Horror in Manchester
READ BEFORE YOU PROCEED: D2G wears no responsibility of the views published here by the respective Author. This Editorial is used here for Study Purpose. Students are advised to learn the word-meaning, The Art of Writing Skills and understand the crux of this Editorial.
MEANINGS are given in BOLD
For the Islamic State, which claimed responsibility for Monday night’s suicide attack in Manchester that left at least 22 people dead and 59 injured, all those who were present at the city’s main indoor arena (a level area surrounded by seating, in which sports, entertainments, and other public events are held) to attend Ariana Grande’s concert were infidels (a person who has no religion or whose religion is not that of the majority). All of them were just innocent teenagers and the blast hit them when they were leaving after the concert. It is a familiar story.
Over the past three years, terrorists have repeatedly struck Western cities, massacring (deliberately and brutally kill (many people)) unarmed civilians, including children. Be it the Bataclan theatre in Paris, the Brussels airport or the Manchester Arena, terror has aimed to unleash (release; free) maximum panic and thereby create divisions in societies, challenge the public’s faith in their institutions and trigger (cause to function) ethnic, racial or religious tensions. So when in a statement issued on the Internet the IS boasts (talk with excessive pride and self-satisfaction about one’s achievements, possessions, or abilities) of killing and injuring “100 crusaders (fighter; battler)” in Manchester, it is actually trying to hard-sell its world view of a “holy war” between the two largest faiths. Investigators are yet to confirm the IS link.
But the exact affiliation of the perpetrator (a person who carries out a harmful, illegal, or immoral act) may be immaterial to groups such as the IS and al-Qaeda which have contracted out their violent, polarising ideology to extremist (a person who holds extreme political or religious views) cells and individuals across the world. The British government has, wisely, refused to play ball so far. In a strong message delivered from Downing Street, Prime Minister Theresa May has hailed (fall or be hurled forcefully) the spirit of Britain, which “through years of conflict and terrorism has never been broken and will never be broken”.
The attack, the first major terror strike in 12 years in the country, rises daunting (seeming difficult to deal with in prospect; intimidating) challenges for the U.K. Over the past 18 months alone, British intelligence agencies, deemed (regard or consider in a specified way) to be among the best in terms of resources and efficiency, have reportedly thwarted (oppose (a plan, attempt, or ambition) successfully) at least 12 terrorist plots. Still, the 22-year-old Salman Abedi, a British national of Libyan origin, slipped off their radar, entered the Arena complex and detonated (explode or cause to explode) an improvised (done or made using whatever is available) bomb at its foyer (an entrance hall or other open area in a building).
While more details about Abedi are yet to emerge, there are already questions about how he got his hands on an improvised bomb small enough to conceal in a belt or behind a vest (an undergarment worn on the upper part of the body, typically having no sleeves). For Britain, this is going to be a long fight with no quick fixes on the cards. Hundreds of British nationals had traveled to Syria, a country that is being bombed by the U.K., the U.S. and several other countries, to join the IS over the past three years.
Many of them came back, and with the IS under growing pressure in Syria and Iraq many more battle-hardened men could return, aggravating (make (a problem, injury, or offense) worse or more serious) the situation. While Britain has raised its threat level to critical in the aftermath (the consequences or after-effects of a significant unpleasant event) of the attack, a longer-term challenge for the political and community leadership is to find a way to address the challenge of radicalism (the beliefs or actions of people who advocate thorough or complete political or social reform).
