House of Commons shooting?
Discussion
Zod said:
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.
Simon??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.
I accept some people will slip through the net. I can't think of any that have committed terrorist acts in the UK who hadn't been investigated or involved previously though.
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.
You said he was a terrorist. You said he should not have been released. You argued that point fervently at the time, when asked could not provide a reason and then said it was with the benefit of hindsight. Now it is something else... uxplainable it seems.
PM me your CV. We need guys like you in Int.
SeeFive said:
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.
Yes, agree with you.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 said:
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.
535ist!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.
SeeFive said:
Yes..... another rocket science degree coming your way, it would have prevented Westminster had he been detained. Yes, bloody yes. But WHY should he have been detained all those years ago? You believe that there is some reason that we are not being told? Not just a simple eye off the ball for a valid reason in his case (no bells, low risk history)?
You said he was a terrorist. You said he should not have been released. You argued that point fervently at the time, when asked could not provide a reason and then said it was with the benefit of hindsight. Now it is something else... uxplainable it seems.
PM me your CV. We need guys like you in Int.
You said he was a terrorist. You said he should not have been released. You argued that point fervently at the time, when asked could not provide a reason and then said it was with the benefit of hindsight. Now it is something else... uxplainable it seems.
PM me your CV. We need guys like you in Int.
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?
What is it people so desperately want me to say?
MTech535 said:
jjlynn27 said:
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.
Er, fIn the case of this particular moron, no evidence was found hence he was not charged.
It's not that hard to understand.
k off with your condescending attitude.Hopefully, not that hard for you to understand you t
t.You seemed confused about the order of an investigation - evidence thing.
SeeFive said:
bmw535i said:
Simon??
I accept some people will slip through the net. I can't think of any that have committed terrorist acts in the UK who hadn't been investigated or involved previously though.
How would you know? That is just static, not dataI accept some people will slip through the net. I can't think of any that have committed terrorist acts in the UK who hadn't been investigated or involved previously though.
bmw535i said:
SeeFive said:
bmw535i said:
Simon??
I accept some people will slip through the net. I can't think of any that have committed terrorist acts in the UK who hadn't been investigated or involved previously though.
How would you know? That is just static, not dataI accept some people will slip through the net. I can't think of any that have committed terrorist acts in the UK who hadn't been investigated or involved previously though.
Abdullah, Bilal - Doctor, Glasgow airport bomber pissed off with the situation in Iraq where he grew up. No previous suspicion on int.
There are a lot of others. I ain't going there on this thread.
SeeFive said:
Let's start alphabetically.
Abdullah, Bilal - Doctor, Glasgow airport bomber pissed off with the situation in Iraq where he grew up. No previous suspicion on int.
There are a lot of others. I ain't going there on this thread.
A resident of Neuk Crescent, Houston, outside Glasgow, Bilal Abdullah was born on 17 September 1980[66] in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire,[67] where his father, a medical doctor, was working. He qualified in medicine in Baghdad in 2004, and first registered as a doctor in the UK in 2006. He was given limited registration by the General Medical Council (GMC) from 5 August 2006 to 11 August 2007.[68] He worked at the Royal Alexandra Hospital, Ward 10, in Paisley as a locum house-officer in the diabetes department, dealing with outpatients at a drop-in clinic and obstetric clinics.[69][70] He had links to the Sunni Wahabist[71] sect and radical Islamic groups,[67][72] and had been disciplined for spending too much time on the internet at the Royal Alexandra Hospital.[73] He is also said to have come to the notice of the security service, after visiting Islamist websites.[62]Abdullah, Bilal - Doctor, Glasgow airport bomber pissed off with the situation in Iraq where he grew up. No previous suspicion on int.
