Explosions at Ariana Grande concert in Manchester

[Odin]

BBC documentary about radical mosques in Britain.

[Heather Duval]

New candids

[Heather Duval]

[Gold-Shekel]

The problem with you Bosniak Muzzie is not how you shall be exterminated. This is the easy part. The problem is how we shall prevent idiots from defending you like they did in Yugoslavia.

Well, that won't happen again...

Keep praising genocide, fact is we're alive and just that makes you mad, you will destroy yourself with that.

[Gold-Shekel]

The problem with you Bosniak Muzzie is not how you shall be exterminated. This is the easy part. The problem is how we shall prevent idiots from defending you like they did in Yugoslavia.

Well, that won't happen again...

It's funny how you take explosions at a concert and then end up talking about genociding Bosniaks. I think some Bosniak must have done some real fucked up shit to you if you can link those things together and they somehow make sense to you.

[Gold-Shekel]

The problem with you Bosniak Muzzie is not how you shall be exterminated. This is the easy part. The problem is how we shall prevent idiots from defending you like they did in Yugoslavia.

Well, that won't happen again...

It's funny how you can make explosions at a concert into genociding Bosniaks. Some Bosniak must have done some real fucked up shit to you if you hate us this much, somehow it makes sense to you to link this thread and Bosniaks, you must be quite mentally ill.

[Odin]

The Libya fallout shows how Theresa May has failed on terror.

Salman Abedi was British by birth, Libyan by background, a radical Islamist by identity, loyal to a “caliphate” based in Raqqa, Syria. These facts should be the starting point of our response to the atrocity he perpetrated: the threat is global, yet our state is national, and our communities local. Our state and our communities were not strong enough to stop him. The time to discuss why is not after the election, but now.
Corbyn is right: of course Manchester was linked to British foreign policy | Simon Jenkins
Read more

The “blowback theory”, which blames Islamist terrorism directly on western expeditionary warfare, is both facile and irrelevant in this case. By bombing Libya we did not enrage or radicalise young Muslims such as Abedi: we simply gave them space to operate in. And then, whatever the intelligence services were doing, the politicians took their eye off the ball.

David Cameron was right to take military action to stop Gaddafi massacring his own people during the Libyan uprising of 2011: the action was sanctioned by the UN, proportionate, had no chance of escalating into an occupation. And Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy had a stabilisation plan. The problem is they had no plan for what to do if their plan went wrong. Nor, it appears, did Cameron’s ministers concern themselves about how a failed state in Libya might affect the growth of global jihadism, and the domestic terror threat in the UK.

In January 2016, in evidence to the foreign affairs committee, Liam Fox, defence secretary in 2011, was asked if the government had made an assessment of the threat of Islamic extremism among anti-Gaddafi rebels. Fox replied: “I do not recall reading anything of that nature. That is not to say it would not have been done, but I don’t recall reading such material … I do not recall reading any reports that set out the background of any Islamist activity to specific rebel groups.”

It is an astonishing failure. Because, as the committee report makes clear, from February 2011 Islamist rebels detached themselves from the main rebel militia, refused to take orders from it and killed its main commander. By October, the situation was out of control. Theresa May, as home secretary, sat through 55 national security council meetings on Libya between March and November 2011. The national security adviser’s “lessons learned” report makes no mention of any Home Office contribution to that body’s decisions, nor any mention of the implications for domestic terror.

It is now reported that MI5 was facilitating the travel of non-jihadi British Libyans to fight in Tripoli. The minister responsible for that decision would have been May. Did she ask about the impact of the Libyan fighting on the terror threat here? That would be something the newspapers, if they did their job, would be shouting at her today, instead of hurling insults at Jeremy Corbyn.

In July 2011, as the fighting raged, May did warn that al-Qaida was seizing arms in Libya. However, she concluded, because of the Arab spring, “al-Qaida is failing”. Unfortunately it was the Arab spring that failed, and the rise of Islamic State was one of the results.

In January this year May pulled the plug on any future strategy of regime change and foreign intervention, implicitly criticising Cameron’s Libya strategy. Speaking in Philadelphia, she decried “the failed policies of the past”.

But it is the job of a government to do more than decry things. It has to deal with the mess created. And to do that, it has to ask a question May never bothered with: are cuts to the police and defence budgets sustainable in the context of the increased terror threat?

May’s response, to the rooms full of police federation reps who did raise it, year after year, was to reject the premise of the question. Now, with the terror threat at critical, she has had to deploy troops to guard key installations.

No matter by how much the budgets of GCHQ and MI5 have been boosted, in an attack such as this – and the threat is ongoing – it is the resilience of police, fire and A&E departments that is tested. The troop deployment is a tacit admission that this resilience is under strain.

Reversing police budget cuts now, as Labour has promised, should be mandatory. If anything, the recent spate of attacks – both failed and successful – shows the need for a more strategic rethink.

Britain needs the equivalent of the French GIGN, the full-time paramilitary force deployed to deal with the Bataclan attack. Such a force would need a new legal framework and heavy investment in extra resources – not, as now, resources borrowed from frontline police and special forces.

But above all Britain needs to be in active collaboration with security services across Europe. Reports suggest the explosives used by Abedi, the bomb design and the networks utilised were those of radicalised north Africans living in European cities.

As they constructed their Brexit strategy, senior civil servants briefed journalists that May was prepared to threaten the EU with withdrawal of security and intelligence co-operation. May stupidly included the threat in her article 50 letter, later claiming it was not a threat at all. How hollow and foolish that all sounds now.

