Manchester Arena Explosion (Merged)

[Northamptonshire Red]

http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/24/muslim-community-worker-warned-officers-about-manchester-bomber-five-years-ago-6659964/

[BobBobSuperBob]

1 hour ago, Super said:

So we get told he was not "high risk" which basically means he was some sort of risk! High risk or low risk does it bloody matter?!

Absolutely it does Super

Imagine how many persons are referred to the Intelligence Services by dozens and dozens of means and through investigations

Tens of thousands

Every referral has to be looked at and initially assessed - a sizeable task  alone I promise , from some knowledge

From that initial assessment / investigation / analysis they will grade the nominal by risk Low - High - High Priority

Dependant on this level of grading will dictate what action , if any will be taken from there , ranging from loose monitoring to Full Surveilance and Investiagtion

(Of course all nominal grading will / may be reassessed and upgraded or downgraded at any point)

 

 

Why ?

Quite Simple - Priority and resources

Like any work or task Prioritising ( In this case on the basis of perceived risk ) is absolutely necessary due to the lack of infinite resources

For example it takes a minimum of 30-40 officers to carry out 24/7 surveilance on a suspect (and that's just the physical surveillance and that does not account for the analysts , Intelligence officers conducting all the research emanating from the surveillance or any officers ready to respond to a immediate threat concern arising from the surveillance)

Looking closely at one suspect can easily swallow up 50-100 officers even before they are believed to be moving towards any action

Thus , even 10 high risk suspects would fully engage something like 1000 officers

I don't know how many High / Priority suspects there are in U.K. , or a threat to U.K. (Wherever located) but I'd suggest that the numbers would shock both you and me

Sadly there will be hundreds and hundreds of suspects who have similar ' warning signs to Hebedi

 Massive  responsibility and constant , unrelenting pressure for those tasked with trying to prevent such vile attacks , and our security forces have been actually been , IMHO , unbelievably successful , thankfully , to date

[LondonBristolian]

Just now, BobBobSuperBob said:

Absolutely it does Super

Imagine how many persons are referred to the Intelligence Services by dozens and dozens of means and through investigations

Tens of thousands

Every referral has to be looked at and initially assessed - a sizeable task  alone I promise From some knowledge

From that initial assessment / investigation / analysis they will grade the nominal by risk Low - High - High Priority

Dependant on this level of grading will dictate what action , if any will be taken from there , ranging from loose monitoring to Full Surveilance and Investiagtion

Of course all nominal grading will / may be reassessed and upgraded or downgraded at any point

Why ?

Quite Simple - Priority and resources

For example it takes a minimum of 30-49 officers to carry out 24/7 surveilance on a suspect and that's just the physical surveillance and that does not account for the analysts , Intelligence officers conducting all the research emanating from the surveillance or any officers ready to respond to a immediate threat concern arising from the surveillance

Looking closely at one suspect can easily swallow up 50-100 officers even before they are believed to be moving towards any action

Thus , even 10 high risk suspects would fully engage something like 1000 officers

I don't know how many High / Priority suspects there are in U.K. , or a threat to U.K. (Wherever located) but I'd suggest that the numbers would shock both you and me

Sadly there will be hundreds and hundreds of suspects who have similar ' warning signs to Hebedi

The thing to me is that it easy to get angry with the security services and question what else they might have done differently but the sad reality is that they do what they can but, with the best efforts in the world, they have to get lucky continually to stop attacks whereas a terrorist only need be lucky once in order to wreak carnage.

From what I tell, our security services generally do a tremendous job in keeping us safe and preventing attacks. I do not blame them for the fact that an attack has happened on this occasion. I blame the ********* that planned it and the ******** that did it.

[BobBobSuperBob]

Just now, LondonBristolian said:

The thing to me is that it easy to get angry with the security services and question what else they might have done differently but the sad reality is that they do what they can but, with the best efforts in the world, they have to get lucky continually to stop attacks whereas a terrorist only need be lucky once in order to wreak carnage.

From what I tell, our security services generally do a tremendous job in keeping us safe and preventing attacks. I do not blame them for the fact that an attack has happened on this occasion. I blame the ********* that planned it and the ******** that did it.