There are a lot of others. I ain't going there on this thread.
bmw535i said:
A resident of Neuk Crescent, Houston, outside Glasgow, Bilal Abdullah was born on 17 September 1980[66] in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire,[67] where his father, a medical doctor, was working. He qualified in medicine in Baghdad in 2004, and first registered as a doctor in the UK in 2006. He was given limited registration by the General Medical Council (GMC) from 5 August 2006 to 11 August 2007.[68] He worked at the Royal Alexandra Hospital, Ward 10, in Paisley as a locum house-officer in the diabetes department, dealing with outpatients at a drop-in clinic and obstetric clinics.[69][70] He had links to the Sunni Wahabist[71] sect and radical Islamic groups,[67][72] and had been disciplined for spending too much time on the internet at the Royal Alexandra Hospital.[73] He is also said to have come to the notice of the security service, after visiting Islamist websites.[62]
Hmm. That was a good dinner. You still going?Credible source? Or yet more static??
Yes, I know you said that you get everything from the media earlier, but really... he was just like tens of thousands of others.
He was "known" straight after the Tiger Tiger event the day before - almost got him on his way to the airport with hurriedly compiled intel but couldn't physically spot the car. There was nothing before to arouse any major suspicion that he was active. What one could call a "sleeper", and deliberately keeping a low profile as instructed whilst (subsequently discovered) he was involved with cells abroad.
But in your world, he would have been locked up - with the other thousands of a similar profile who went on to do nothing nor work with or influence others to rise against the cause.
Just keep reading the newspapers, I am sure they are bang on the money and not at all sensationalist or inaccurate.
SeeFive said:
Hmm. That was a good dinner. You still going?
Credible source? Or yet more static??
Yes, I know you said that you get everything from the media earlier, but really... he was just like tens of thousands of others.
He was "known" straight after the Tiger Tiger event the day before - almost got him on his way to the airport with hurriedly compiled intel but couldn't physically spot the car. There was nothing before to arouse any major suspicion that he was active. What one could call a "sleeper", and deliberately keeping a low profile as instructed whilst (subsequently discovered) he was involved with cells abroad.
But in your world, he would have been locked up - with the other thousands of a similar profile who went on to do nothing nor work with or influence others to rise against the cause.
Just keep reading the newspapers, I am sure they are bang on the money and not at all sensationalist or inaccurate.
Why does everyone seem to get so petulant about this subject? There really isn't any need for it - I don't really understand the need to get so emotive as you appear to be?Credible source? Or yet more static??
Yes, I know you said that you get everything from the media earlier, but really... he was just like tens of thousands of others.
He was "known" straight after the Tiger Tiger event the day before - almost got him on his way to the airport with hurriedly compiled intel but couldn't physically spot the car. There was nothing before to arouse any major suspicion that he was active. What one could call a "sleeper", and deliberately keeping a low profile as instructed whilst (subsequently discovered) he was involved with cells abroad.
But in your world, he would have been locked up - with the other thousands of a similar profile who went on to do nothing nor work with or influence others to rise against the cause.
Just keep reading the newspapers, I am sure they are bang on the money and not at all sensationalist or inaccurate.
Anyway, I don't recall saying I get everything from the media? Unfortunately I don't have access to the particular MI5 watchlist concerned, so in a lot of cases the public have to rely on the media for information.
What would you accept as a credible source? I'm going to have a shot in the dark and say you might well be a guardian reader......
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...
bmw535i said:
Well one generally finds these things out from the media.
You really do need to improve your memory, otherwise all the guys you lock up under internment could be there forever if you forget about them too 
HTH
Seriously though, I have troubled you enough with trying to understand your logic and ignored my missus way too much tonight for little benefit to either of us it seems.
ETA - I do not read ANY newspaper. I can't stand the sensationalism, inaccuracies and lies.
SeeFive said:
bmw535i said:
Well one generally finds these things out from the media.
You really do need to improve your memory, otherwise all the guys you lock up under internment could be there forever if you forget about them too HTH
Seriously though, I have troubled you enough with trying to understand your logic and ignored my missus way too much tonight for little benefit to either of us it seems.
Do you have any more examples of terrorists who have not been known to some degree before committing a terrorist act in the UK?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff