I find the people who love getting outraged at

[Billy Goat Sverige]

people who vent after these attacks to be despicable ****s. It's like they search social media for something offensive for them to make a song and dance about.

[Burney]

people who vent after these attacks to be despicable ****s. It's like they search social media for something offensive for them to make a song and dance about.

It's a diversionary tactic. I nearly kicked my car radio in on the way into work listening to some mealy mouthed cünt claiming to be the 'Bishop of Manchester' attacking social media 'trolls' who were 'sowing the seeds of hatred' whilst telling us all what jolly good chaps his Allan pals were and how they wouldn't hurt a fly. :furious:

[Sir C]

people who vent after these attacks to be despicable ****s. It's like they search social media for something offensive for them to make a song and dance about.

"They will not divide us." I've never seen the immediate aftermath of a nail bomb attack, but I'm guessing the results are pretty divisive to the human body.

The mad **** who does it is one thing. The people who encourage it are another. But all the people who know about it and do nothing are just as guilty and appear to get a free pass.

[Pat Vegas]

"They will not divide us." I've never seen the immediate aftermath of a nail bomb attack, but I'm guessing the results are pretty divisive to the human body.

The mad **** who does it is one thing. The people who encourage it are another. But all the people who know about it and do nothing are just as guilty and appear to get a free pass.

:nod: all this they won't win, they won't divide us, carry on as usual.
All very well to say. what about the dead wons? whoever 'they' are they won.

It also seems a strange way to deal with a problem is to ignore it and carry on with your life. This seems to be the approach. of course it's difficult to prevent but it seems a strange message.

[Pat Vegas]

It's a diversionary tactic. I nearly kicked my car radio in on the way into work listening to some mealy mouthed cünt claiming to be the 'Bishop of Manchester' attacking social media 'trolls' who were 'sowing the seeds of hatred' whilst telling us all what jolly good chaps his Allan pals were and how they wouldn't hurt a fly. :furious:

Has any community leaders been on yet?

The fact there are 'community leaders' already suggests something isn't quite right.

[redgunamo]

Has any community leaders been on yet?

The fact there are 'community leaders' already suggests something isn't quite right.

Yes, they used to be known as "mum & dad" but that sort of thing seems to have gone out of fashion.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

I've just had a shouting match with someone with the old "we don't know who's done it yet". Of course we know and when we find out what are you going to do about it?

[Burney]

:nod: all this they won't win, they won't divide us, carry on as usual.
All very well to say. what about the dead wons? whoever 'they' are they won.

It also seems a strange way to deal with a problem is to ignore it and carry on with your life. This seems to be the approach. of course it's difficult to prevent but it seems a strange message.


It's all the 'how can we stop this?' horseshît that bothers me. This sort of stuff could be stopped relatively easily by the introduction of a few emergency measures (the internment of everyone on a terrorist watch list and the shutting down of radicalising mosques for a start). But of course the hand-wringers would be the first to start whining about those measures.

[Billy Goat Sverige]

It's a diversionary tactic. I nearly kicked my car radio in on the way into work listening to some mealy mouthed cünt claiming to be the 'Bishop of Manchester' attacking social media 'trolls' who were 'sowing the seeds of hatred' whilst telling us all what jolly good chaps his Allan pals were and how they wouldn't hurt a fly. :furious:

There were even people suggesting it could've been the IRA in the immediate aftermath :hehe:

ANYONE BUT THE ALLANS!!!

[Mo Britain less Europe]

There were even people suggesting it could've been the IRA in the immediate aftermath :hehe:

ANYONE BUT THE ALLANS!!!

Islamists are the new IRA. Plenty of support from the hand-wrining classes and quite a few politicians.

[redgunamo]

Islamists are the new IRA. Plenty of support from the hand-wrining classes and quite a few politicians.

Yes, the wife was just wondering aloud whether that other big Manchester bombing was before or after we met.

As if I'd remember that :shrug:

[Pat Vegas]

It's all the 'how can we stop this?' horseshît that bothers me. This sort of stuff could be stopped relatively easily by the introduction of a few emergency measures (the internment of everyone on a terrorist watch list and the shutting down of radicalising mosques for a start). But of course the hand-wringers would be the first to start whining about those measures.

:nod:
I can't see why people just expect us to say. Oh well another lunatic killed some people that happens now and again. let's move on.
lets not blame anybody for it.

[Rich]

It's all the 'how can we stop this?' horseshît that bothers me. This sort of stuff could be stopped relatively easily by the introduction of a few emergency measures (the internment of everyone on a terrorist watch list and the shutting down of radicalising mosques for a start). But of course the hand-wringers would be the first to start whining about those measures.

It may not be fair to all but unfortunately the fair approach does not seem to be working. It needs a response like this to make a tangible difference.

[Burney]

It may not be fair to all but unfortunately the fair approach does not seem to be working. It needs a response like this to make a tangible difference.

People will say it's disproportionate, of course, but in doing so they ignore all the resources and effort that currently go into trying to stop these people and the sheer human and material cost of their actions. I strongly suspect you could round up fewer than 1,000 people tonight and cut your risk of this sort of attack by 95%. How is that disproportionate?

[SWv2]

:nod:
I can't see why people just expect us to say. Oh well another lunatic killed some people that happens now and again. let's move on.
lets not blame anybody for it.

The event needs to be given a snappy name before it can really become an event.

Think 9/11 or 7/7 as the incident in your own city became.

We always went down the route of simply naming them by the location - the Omagh bomb, the Enniskillen bomb, the Warrenpoint bomb which in my case is simply the bomb.

[Pokster]

People will say it's disproportionate, of course, but in doing so they ignore all the resources and effort that currently go into trying to stop these people and the sheer human and material cost of their actions. I strongly suspect you could round up fewer than 1,000 people tonight and cut your risk of this sort of attack by 95%. How is that disproportionate?

How long do you intend to hold these 1000 people for.... few weeks, months, years? And what % would you be comfortable with that are completely innocent??

[Burney]

How long do you intend to hold these 1000 people for.... few weeks, months, years? And what % would you be comfortable with that are completely innocent??

Indefinitely. I would obviously subject them to de-radicalisation/deprogramming in the hope of turning them into decent human beings, but where that seems impossible, I'd keep them locked up indefinitely since they are plainly a threat to innocent people.

As to the slim possibility of them being innocent - do you mean 'innocent' like Moazzam Begg who 'went on holiday' to Afghanistan and in a terrible mix-up ended up getting caught by coalition forces and put in Guantanamo? That sort of 'innocent'? I'm intensely comfortable with that possibility if it means preventing acts of terror on our streets.

[Burney]

The event needs to be given a snappy name before it can really become an event.

Think 9/11 or 7/7 as the incident in your own city became.

We always went down the route of simply naming them by the location - the Omagh bomb, the Enniskillen bomb, the Warrenpoint bomb which in my case is simply the bomb.

No, 'the bomb' is the atomic bomb, surely? That's agreed upon.

Also the Warrenpoint attack involved more than one bomb, surely?

[SWv2]

No, 'the bomb' is the atomic bomb, surely? That's agreed upon.

Also the Warrenpoint attack involved more than one bomb, surely?

Well I am from there and was naturally in the town that day to the attack is the bomb, the atomic bomb is the atomic bomb.

Anyhow, it was two detonated about half an hour later when the initial panic had calmed down somewhat and the army had began to organise themselves. It was the secondary event that killed the majority.

[Pokster]

Indefinitely. I would obviously subject them to de-radicalisation/deprogramming in the hope of turning them into decent human beings, but where that seems impossible, I'd keep them locked up indefinitely since they are plainly a threat to innocent people.

As to the slim possibility of them being innocent - do you mean 'innocent' like Moazzam Begg who 'went on holiday' to Afghanistan and in a terrible mix-up ended up getting caught by coalition forces and put in Guantanamo? That sort of 'innocent'? I'm intensely comfortable with that possibility if it means preventing acts of terror on our streets.

So (and I am only throwing this out there.. this isn't my view) you would be happy to lock up people indefinately .. obviously your 1000 people is a number you plucked from thin air... as is the 95%, and amongst those 1000 there must be a strong possibilty that you would get entirely innocent members of the public who just happen to be muslim being locked away for years.... I think i can see problems ahead.

you do seem to have a radical reasoning for terrorism, I seem to remember you and Rich (not the best side to be on) thought that the French shouldjust go and shoot the lights out at a hostage situation a few yeasrs ago as all hostages were likely to be dead..... they weren't and i do believe they nearly all gto out unharmed.

[redgunamo]

Well I am from there and was naturally in the town that day to the attack is the bomb, the atomic bomb is the atomic bomb.

Anyhow, it was two detonated about half an hour later when the initial panic had calmed down somewhat and the army had began to organise themselves. It was the secondary event that killed the majority.

Yes, a classic double-tap.

[Burney]

So (and I am only throwing this out there.. this isn't my view) you would be happy to lock up people indefinately .. obviously your 1000 people is a number you plucked from thin air... as is the 95%, and amongst those 1000 there must be a strong possibilty that you would get entirely innocent members of the public who just happen to be muslim being locked away for years.... I think i can see problems ahead.

you do seem to have a radical reasoning for terrorism, I seem to remember you and Rich (not the best side to be on) thought that the French shouldjust go and shoot the lights out at a hostage situation a few yeasrs ago as all hostages were likely to be dead..... they weren't and i do believe they nearly all gto out unharmed.