Quite right (Apologies I've added to my above post and say the same)

Be under no illusions they will be meticulously reviewing every scrap of information to se if mistakes have been made and whether the attack may have been prevented

In any case where a obvious error has been made unlike the NHS there won't be a spiel

'We have learned some lessons'

'We will put into place new procedures'

'No individual is to blame'

 

Individuals guilty of mistakes simply won't be working for those services any longer - harsh but necessary

Even to get into such work , the standards are (You will be pleased to know) extremely tough - for example The failure rate on the Extremely Tough Surveillance Courses are in the region of %50 and is a one chance pass or fail with no exceptions 

[BobBobSuperBob]

Probably upset someone, but when I get angry about these b****rds I like to watch these 

Karma - wonderful instant justice when it goes wrong

 

 

 

 

[BobBobSuperBob]

Good to see - well done both clubs

(Pledged £1 million to help victims)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40046082

 

[Eddie Hitler]

3 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Absolutely it does Super

Imagine how many persons are referred to the Intelligence Services by dozens and dozens of means and through investigations

Tens of thousands

Every referral has to be looked at and initially assessed - a sizeable task  alone I promise , from some knowledge

From that initial assessment / investigation / analysis they will grade the nominal by risk Low - High - High Priority

Dependant on this level of grading will dictate what action , if any will be taken from there , ranging from loose monitoring to Full Surveilance and Investiagtion

(Of course all nominal grading will / may be reassessed and upgraded or downgraded at any point)

 

 

Why ?

Quite Simple - Priority and resources

Like any work or task Prioritising ( In this case on the basis of perceived risk ) is absolutely necessary due to the lack of infinite resources

For example it takes a minimum of 30-40 officers to carry out 24/7 surveilance on a suspect (and that's just the physical surveillance and that does not account for the analysts , Intelligence officers conducting all the research emanating from the surveillance or any officers ready to respond to a immediate threat concern arising from the surveillance)

Looking closely at one suspect can easily swallow up 50-100 officers even before they are believed to be moving towards any action

Thus , even 10 high risk suspects would fully engage something like 1000 officers

I don't know how many High / Priority suspects there are in U.K. , or a threat to U.K. (Wherever located) but I'd suggest that the numbers would shock both you and me

Sadly there will be hundreds and hundreds of suspects who have similar ' warning signs to Hebedi

 Massive  responsibility and constant , unrelenting pressure for those tasked with trying to prevent such vile attacks , and our security forces have been actually been , IMHO , unbelievably successful , thankfully , to date

Internment.

We did it to suspected high risk terrorists in Ulster and they weren't deliberately targeting children.

[TRL]

4 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Absolutely it does Super

Imagine how many persons are referred to the Intelligence Services by dozens and dozens of means and through investigations

Tens of thousands

Every referral has to be looked at and initially assessed - a sizeable task  alone I promise , from some knowledge

From that initial assessment / investigation / analysis they will grade the nominal by risk Low - High - High Priority

Dependant on this level of grading will dictate what action , if any will be taken from there , ranging from loose monitoring to Full Surveilance and Investiagtion

(Of course all nominal grading will / may be reassessed and upgraded or downgraded at any point)

 

 

Why ?

Quite Simple - Priority and resources

Like any work or task Prioritising ( In this case on the basis of perceived risk ) is absolutely necessary due to the lack of infinite resources

For example it takes a minimum of 30-40 officers to carry out 24/7 surveilance on a suspect (and that's just the physical surveillance and that does not account for the analysts , Intelligence officers conducting all the research emanating from the surveillance or any officers ready to respond to a immediate threat concern arising from the surveillance)

Looking closely at one suspect can easily swallow up 50-100 officers even before they are believed to be moving towards any action

Thus , even 10 high risk suspects would fully engage something like 1000 officers

I don't know how many High / Priority suspects there are in U.K. , or a threat to U.K. (Wherever located) but I'd suggest that the numbers would shock both you and me

Sadly there will be hundreds and hundreds of suspects who have similar ' warning signs to Hebedi

 Massive  responsibility and constant , unrelenting pressure for those tasked with trying to prevent such vile attacks , and our security forces have been actually been , IMHO , unbelievably successful , thankfully , to date

The analogy I like is a terrorist only has to get luck once. Security services have to get lucky every single time.

