House of Commons shooting?

[anonymous-user]

mcdjl said:

Ah, sorry i mis-interpreted your quoting as you disagreeing that KM wasn't a terrorist prior to last week.

[anonymous-user]

SeeFive said:

So it's not hindsight after all then?

I'm not sure what you mean

[SeeFive]

SeeFive said:

bmw535i said:

I didn't realise we had to provide analysis, just statements

I don't actually recall saying he shouldn't, but if I did, the statement was made with the benefit of hindsight. Rather like the ones where people say Iraq war caused ISIS etc.

It is quite a statement to say that someone is a terrorist and needs locking up indefinitely with no evidence. Just looking to see what you knew that we didn't in forming that opinion as stated earlier. You have said that you don't.

I am not having a pop at you - given that for just a second we agree internment upon suspicion was a good thing...

I was just trying to understand your rationale behind stating earlier that this specific bloke was a terrorist, should not have been released after the initial enquiry had turned up no evidence (we assume). I still am trying to work out from your responses to my questions how we could have had grounds under your program to inter this bloke with any valid grounds and prevent his actions last week - I.e., either he was interned while under suspicion, or evidence had arisen from the investigation that he should remain in custody.

I just couldn't see any of that anywhere.

Thanks for clearing that up. I think we all understand now. Hindsight.

HTH

[anonymous-user]

SeeFive said:

bmw535i said:

SeeFive said:

So therefore we should believe that as an outcome of that investigation, he was a terrorist who should have been locked up indefinitely, but they didn't bother?

I don't follow that lack of logic.

We can believe whatever we want I suppose.

So it's not hindsight after all then?

We don't know the details or findings of the investigation.

[SeeFive]

bmw535i said:

SeeFive said:

bmw535i said:

SeeFive said:

So therefore we should believe that as an outcome of that investigation, he was a terrorist who should have been locked up indefinitely, but they didn't bother?

I don't follow that lack of logic.

We can believe whatever we want I suppose.

So it's not hindsight after all then?

We don't know the details or findings of the investigation.

Some time back, you said that because he was investigated, then he was a terrorist and should not have been released. I asked you for specific reasons why that should happen about an hour or so ago.

You replied saying that you had no evidence from the time of the investigation, and said he was a terrorist because of the benefit of hindsight since the attack last week. A degree in rocket science was then awarded to you silently for that.

You now at back to saying that he was a terrorist, you imply that you don't believe that the intelligence services have told the truth when saying that he was investigated for suspicion of terrorism and released...

Do even you know what you think on this, because we certainly can't get a consistent and coherent message from you?

[MTech535]

Just because an investigation does not find sufficient evidence to prove someone is a terrorist, it doesn't mean that person is not a terrorist.

I don't see why he would have been investigated in the first place of there was no evidence at all.

The level of evidence needed to arouse a suspicion is significantly less than would be required to get you on a watch list or in prison.

[SeeFive]

MTech535 said:

Just because an investigation does not find sufficient evidence to prove someone is a terrorist, it doesn't mean that person is not a terrorist.

I don't see why he would have been investigated in the first place of there was no evidence at all.

The level of evidence needed to arouse a suspicion is significantly less than would be required to get you on a watch list or in prison.

In these days of internment without trial. How,long should we have held him given....

The statement said:

Theresa May told MPs in the Commons on Thursday that while Masood was known to security services, his case was historic and that officers did not believe him to be “part of the current intelligence picture”. Later in the day Home Secretary Amber Rudd said it would be wrong to say there had been an intelligence failure.

However, an official close to the ISC said: “[Masood] had at one point been looked at by the intelligence and security services, but obviously it had gone dormant. That sometimes happens with these cases.

So you think there was evidence we have not been told? It seems to me that he slipped through the net after being looked at historically because of a lack of evidence. No reason to suspect he was a terrorist but in fact, now we know different with as you rightly said, the benefit of hindsight.

Edit: Confused by similar username and mind.

Edited by SeeFive on Tuesday 28th March 19:41

[anonymous-user]

MTech535 said:

Just because an investigation does not find sufficient evidence to prove someone is a terrorist, it doesn't mean that person is not a terrorist.

I don't see why he would have been investigated in the first place of there was no evidence at all.

The level of evidence needed to arouse a suspicion is significantly less than would be required to get you on a watch list or in prison.

There really is no point coming here with sensible points I'm afraid. Nice username by the way.

[anonymous-user]

SeeFive said:

Some time back, you said that because he was investigated, then he was a terrorist and should not have been released. I asked you for specific reasons why that should happen about an hour or so ago.

You replied saying that you had no evidence from the time of the investigation, and said he was a terrorist because of the benefit of hindsight since the attack last week. A degree in rocket science was then awarded to you silently for that.

You now at back to saying that he was a terrorist, you imply that you don't believe that the intelligence services have told the truth when saying that he was investigated for suspicion of terrorism and released...

Do even you know what you think on this, because we certainly can't get a consistent and coherent message from you?