Well I have absolutely no memory of the second thing you mention, so if you don't mind, I'll just dismiss that as böllocks I never said.

The 1,000 people is a number I picked from listening to a security expert on Radio 4 this morning tallking in general terms about how many UK residents are currently on terror watch lists. The 95% stands to reason, since every terrorist attacker we have is invariably 'known to the security services', so it follows logically that if you take everyone who is known to the security services off the streets, you will dramatically reduce the risk of terrorist attacks. That is simply common sense. What is not common sense is having these people out there, knowing they are dangerous and doing nothing.
The chances of detaining anyone who is entirely innocent who 'just happens to be muslim' is vanishingly small unless you believe that the security services currently have people on their lists who have never supported, espoused or proselytised for Islamic terrorism. Are they really that incompetent, do you think?

[Rich]

Well I have absolutely no memory of the second thing you mention, so if you don't mind, I'll just dismiss that as böllocks I never said.

The 1,000 people is a number I picked from listening to a security expert on Radio 4 this morning tallking in general terms about how many UK residents are currently on terror watch lists. The 95% stands to reason, since every terrorist attacker we have is invariably 'known to the security services', so it follows logically that if you take everyone who is known to the security services off the streets, you will dramatically reduce the risk of terrorist attacks. That is simply common sense. What is not common sense is having these people out there, knowing they are dangerous and doing nothing.
The chances of detaining anyone who is entirely innocent who 'just happens to be muslim' is vanishingly small unless you believe that the security services currently have people on their lists who have never supported, espoused or proselytised for Islamic terrorism. Are they really that incompetent, do you think?

I also have no memory of that & chose to take the same action. Perhaps P would like to link us to the thread where that was mentioned?

[Norn Iron]

The event needs to be given a snappy name before it can really become an event.

Think 9/11 or 7/7 as the incident in your own city became.

We always went down the route of simply naming them by the location - the Omagh bomb, the Enniskillen bomb, the Warrenpoint bomb which in my case is simply the bomb.

Speaking to a girl from Rostrevor on tinder.... I must ask her how often she washes her jeans.

[SWv2]

Speaking to a girl from Rostrevor on tinder.... I must ask her how often she washes her jeans.

You dirtbag.

[Pokster]

I also have no memory of that & chose to take the same action. Perhaps P would like to link us to the thread where that was mentioned?

If I knew how to find it i would gladly do it.. it is when you claimed Andy Hayman knew bugger all about terrorism and was a sympathiser... he just happened to be in charge of anti terrorism and my wife worked for him.

[Yesterday Once More]

Terrible, terrible attrocity but when the dust settles and emotions subside the voters will take a fresh look at brother Corbyn and run a mile.

Whether or not he actually has form as a terrorist apologist, he is as weak as piss water and security/defence will now dwarf the social care wobble. Game over for the Labour revival - in fact she will get a genuine landslide now.

[Monty92]

Terrible, terrible attrocity but when the dust settles and emotions subside the voters will take a fresh look at brother Corbyn and run a mile.

Whether or not he actually has form as a terrorist apologist, he is as weak as piss water and security/defence will now dwarf the social care wobble. Game over for the Labour revival - in fact she will get a genuine landslide now.

The thing is, we've just been attacked under May. I don't think it's his weakness on security that damages Corbyn. The public can see that whoever is in charge, we are still vulnerable. And the number of people who want genuine hard-line policies brought in to tackle the matter are either too small in number or know it will never happen.

I just don't think the security issue plays with the electorate.

[Burney]

The thing is, we've just been attacked under May. I don't think it's his weakness on security that damages Corbyn. The public can see that whoever is in charge, we are still vulnerable. And the number of people who want genuine hard-line policies brought in to tackle the matter are either too small in number or know it will never happen.

I just don't think the security issue plays with the electorate.

It plays with the electorate if you push it, but it's almost impossible to push it successfully without being accused of trying to politicise people's deaths. The reason people won't vote Corbyn, though, is not because he's a terrorist sympathiser (although he is), but because he's Jeremy Corbyn. There might be people who'll say to a pollster they'll vote for him, but when it comes to putting a tick in a box, it won't happen.

[Monty92]

It plays with the electorate if you push it, but it's almost impossible to push it successfully without being accused of trying to politicise people's deaths. The reason people won't vote Corbyn, though, is not because he's a terrorist sympathiser (although he is), but because he's Jeremy Corbyn. There might be people who'll say to a pollster they'll vote for him, but when it comes to putting a tick in a box, it won't happen.