The Manchester massacre should be a wake-up call. This is a government of amateurs; Fox didn’t bother to ask about the terror implications when we bombed Libya; May lost 19,000 police in the face of reasoned warnings. Unfortunately the enemy we are fighting are professionals.
The US leaks British secrets. Our special relationship should be with Europe | Martin Kettle

Jeremy Corbyn has, ignored by the commentators, repeatedly used prime minister’s questions to warn about the impact of police cuts on our security. He has – at every point – done what May and Fox did not: asked the right questions.

Laugh, if you want, at Diane Abbott’s failure to answer the question: how much would 10,000 extra police cost? But it was the wrong question. With the Isis caliphate about to collapse in Raqqa and Mosul, spreading its survivors into the refugee trails of Europe, I don’t care how much 10,000 new officers cost. The right question is: how soon can they start?

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-failed-terror

As home secretary she didn’t see the threat from anti-Gaddafi rebels. And as Prime Minister, from police cuts to article 50, she’s still making the wrong calls. I doubt May, Cameron or any other cabinet member has ever had an original idea in their lives. They all just do what the party bigwigs tell them to do.

[KMack]

FBI ‘Warned MI5 In January That The Manchester Bomber Was Planning An Attack On Britain’

UK security chiefs were warned in January that Salman Abedi was planning an attack in Britain, it was claimed last night.

According to a security source, the FBI told MI5 that Abedi was part of a North African Islamic State cell plotting to strike a political target in the UK.

The information came from a US investigation into Abedi and his links to terrorist groups in Libya. The Mail on Sunday has also been told that US security services put him on a terror watch list – used by agents to identify key suspects – in 2016.

The shocking claim piles further pressure on MI5 to reveal when and how it became aware of Abedi, and why UK spies decided he did not pose a significant threat to British security.

The source told The Mail on Sunday: ‘In early 2017 the FBI told MI5 that Abedi belonged to a North African terror gang based in Manchester, which was looking for a political target in this country.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ttack.html

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

You were talking about the infamous "jungle of Calais" dismantled since october, where terrible things occured, rapes, murders, often involving smugglers and traffikers.
Outside the jungle, no accident has been reported yet, Grimey. The families who welcomed the refugees haven't regretted their decision so far.

Why do you keep referring to crimes as accidents?

And, of course, you're wrong again.

MIGRANT HORROR: Teen tied up and gagged after three men gang rape her at Eiffel Tower

None of them had any official papers and all claimed they were 17 year olds from Tunisia and were seeking asylum.

And this is taking into consideration that the French authorities don't report the ethnicity and race of the perpetrators to the public.

In Germany, however, they do.

Germany: Migrant Crime Spiked in 2016
An official annual report about crime in Germany has revealed a rapidly deteriorating security situation in the country marked by a dramatic increase in violent crime, including murder, rape and sexual assault.

So we're all supposed to believe that while there is an issue with migrants and crime in Germany they're the exact opposite in France because... um... magic?

I don't think I'm contradicting myself, Grimey. I admit I'm unhealthily curious to see if you look like your avatar (a whippersnapper with the wisdom of foresight), but you're not important to such an extent that I'm willing to browse 1000 pages of thread looking for your photos

You constantly contradict yourself when speaking to me. You're simply weak minded.

We don't play the same game, Grimey. I prefer "I spy (the world) with my little eyes" whilst you watch the shadow plays deep in your virtual cave.

Good for you and your life of no responsibilities and obligations. Unfortunately your eyes are biased. If we were to believe you, there are no 'accidents' in France. That's because people don't commit crimes in front of a 'Frenchman' with a camping backpack who speaks a dozen languages. So how do we come to the truth of the matter? By looking at the information available. Many eyes trumps Melki's blind eyes. That's what statistics are: many eyes.

Look, I admire Chomsky and I think it's the most brilliant mind in your country. May he live long and prosper. Now, does it mean I must allow him to think for myself? Surely not, I have my own political convictions. I also read the works of people I don't agree with, even though I respect their views, like Milton Friedman. But Chomsky was not the only intellectual I mentioned. What about the others? Habermas, Badiou, Sen, Galeano...Do you know them, in spite of your americanocentrism? Why do you always refer yourself to Chomsky, Grimey?

I never read Habermas. I never heard of him. However, I googled his name and 'free speech' and in less than a minute I realized you haven't read him either. He doesn't support your argument for restricting freedom of speech.

Members of the public sphere must adhere to certain rules for an "ideal speech situation" to occur. They are:

1. Every subject with the competence to speak and act is allowed to take part in a discourse.

2a. Everyone is allowed to question any assertion whatever.

2b. Everyone is allowed to introduce any assertion whatever into the discourse.

2c. Everyone is allowed to express their attitudes, desires and needs without any hesitation.

3. No speaker may be prevented, by internal or external coercion, from exercising his rights as laid down in (1) and (2) [1]

The concept of the ideal speech situation came under attack in the 1970s by theorists who persistently relativized the concept, arguing that any particular conception of an ideal speech situation could not be proven completely correct, so that any (still-unknown) gaps would allow associated oppressions to arise or persist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_speech_situation

So we're back to you dropping names but not having read the authors.

Joder, tu no tienes abuela...

Grandma taught me what I say should be relevant to the subject under discussion or otherwise it will be clear to everyone that I'm being irrelevant to avoid the obvious.

What about you, Grimey? Why don't you venture yourself out of your cave? Are you wary of the real world or just broke?

Adults have responsibilities and obligations. Enjoy your trip to the middle of nowhere.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

BBC documentary about radical mosques in Britain.

5th Columnists.