 

Even if there was the budget there still wouldn't be the man power to prevent these things every single time.

[BobBobSuperBob]

Just now, TRL said:

The analogy I like is a terrorist only has to get luck once. Security services have to get lucky every single time.

 

Even if there was the budget there still wouldn't be the man power to prevent these things every single time.

I see our Security Services have prevented 18 plots since 2013

and  Five  Since the Westminster attack  !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[BobBobSuperBob]

2 minutes ago, TRL said:

The analogy I like is a terrorist only has to get luck once. Security services have to get lucky every single time.

 

Even if there was the budget there still wouldn't be the man power to prevent these things every single time.

Plus money alone doesn't fix as recruitment and training in some pretty demanding skills takes some time , years for any effectiveness , before you even begin to gain experience

[Mr Popodopolous]

32 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

Internment.

We did it to suspected high risk terrorists in Ulster and they weren't deliberately targeting children.

 

Quote

 

Long-term effects[edit]

 

Anti-internment mural in the Bogside area of Derry

The backlash against internment contributed to the decision of the British Government under Prime Minister Edward Heath to suspend the Northern Ireland Government and replace it with direct rule from Westminster, under the authority of a British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. This took place in 1972.

Following the suspension of the Northern Ireland Government and Parliament, internment was continued by the direct rule administration until 5 December 1975. During this time a total of 1,981 people were interned: 1,874 were from an Irish nationalist background, while 107 were from a unionist background.^[1]

Historians generally view the period of internment as inflaming sectarian tensions in Northern Ireland, while failing in its goal of arresting key members of the IRA. Many of the people arrested had no links whatsoever with the IRA, but their names appeared on the list of those to be arrested through bungling and incompetence. The list's lack of reliability and the arrests that followed, complemented by reports of internees being abused far in excess of the usual state violence,^[7] led to more nationalists identifying with the IRA and losing hope in non-violent methods. After Operation Demetrius, recruits came forward in huge numbers to join the Provisional and Official wings of the IRA.^[19] Internment also led to a sharp increase in violence. In the eight months before the operation, there were 34 conflict-related deaths in Northern Ireland. In the four months following it, 140 were killed.^[19] A serving officer of the British Royal Marines declared:

It (internment) has, in fact, increased terrorist activity, perhaps boosted IRA recruitment, polarised further the Catholic and Protestant communities and reduced the ranks of the much needed Catholic moderates.^[21]

In terms of loss of life, 1972 was the most violent year of the Troubles. The fatal march on Bloody Sunday (30 January 1972) in Derry, when 14 unarmed civil rights protesters were shot dead by British paratroopers, was an anti-internment march.

 

Wikipedia isn't always a reliable source but Internment isn't without its flaws...but it maybe a useful least bad option for a while!

[BobBobSuperBob]

Just now, Big Brother said:

I thought it was more than that.  A police commander said they were making on avierage one arrest per day of people suspected to be involved in terrorist activity.

I expect that to be true - but that could be everything from financing to distributing leaflets etc - suspects not actively engaged in a 'Live' 'Plot'

As far as I am aware 'Plots' are where the plans or ideas become active , where if no intervention takes place , an atrocity / incident will result

[LondonBristolian]

3 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Probably upset someone, but when I get angry about these b****rds I like to watch these 

Karma - wonderful instant justice when it goes wrong

 

 

 

 

Questions of taste aside, I do sincerely believe videos like this are more effective in undermining terrorists than condemnation, outrage or military invasion. It is a battle for hearts and minds. IS want to look terrifying and all pervasive. The more people portray them as laughable incompetent fools, the more it damages their desired image of invincibility.

[Fiale]

 

Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi and his father, Ramadan, had long-standing links to a violent jihadist group which may have had British backing for the 2011 Libyan war and a 1996 attempt to kill then-Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

The controversy centers on the role of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which was both an anti-Gaddafi and Al-Qaeda subsidiary in the North African state.

