Explosions in Manchester

[Setton]

2 hours ago, quillius said:

whilst I understand your point and in general see validity to it, I would argue that a high percentage of events thus far have been carried out by someone 'on' the watchlist, therefore rather than leaving 3000 on the list and in the country in the hope of finding more, get rid of them. Simply leaving them free to roam around isn't working..how much more proof of that do we need?

It's easy to say it isn't working at a time like this. Remember, by their very nature, we are only aware of the security services work when it does fail. We have no idea how many potential plots have been stopped by monitoring people on watch lists. As someone else said, we have to get it right every single time. The terrorists only need us to fail once then people start claiming the methods aren't working. You could get rid of all those on a watch list and that would have prevented this attack. But how many others would then not have been prevented? That's the kind of decision the security services have to make; gambling some lives against many more lives. I don't envy them that job in the slightest.

Quote

I thought hard last night about the second solution I proposed of taking down all mosques. This may seem harsh, I would therefore be willing to compromise and suggest only a handful remain and that the government are allowed to keep someone posted in every mosque to ensure they are simply used for praying and not anything more sinister...and if people feel that is unfair then tough.

I wouldn't support the posting of government officers in every mosque as the majority are genuine, peaceful places of worship. Those that are suspected of harbouring or encouraging extremists should be monitored more closely though. The danger again with posting officials there is that the extremists will just meet elsewhere because they know they are being watched. As long as you know where they're meeting, you can monitor them and usually be aware of plots before they happen.

Quote

You have an overriding message that this is all done in the name of god etc etc and that their religion is more important than anything else....If this is true would they not leave of their own accord if they did not have the mosques to pray in?

No, I don't think they would. You just have to look at any number of countries that have tried to ban specific religions. They never just leave. They take their worship underground, out of sight. And often become more extreme and more of a threat because of that persecution. A few centuries ago, it was catholics fomenting rebellion against a protestant monarch. Some people have very short memories, it seems.

Quote

Its about time our LAWS and our safety trumps their religion, if this is unacceptable then again I say tough! move away where you can fully practise your religions and your differing laws. If you want to live in the UK then our Laws and safety will be put before your religion.

I agree that people's safety must come above sensibilities and the law must support that. I think the issue is that the apparently easy solutions, such as the ones you propose, would actually increase the risk overall.

35 minutes ago, aztek said:

its not even that complicated, you got 100 people in your house, 5 of them , are knows thieves, and other 5 known to hate you  , you do not kick all out, you kick out those 10 that you know are up to no good. 90 stay, unless someone of them gives you a reason to believe he is up to no good. 

you also make 10 out of those 90 keep watch ,  and rotate them, in case any of those previous  10 returns to retaliate for being thrown out.  if they do not want to contribute to safety of the house, throw them out too.

That's not the situation we have though. Rather say we have 100 people, 1 of whom you think is a thief. But you suspect that one is working with 5 others. If you throw out the 1, the other 5 will eventually rob you without warning. If you keep the 1 but watch him, he'll probably meet with the other 5 at some point, then you can throw all 6 out. Then this keeps happening, day after day. Eventually you're going to make a wrong call or the 1 will go ahead without the others. He'll steal some things, but a lot less than all those groups of 5 you would otherwise have missed.

[quillius]

Just now, Setton said:

It's easy to say it isn't working at a time like this. Remember, by their very nature, we are only aware of the security services work when it does fail. We have no idea how many potential plots have been stopped by monitoring people on watch lists. As someone else said, we have to get it right every single time. The terrorists only need us to fail once then people start claiming the methods aren't working. You could get rid of all those on a watch list and that would have prevented this attack. But how many others would then not have been prevented? That's the kind of decision the security services have to make; gambling some lives against many more lives. I don't envy them that job in the slightest.

I wouldn't support the posting of government officers in every mosque as the majority are genuine, peaceful places of worship. Those that are suspected of harbouring or encouraging extremists should be monitored more closely though. The danger again with posting officials there is that the extremists will just meet elsewhere because they know they are being watched. As long as you know where they're meeting, you can monitor them and usually be aware of plots before they happen.

No, I don't think they would. You just have to look at any number of countries that have tried to ban specific religions. They never just leave. They take their worship underground, out of sight. And often become more extreme and more of a threat because of that persecution. A few centuries ago, it was catholics fomenting rebellion against a protestant monarch. Some people have very short memories, it seems.

I agree that people's safety must come above sensibilities and the law must support that. I think the issue is that the apparently easy solutions, such as the ones you propose, would actually increase the risk overall.

That's not the situation we have though. Rather say we have 100 people, 1 of whom you think is a thief. But you suspect that one is working with 5 others. If you throw out the 1, the other 5 will eventually rob you without warning. If you keep the 1 but watch him, he'll probably meet with the other 5 at some point, then you can throw all 6 out. Then this keeps happening, day after day. Eventually you're going to make a wrong call or the 1 will go ahead without the others. He'll steal some things, but a lot less than all those groups of 5 you would otherwise have missed.

you raise some fair points Setton.