I sincerely hope you're right.

But I do think there has been a significant shift in recent weeks and it's more than a dead cat bounce. Quite simply people are no longer too embarrassed or ambivalent enough about him based on his media image to vote for him. If an unprecedented mobilisation of the youth vote also materialised, I don't think it's utterly improbable that he at least enters polling day with a potential path to victory.

[Burney]

I sincerely hope you're right.

But I do think there has been a significant shift in recent weeks and it's more than a dead cat bounce. Quite simply people are no longer too embarrassed or ambivalent enough about him based on his media image to vote for him. If an unprecedented mobilisation of the youth vote also materialised, I don't think it's utterly improbable that he at least enters polling day with a potential path to victory.

Nah. Won't happen. This type of up and down is inevitable in an election campaign. The 'shift' you describe is illusory. There is absolutely no suggestion that Labour is capable of winning a single marginal that would be necessary for it to achieve victory. It isn't going to happen.

Fear not. You will wake up a happy man on June 9th. Trust your uncle b on this one. ;-)

[SWv2]

The thing is, we've just been attacked under May. I don't think it's his weakness on security that damages Corbyn. The public can see that whoever is in charge, we are still vulnerable. And the number of people who want genuine hard-line policies brought in to tackle the matter are either too small in number or know it will never happen.

I just don't think the security issue plays with the electorate.

I don't see how any politician in any affected country, or potentially affected country, can stop this.

[redgunamo]

I don't see how any politician in any affected country, or potentially affected country, can stop this.

No, of course not, but it may be enough to suggest you will take a harder line on the matter than the other fellow. Not necessarily, but maybe.

[Burney]

I don't see how any politician in any affected country, or potentially affected country, can stop this.

Oh, they can stop it. But they're going to have to be brave or desperate enough to be called 'fascists' by Guardian reading types in order to do so.

[Darren's Dodgy Denim]

I don't see how any politician in any affected country, or potentially affected country, can stop this.

I don't see that either. Considering the tools available to intelligence services and law enforcement these days, how do you stop a single person from blowing himself up in a crowd of people.

The only thing would be to stop the supply of such nutters, but unfortunately it takes only one ******* to do something like this.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

I don't see how any politician in any affected country, or potentially affected country, can stop this.

By exterminating the terrorists.

[SWv2]

By exterminating the terrorists.

Perhaps not as easy as you may suggest Maurice else you would stop them in advance.

Thing is by the time the damage has been done they appear to have saved you the hassle and exterminated themselves.

As plans go it is flawed.

[Pat Vegas]

Perhaps not as easy as you may suggest Maurice else you would stop them in advance.

Thing is by the time the damage has been done they appear to have saved you the hassle and exterminated themselves.

As plans go it is flawed.

I am wondering how this person was able to bring a bomb into a concert. Something stinks. :sherlock:

[Burney]

I am wondering how this person was able to bring a bomb into a concert. Something stinks. :sherlock:

Accounts suggest he walked into the foyer as the concert was ending and the foyer was full, not into the concert itself.

[IUFG]

Accounts suggest he walked into the foyer as the concert was ending and the foyer was full, not into the concert itself.

:nod: Security tends not to be too great at the end of an event.

I was thoroughly search at Brixton Academy, by a middle-aged, balding fat bloke. The woman searching the females didn't look much better tbf.

[Ash]

The event needs to be given a snappy name before it can really become an event.

Think 9/11 or 7/7 as the incident in your own city became.

We always went down the route of simply naming them by the location - the Omagh bomb, the Enniskillen bomb, the Warrenpoint bomb which in my case is simply the bomb.

I was thinking of Bataclan the other day and wondering how long to the next one. :-|

Do you want my ticket for Saturday?

[SWv2]

I was thinking of Bataclan the other day and wondering how long to the next one. :-|

Do you want my ticket for Saturday?

Don't let the terrorists win A.

#staystrong

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Perhaps not as easy as you may suggest Maurice else you would stop them in advance.

Thing is by the time the damage has been done they appear to have saved you the hassle and exterminated themselves.

As plans go it is flawed.

Exterminate their families. Exterminate their friends. Exterminate their supporters and apologists,

[redgunamo]

Exterminate their families. Exterminate their friends. Exterminate their supporters and apologists,

To one extent or another, that's practically everyone though, as I was trying to say.

Difficult.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

To one extent or another, that's practically everyone though, as I was trying to say.

Difficult.

Not half as difficult as waiting until they exterminate the rest of us. An idiot could see that.

[redgunamo]

Not half as difficult as waiting until they exterminate the rest of us. An idiot could see that.

Almost everyone sees it, I suppose. We just cannot do it. Not really. Not cricket.