Manchester bomber’s father and brother arrested in Tripoli

Many of the fighters which formed the group in the mid-90s were veterans of the Afghan-Soviet war from the 1980s. They went on to fight the Gaddafi regime in Libya itself.

The war saw the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime and the eventual murder of the leader himself after he was captured by opposition fighters. Since NATO’s intervention, Libya has been in chaos.

It has descended into a protracted civil war, is a major contributor to the international refugee crisis, has its own branch of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), and two opposing governments.

The elder Abedi was reportedly one of the LIFG fighters who fled Gaddafi’s response to the rebels, settling in London and, later, in Manchester.

The area of Manchester in which Salman Abedi grew up was home to a number of other LIFG members, including former senior commanders including Abd al-Baset Azzouz, who left Manchester to go to Libya and run a 200-300-strong militant network for Osama Bin Laden’s successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Azzouz is reported to be an expert bomb-maker.

In 2002, former MI6 agent and whistleblower David Shayler accused the British spy agency of colluding with the jihadist group in a failed 1996 effort to kill Gaddafi, an allegation the British government strenuously denies.

Allegations have also emerged that in 2011, the UK may have relaxed restrictions on LIFG fighters based in the UK and helped them return to Libya to fight Gaddafi.

The UK was at that time engaged in fighting Gaddafi as part of a US-led NATO coalition. Former fighters interviewed by the Middle East Eye said that the UK actively supported the return of anti-Gaddafi dissidents, including those with Al-Qaeda links, to the North African state.

One fighter who spoke to the Middle East Eye said he had been interviewed by an MI5 agent who asked if he was “willing to go into battle?”

“While I took time to find an answer he turned and told me the British government have no problem with people fighting against Gaddafi,” the fighter said.

Others reported that when the war in Libya began, they looked into how to get fake documents, because their passports had been removed as part of restrictive control orders placed on them by the UK government.

One said that within days, the authorities had returned their passports, after which they headed straight to Libya to take on Gaddafi.

At the time of the war, current UK Prime Minister Theresa May was Home Secretary, with oversight of MI5 operations. It is not clear if she was aware of the decision to relax restrictions of jihadists and return their travel documents.

[Fiale]

3 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Probably upset someone, but when I get angry about these b****rds I like to watch these 

Karma - wonderful instant justice when it goes wrong

 

 

 

 

 

The exploding mortar rounds is pretty interesting - I read a article a while back saying that the Israeli's were supplying ex-soviet and old US munitions to Rebels / Jihadist groups all over the Middle East via proxies. Their rationale was that the groups would get the weapons anyway through other means so they thought they could at least try to make something out of the situation. So what was in it for them ?

Once these 100,00's of mortar rounds and millions of rifle rounds were in circulation it came to light that a large number were not detonating or even exploding in the barrel because the rounds had been tampered with, a lot of the rifle rounds would cause blockages as they did not have enough charge to engage the gas blowback mechanisms. So you had rebel groups who fired mortars that had a 1 in 10 chance of landing and not detonating or a 1-30 of exploding in the barrel killing the mortar crew and those around it. 

A double win, they all kill each other, but you also kill some of them trough tampered munitions and sow seeds of doubt and frustration in the groups mind as they cannot trust their own weapons.

I wish I remembered where the article was but it was a good read.

[BobBobSuperBob]

1 minute ago, Fiale said:

 

The exploding mortar rounds is pretty interesting - I read a article a while back saying that the Israeli's were supplying ex-soviet and old US munitions to Rebels / Jihadist groups all over the Middle East via proxies. Their rationale was that the groups would get the weapons anyway through other means so they thought they could at least try to make something out of the situation. So what was in it for them ?

Once these 100,00's of mortar rounds and millions of rifle rounds were in circulation it came to light that a large number were not detonating or even exploding in the barrel because the rounds had been tampered with, a lot of the rifle rounds would cause blockages as they did not have enough charge to engage the gas blowback mechanisms. So you had rebel groups who fired mortars that had a 1 in 10 chance of landing and not detonating or a 1-30 of exploding in the barrel killing the mortar crew and those around it. 

