 121 to the entire Soviet Union criminal code, which made male homosexuality a crime punishable by up to five years in prison with hard labor. The precise reason for Article 121 is in some dispute among historians. The few official government statements made about the law tended to confuse homosexuality with pedophilia and was tied up with a belief that homosexuality was only practiced among fascists or the aristocracy.

The law remained intact until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union; it was repealed in 1993.

According to RT, the law against homosexuality led to "several hundred people [being] charged with it every year" and it "was also a convenient tool for smears and was tacked onto spying allegations during the NKVD purges".

You keep lecturing other people because you think they are ignorant of history, but you have shown us all that your own view of history is flawed to say the least.
One last thing.

I said you and Bill Maher are both big fans of the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism".
That is 100% true.
You and Bill share the distinction of agreeing with the entire GOP and the fascists of the alt-right on that.

You assumed that I made all sorts of assumptions about you, and them you made all sorts of ridiculous assumptions about me.

As I said in my first post, your thoughts are usually on point; but today you have shown us all that you are more than capable of being a clueless fuckwit.
I feel the need to mention that I was completely civil to you in my original post.

You decided to make this personal, not me.
@28: Irrelevant to the point, which I am sure you well know, but your lame dodge is noted. If you can't defend your rhetorical point from even the most obvious counterpoint, don't make it.

Well, arent YOU the internet tough guy. Whaddaya gonna do, punch me through the monitor? Fuck you.

I didn't threaten you, I pointed out that your acting like an asshole.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.