On the last part addressed to Aztec, my solution was to remove all 100 hundred....problem solved. It eliminates the last possibility you proposed of 1 will go ahead without the others.....

 

[Space Commander Travis]

2 hours ago, quillius said:

I would therefore be willing to compromise and suggest only a handful remain and that the government are allowed to keep someone posted in every mosque to ensure they are simply used for praying and not anything more sinister...

Kind of like how the Government would keep an agent stationed in every church that they permitted to remain open in Communist countries to ensure Right Thought? all these "solutions" of yours seem to want to turn the UK (and presumably every Western country) into Stalin's USSR.

[Space Commander Travis]

3 hours ago, Setton said:

Precisely. That's what makes such a suggestion impossible. There will be extremists out there the security services aren't aware of yet. The only way to become aware of them is through their contact with those on watch lists. If you deport all those on a watch list, you'll never find the others. 

i like that thinking. Only trouble is, the Security Services don't seem very good at, well, watching those on watch lists do they?  

[Torchwood]

Just now, quillius said:

you raise some fair points Setton.

On the last part addressed to Aztec, my solution was to remove all 100 hundred....problem solved. It eliminates the last possibility you proposed of 1 will go ahead without the others.....

 

well yes but doesnt it cause other problems?  For starters you need to make sure youve removed all of them and not missed one. The you have to do it fast- because if word gets out then they go into hiding or start reprisal attacks.  Then where do you put them?  Just dump them anywhere and cross your fingers?  What if they destabilise wherever you dumped them and wars break out and now more refugees are heading to your borders looking for help?  I suppose you could just execute them all but if they have friends beyond your border youve another war on your hand, and your own friends might start to wonder how soon before you turn on them...

None of the solutions solve the problem.

[quillius]

Just now, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Kind of like how the Government would keep an agent stationed in every church that they permitted to remain open in Communist countries to ensure Right Thought? all these "solutions" of yours seem to want to turn the UK (and presumably every Western country) into Stalin's USSR.

if you say so.

all these solutions? I stated two. number one - oust everyone on watchlist (although Setton makes a valid point as to why it may be better to keep them) the second being to either remove all mosques or heavily 'watch' them to ensure they are not fuelling hatred towards the country in which they reside...... why is that so bad?

[quillius]

Just now, Torchwood said:

well yes but doesnt it cause other problems?  For starters you need to make sure youve removed all of them and not missed one. The you have to do it fast- because if word gets out then they go into hiding or start reprisal attacks.  Then where do you put them?  Just dump them anywhere and cross your fingers?  What if they destabilise wherever you dumped them and wars break out and now more refugees are heading to your borders looking for help?  I suppose you could just execute them all but if they have friends beyond your border youve another war on your hand, and your own friends might start to wonder how soon before you turn on them...

None of the solutions solve the problem.

 

if we miss one so be it....can be a work in progress. those driven underground would still be hunted, not much different to now.

as for destabilising somewhere else.....again..so be it....if it keeps my children safe, this is my one and only concern.....

by trying to keep everyone happy we will have this problem forever.

[Setton]

11 minutes ago, quillius said:

you raise some fair points Setton.

On the last part addressed to Aztec, my solution was to remove all 100 hundred....problem solved. It eliminates the last possibility you proposed of 1 will go ahead without the others.....

 

The trouble there is that, in the real world, you aren't talking about 100. You are talking about many thousands. The logistics alone are impractical. And how do you plan to judge who is or is not a muslim? What about those who were born here and live here peacefully? Are there lives worth less than the ones whose ancestors arrived longer ago? How many generations of British ancestry would someone have to prove to be allowed to stay?

6 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

i like that thinking. Only trouble is, the Security Services don't seem very good at, well, watching those on watch lists do they?  

Like I said to quillius, they are extremely good at it. I appreciate we've had two attacks this year now but the last one before that was 12 years ago. The trouble is, by their very nature, we only see the security services work the few times it fails.

It's easy to point to the two attacks this year as evidence that the security services aren't protecting us. But can you also say how many plots they have foiled? A few people quietly arrested or persuaded not to continue into extremism really doesn't make a good headline.

[WoIverine]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_Impaler

[Essan]

1 hour ago, seanjo said:

All you apologists and appeasers are enabling these scumbags...

They said the same about us in Germany in 1938 .....

[Essan]

1 hour ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

i like that thinking. Only trouble is, the Security Services don't seem very good at, well, watching those on watch lists do they?  

Actually, they seem very, very good given how few of the thousands of terrorists allegedly out there have managed to murder any one .

the problem is that we only hear about the 1 time they make a mistake, not the hundreds of times they get it right  

 

eta: of course, we don't want them snooping on our emails or anything like that though, do we? 

Edited May 24, 2017 by Essan

[aztek]

thousand terrorists out where??? in uk? how did you figure that? and how do you know SS stopped anyone? because they said they did?