A double win, they all kill each other, but you also kill some of them trough tampered munitions and sow seeds of doubt and frustration in the groups mind as they cannot trust their own weapons.

I wish I remembered where the article was but it was a good read.

The Americans did this in Vietnam - when they found Vietnam Cong weapons staches they would sometimes leave amongst it rounds , mortar rounds and grenades that had been manufactured to kill the user 

This obviously hit morale in Viet Cong and made them very mistrusting of their chimes supplied munitions

[nebristolred]

This thread makes me disappointed to be a City fan. It just goes to prove how many complete idiots we have around.

Is Islam in its literal form a violent religion? Yes (as are many religions, but I'll concede that Islam is particularly violent). Does that mean that every Muslim in the country should be tarred with the same brush as those who commit these horrendous attacks? Of course ****ing not. I presume Big Brother and the like on here are white males. Are you responsible for the actions of the KKK?

All of this bullsh*t about the death penalty and banning Muslims from taking certain jobs and deporting people without trial is absolutely ludicrous, it will solve literally nothing and just further deepen tensions.

What do we actually need to do?

- By all accounts we need better powers to deport or arrest (if they are British) these people once identified, it's ridiculous that we can't.
- We need to fund the Police properly (thanks Theresa May). If it wasn't for the cuts we might actually be able to track most of the 3,000 people on the watch list. I'm sorry, but if you're a civilised country you can't get rid of people purely for being on a watch list, you need to get the evidence. Fund the Police, you get the evidence.
- Powers to monitor religious buildings of any faith where grounds to do so will help Police with the above and possibly identify threats earlier.
- Proper vetting of those who have travelled to or from known countries of conflict (with regard to this situation), including refugees.
- And finally and probably most importantly, do not get involved in illegal ******* wars which the majority of the population are against, based on lies and alterior motives designed purely to line your own pockets (looking at you Mr Blair). We have faced austerity for 7 years and yet we can always find more and more millions to fight wars which prolong everything and solve nothing.

The one thing I do agree with BB about to some extent is the overly-PC culture which is bordering insanity, but in reality that's irrelevant to this.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I'll just leave this here..

(As it turned out there was a Parliamentary vote but it didn't exactly make us safer did it)!

[BarnzFM]

He's not wrong 

[phantom]

Ironic coming from the man who wouldn't condemn the IRA attacks

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, BarnzFM said:

He's not wrong 

Don't disagree.

@phantom Re NI. Thorny issue though he perhaps didn't act wisely. South of the border things would I dare say be seen rather differently one man's terrorist v freedom fighter debate etc. FWIW NI, IMO neither side covered themselves in glory.  Thorny thorny issue though, the NI one.

An equally interesting question might be to those who- rightly- condemn the IRA attacks, do they therefore condone, or turn a blind eye to Loyalist terrorism?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, phantom said:

Ironic coming from the man who wouldn't condemn the IRA attacks

He condemned both sides of the NI affair last week on TV..,. did you miss it?

Hard Brexit might even given the IRA what they always wanted..

[Northamptonshire Red]

20 hours ago, nebristolred said:

This thread makes me disappointed to be a City fan. It just goes to prove how many complete idiots we have around.

Is Islam in its literal form a violent religion? Yes (as are many religions, but I'll concede that Islam is particularly violent). Does that mean that every Muslim in the country should be tarred with the same brush as those who commit these horrendous attacks? Of course ****ing not. I presume Big Brother and the like on here are white males. Are you responsible for the actions of the KKK?

All of this bullsh*t about the death penalty and banning Muslims from taking certain jobs and deporting people without trial is absolutely ludicrous, it will solve literally nothing and just further deepen tensions.

What do we actually need to do?

