Bombing in Manchester Suspect identified

"

Lachdanan wrote:

why the statesecuretyagency knew him and didn´t act is the more important one.

Isn't this a highly recurring issue? It seems to me these terrorists are always known, being investigated or have priors. Authorities also know where are the radical preachers active and their (foreign) financial & political ties. They know about people traveling to conflict zones, where they most likely get combat training and indoctrination.

Yet this subversive infrastructure is kinda untouchable and allowed to go on.

"

morbo wrote:

Yet this subversive infrastructure is kinda untouchable and allowed to go on.

because human right and muhhh they are peaceful diversity.

"

BodyHammer01 wrote:

Nice. Britain did Manchester is the new Bush did 9/11. Everyone get your tinfoil hats on.

In both cases, the appropriate video analogy is: https://youtu.be/fFufoOgCMW8

Therefore, we must conclude that our governments are either stupid — like, mindbogglingly windowlicking stupid — or they wanted it to happen. Or a mix of both, like some kind of Neapolitan ice cream of fuckery.

I would never argue against the stupid accusation, but I'm just not quite ready to jump on the crazy train to self terrorism.

I mean come on, since when did the US ever need to be attacked in order to justify an invasion before or prior? We don't got time for that, we've got democracy and freedom we need to be spreading.

What's the point in identifying the suspect?
Not like anyone didn't know what the ties would be.

It's the same bullshit with political leaders: "oh god protect the king, protect the president",
as if what? If they die, it's game over?

It's just one hydra head of many, cut one off, two more appear...
Same for terrorists as for figures of political power.

I'd rather people start bringing up suggestions how to solve the problem at the root, and do it.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

BodyHammer01 wrote:

Nice. Britain did Manchester is the new Bush did 9/11. Everyone get your tinfoil hats on.

In both cases, the appropriate video analogy is: https://youtu.be/fFufoOgCMW8

Therefore, we must conclude that our governments are either stupid — like, mindbogglingly windowlicking stupid — or they wanted it to happen. Or a mix of both, like some kind of Neapolitan ice cream of fuckery.

Or, they didn't plan and execute it, but they are happy to exploit it in order to expand Gub'mint security control. Look at the shoe-bomber and how his little fizzle basically created the TSA. ='[.]'=

"

Raycheetah wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

BodyHammer01 wrote:

Nice. Britain did Manchester is the new Bush did 9/11. Everyone get your tinfoil hats on.

In both cases, the appropriate video analogy is: https://youtu.be/fFufoOgCMW8

Therefore, we must conclude that our governments are either stupid — like, mindbogglingly windowlicking stupid — or they wanted it to happen. Or a mix of both, like some kind of Neapolitan ice cream of fuckery.

Or, they didn't plan and execute it, but they are happy to exploit it in order to expand Gub'mint security control. Look at the shoe-bomber and how his little fizzle basically created the TSA. ='[.]'=

Errr, that was 9/11 that created the TSA. Just sayin'. I fully agree the government takes advantage of incidences to push agendas though.

"

BodyHammer01 wrote:

Errr, that was 9/11 that created the TSA. Just sayin'. I fully agree the government takes advantage of incidences to push agendas though.

My mistake, then. I've always associated the increased loss of personal liberties in US air travel with the shoe-fizzle; prolly just marked the increase in the onus on travelers to prove they were really only grannies and crippled kids. ='[.]'=

In fairness it's close enough to be confusing after so long.

09/11/01 - World Trade Center
11/19/01 - TSA Commissioned
12/22/01 - Shoe bomber

"

Xavderion wrote:

AI surveillance will be a thing within the next five years so there's that. I'm also against AI surveillance btw.

Yeah its better to be sorry than safe kappa