[aztek]

Just now, Essan said:

They said the same about us in Germany in 1938 .....

and they were absolutely correct.

[Space Commander Travis]

36 minutes ago, Essan said:

Actually, they seem very, very good given how few of the thousands of terrorists allegedly out there have managed to murder any one .

the problem is that we only hear about the 1 time they make a mistake, not the hundreds of times they get it right  

 

eta: of course, we don't want them snooping on our emails or anything like that though, do we? 

That's assuming that they do, but they can't tell us.  

[Space Commander Travis]

43 minutes ago, WoIverine said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_Impaler

er, yes? 

[Claire.]

More on the various developments:

Manchester chief says police are investigating ‘a network’ of suspects following British bomb attack

Britain’s domestic security chief said Wednesday it was “likely” that the bomber who killed 22 people at a concert venue was not acting alone, underscoring the need for expanded security measures as the nation’s threat level was raised to its highest point.

Read more: The Washington Post

And more on the story from The New York Times

Both articles also cover the UK's concerns over intelligence leaks by the US.

[hetrodoxly]

11 hours ago, F3SS said:

Known, warnings from family, clear ties to al-queda. How exactly could they let him roam the streets? Goodness.

Because the police, government etc would be rounded on by the usual suspects (some reside on these boards) for denying his 'human rights'

[hetrodoxly]

1 hour ago, Essan said:

They said the same about us in Germany in 1938 .....

They were right to say it but we never had the means to react, we did the right thing in the end, we have the means now.

[seeder]

3 hours ago, skliss said:

Just a side note...I was surprised that Grande hopped the first flight home to the U.S. Dummy me, I expected that she would stick around and do some hospital visits....what was I thinking?! 

 

Hey if I was a popstar and bombs were going off.....Id leave the country too... but.... she has offered to pay for the funerals....

apparently anyway.. or could just be the frenzied and imaginative postings of those twitter....twits

 

Quote

 

Star will pay for terror funerals, claim Ariana Grande fans

    22 people were killed and over 119 injured after suicide bomber targeted Ariana Grande's gig in Manchester Arena on Monday
    The pop star told fans she was 'broken' by the devastating attack
    Singer has since suspended her The Dangerous Woman Tour and jetted home to the US
    Fan account now claims the star has offered to pay for victims' funerals

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4537034/Ariana-Grande-offers-pay-gig-victims-funerals.html#ixzz4i0ZrfDZ5

 

 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2017 by seeder

[Sweetpumper]

Manchester Bomber Traveled to Syria With ‘Proven’ Links to Islamic State

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/24/manchester-bomber-traveled-syria-proven-links-islamic-state/

[Space Commander Travis]

14 minutes ago, hetrodoxly said:

They were right to say it but we never had the means to react, we did the right thing in the end, we have the means now.

Quite right, it would've been suicidal for Chamberlain to have made a stand for some faraway country with strange sounding people in '38. Buying a year was absolutely crucial to allow the RAF, above all, to modernise.  I think there were like nine Spitfires in service at the time of Munich, and only a few squadrons of Hurricanes. Really I think Chamberlain ought to receive some gratitude for not committing suicide as a nation. 

[Torchwood]

6 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Quite right, it would've been suicidal for Chamberlain to have made a stand for some faraway country with strange sounding people in '38. Buying a year was absolutely crucial to allow the RAF, above all, to modernise.  I think there were like nine Spitfires in service at the time of Munich, and only a few squadrons of Hurricanes. Really I think Chamberlain ought to receive some gratitude for not committing suicide as a nation. 

BUT, when we did go in, we (us and the French) should have done so properly- there was hardly a single German Soldier between Calais and Berlin for months whilst the British and French armies sat around and argued about the morality of issuing condoms to troops. It would have been all over by midsummer if they'd simply marched on Berlin. 

It was everything I despise about fighting a war, and shares a lot with the modern way of waging war: If your not prepared to go all out, go home. 

[+susieice]

Reports here in the US say the bomber had been to Syria and just returned from Libya days before the attack.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/05/24/manchester-attack-suspect-visited-syria-and-had-proven-ties-to-isis-french-minister-says.html

[skliss]

3 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

i like that thinking. Only trouble is, the Security Services don't seem very good at, well, watching those on watch lists do they?  

I saw one pundit saying that the problem these days is the U.K has an OVER abundance  of information.  So many cameras and electronic surveillance that they now have more people spending so much time sifting thru it all at desks that they are missing the human information aspect. Years ago you had police on the streets walking around getting to know people in their areas who felt comfortable maybe passing on a fear or suspicion by word of mouth to someone they see all the time and learned to trust. I thought that was interesting even tho its one man's opinion in the end.

[skliss]

49 minutes ago, seeder said:

she has offered to pay for the funerals....

I guess we'll see in the end. My thought was how much it would have  meant to her young fans to get a personal visit. Like Christian Bale did after the Aurora theater shootings. The movie playing was a Batman.