- By all accounts we need better powers to deport or arrest (if they are British) these people once identified, it's ridiculous that we can't.
- We need to fund the Police properly (thanks Theresa May). If it wasn't for the cuts we might actually be able to track most of the 3,000 people on the watch list. I'm sorry, but if you're a civilised country you can't get rid of people purely for being on a watch list, you need to get the evidence. Fund the Police, you get the evidence.
- Powers to monitor religious buildings of any faith where grounds to do so will help Police with the above and possibly identify threats earlier.
- Proper vetting of those who have travelled to or from known countries of conflict (with regard to this situation), including refugees.
- And finally and probably most importantly, do not get involved in illegal ******* wars which the majority of the population are against, based on lies and alterior motives designed purely to line your own pockets (looking at you Mr Blair). We have faced austerity for 7 years and yet we can always find more and more millions to fight wars which prolong everything and solve nothing.

The one thing I do agree with BB about to some extent is the overly-PC culture which is bordering insanity, but in reality that's irrelevant to this.

Perhaps those who vehemently hate Western society so much and seek to change it through violence , should perhaps consider a country more suited to their personal views. Nobody is saying all Muslims are terrorists-and we should be integrating those who want to be peaceful more effectively. You say it yourself that Islam is inherently violent if taken in it's archaic form, and unfortunately a large amount of people are following it in this form, as opposed to some Westernised version that suits us.

The KKK are always brought up as comparison, yet their viciousness and influence does not equate to extremist Islam. A better comparison would perhaps be Nazism, where a majority of good people were encompassed within an ideology that had dangerous consequences. And like Nazism, it needs to be confronted head on. 

Which leads me to the insane PC culture you speak of, which actually is relevant in my opinion. It shields those who carry out attacks, and those who are quietly extremist by deflecting the root cause and blaming it on racism, Islamaphobia etc, all in the name of virtue signalling. 

I agree with your other points though.

[LondonBristolian]

3 hours ago, phantom said:

Ironic coming from the man who wouldn't condemn the IRA attacks

Hate to contradict you but he did.

[Nogbad the Bad]

2 hours ago, Tomarse said:

He condemned both sides of the NI affair last week on TV..,. did you miss it?

The interview I saw Corbyn was asked specifically to condemn the IRA bombings about 6 times, and he didn't do so.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

The interview I saw Corbyn was asked specifically to condemn the IRA bombings about 6 times, and he didn't do so.

What's even handed about that question?

Are Loyalist bombings/gunmen ok now...

[Mr Popodopolous]

Don't like to say it but certain people- several perhaps- on this thread, this issue suffer wilful blindness.

[Nogbad the Bad]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

What's even handed about that question?

Are Loyalist bombings/gunmen ok now...

It didn't need to be 'even handed' - it was a straight question, which required a straight answer.

No prevarication necessary, just a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

It didn't need to be 'even handed' - it was a straight question, which required a straight answer.

No prevarication necessary, just a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

So turn a blind eye to the other side then...?

Nothing much wrong with condemning both sides- both targeted civilians (though nothing like todays Islamist threat).  I wonder why some are so wilfully blind about this...

[nebristolred]

2 hours ago, Northamptonshire Red said:

Perhaps those who vehemently hate Western society so much and seek to change it through violence , should perhaps consider a country more suited to their personal views. Nobody is saying all Muslims are terrorists-and we should be integrating those who want to be peaceful more effectively. You say it yourself that Islam is inherently violent if taken in it's archaic form, and unfortunately a large amount of people are following it in this form, as opposed to some Westernised version that suits us.

The KKK are always brought up as comparison, yet their viciousness and influence does not equate to extremist Islam. A better comparison would perhaps be Nazism, where a majority of good people were encompassed within an ideology that had dangerous consequences. And like Nazism, it needs to be confronted head on. 

Which leads me to the insane PC culture you speak of, which actually is relevant in my opinion. It shields those who carry out attacks, and those who are quietly extremist by deflecting the root cause and blaming it on racism, Islamaphobia etc, all in the name of virtue signalling. 

I agree with your other points though.

I don't disagree with the first half of your post, but I'm not really sure what your point is? It obviously makes sense that they should choose their country more particularly, but they don't, that's their intention, to inflict harm on the Western world.

I'm not really sure why I put that it's not really relevant, poor choice of words, but yes it does seem to have created a bit of a culture where you can't freely insult the bad parts of Islam. But in the grand scheme of things that's a very small issue.