I have simply said we don't know the findings of the MI5 investigation. There is the benefit of hindsight involved yes - I've already said that. I don't get why I have to repeat myself so many times.

What is it people so desperately want me to say?

[SeeFive]

bmw535i said:

SeeFive said:

Some time back, you said that because he was investigated, then he was a terrorist and should not have been released. I asked you for specific reasons why that should happen about an hour or so ago.

You replied saying that you had no evidence from the time of the investigation, and said he was a terrorist because of the benefit of hindsight since the attack last week. A degree in rocket science was then awarded to you silently for that.

You now at back to saying that he was a terrorist, you imply that you don't believe that the intelligence services have told the truth when saying that he was investigated for suspicion of terrorism and released...

Do even you know what you think on this, because we certainly can't get a consistent and coherent message from you?

I have simply said we don't know the findings of the MI5 investigation. There is the benefit of hindsight involved yes - I've already said that. I don't get why I have to repeat myself so many times.

What is it people so desperately want me to say?

We could start with why he should have been locked up after the first investigation revealed that he was not a person to focus resources on at that time.

[Alpinestars]

bmw535i said:

I have simply said we don't know the findings of the MI5 investigation. There is the benefit of hindsight involved yes - I've already said that. I don't get why I have to repeat myself so many times.

What is it people so desperately want me to say?

Please don't. It's darn right boring.

[MTech535]

We don't know why he was investigated, we don't know how thorough the investigation was and we don't know the findings.

I am not suggesting that internment based on unfounded suspicions is the easy to go. It could be me that gets suspected!

I think it also depends on what we consider is a terrorist. You only really become one when you have committed an act of terror, but they often die shortly after.

What I think is needed is more close monitoring of suspected terrorists, but there are so many who have the potential to become one, it would be unfeasible to do so.

[anonymous-user]

SeeFive said:

We could start with why he should have been locked up after the first investigation revealed that he was not a person to focus resources on at that time.

We don't know the findings of that investigation.

[anonymous-user]

Alpinestars said:

Please don't. It's darn right boring.

Please don't blame me for people disagreeing with truisms.

[SeeFive]

bmw535i said:

We don't know the findings of that investigation.

So on that basis, you insist that he should have been locked up and not released at that time?

[jjlynn27]

MTech535 said:

...
I don't see why he would have been investigated in the first place of there was no evidence at all.
...

Er, to find evidence?

In the case of this particular moron, no evidence was found hence he was not charged.

It's not that hard to understand.

[MTech535]

SeeFive said:

We could start with why he should have been locked up after the first investigation revealed that he was not a person to focus resources on at that time.

It could be something as simple as there was a more pressing matter that needed those resources at the time. We simply do not, and probably never will, know. Those limited resources may have been utilised to thwart an attack that we never heard about.

[anonymous-user]

SeeFive said:

So on that basis, you insist that he should have been locked up and not released at that time?

I don't recall insisting on anything, but it would have prevented Westminster had he been detained.

I'm fairly sure I've answered similar variations to this question before.

[SeeFive]

MTech535 said:

We don't know why he was investigated, we don't know how thorough the investigation was and we don't know the findings.

I am not suggesting that internment based on unfounded suspicions is the easy to go. It could be me that gets suspected!

I think it also depends on what we consider is a terrorist. You only really become one when you have committed an act of terror, but they often die shortly after.

What I think is needed is more close monitoring of suspected terrorists, but there are so many who have the potential to become one, it would be unfeasible to do so.

Trust me, I know that there is a lot of effort monitoring all sorts of people, including those who are believed to be terrorists. Our int cells are a very busy bunch of people watching a lot of different people and movements globally looking for correlations. As you say, there are a lot of them, and when the signs are weak, analysts have to focus on those that are a stronger risk. And a lot of the time they get success and make our lives just that little bit safer.

IMH(personal not corporate)O, this guy was most likely a low risk at the time of investigation and did not warrant further monitoring. It may be that nobody bothered to revisit him over time, but that would typically be on a lack of reason to do so - e.g., he was believed to be (on the back of previous) low risk, hadn't set off a bell of any sort either by individual activity or correlation,since that time.

This has all the signs of a guy acting alone. Almost impossible to detect let alone prevent or defend against. It will happen again whilst bigger things are detected and prevented. It is the nature of the beast, a bit like a first time villain of any sort versus a career criminal.

[Zod]

bmw535i said:

SeeFive said:

So on that basis, you insist that he should have been locked up and not released at that time?

I don't recall insisting on anything, but it would have prevented Westminster had he been detained.

I'm fairly sure I've answered similar variations to this question before.

What you 535 boys seem to want to say is Simon,y that if every terrorist were interned before committing his or her atrocity, the there would be no terrorist atrocities. In this case, despite his having been investigated and cleared, you want him somehow not to have been cleared. You are making no sense at all. We all wish he'd been caught doing something bad before, but the simple fact is that he'd shown himself to be a thug, but not, until last week, a terrorist.

The security services are identifying and dealing with people like this all the time. They cannot be expected to get every single one, particularly those who act alone.