Caps

4 hours ago, goldenbrwn1 said:

Corbyn seems to be promising a lot. Every time he speaks he say he's bringing back this, that and the other. As soon as the tories are criticised on any policy, he quickly responds with we won't do that, we will bring back this or that. Where is this money coming from?? Bye bye trident?    

      Anyway back on topic. The British police are fantastic, well done.  Let's hope common sense prevails with the way taxpayers money which  is being wasted keeping an eye on the 3000 or so fanatics that are biding their time! Nick em , jail em, send em back to Syria, preferably to the Assad/Russian lines.

Yep, Corbyn promising a lot, maybe he'll bring back his mates in the IRA too while he is at it!

Good job by the UK Police

Just now, RickBradford said:

Given that the relentlessly "progressive" New York Times was the recipient of the leak, it seems fairly clear that nobody on President Trump's side of the aisle would have leaked it to them.

 

The conclusion has to be that there are people towards the top of US intelligence who are actively attempting to undermine the President, which is not a great state of affairs, no matter what you think about the man.

it does not matter, who, when, why , what.  The point is info was leaked, twice I think, and it should not have been

Just now, spiderorchid said:

It was US that took the war to Europe from Anzio to Burgundy and beyond. And so on. The war in WW11 would possibly still be going on without the Yanks.   

That was a good post....right up until the last bit 

20 minutes ago, spiderorchid said:

Trump is a chump. He knows nothing about history, period.

Nor does he understand the subtle things that an intelligent pollie would say.

I am an Aussie and proud of the Aussie effort in any conflict. 

Other than Grenada and Panama, the US has not "won" any war since WW11. And they did win WW11 along with some minor actions of Britain and allies.

After US entered the war (reluctantly) they bludgeoned Japan and Germany, something that was in limbo before the US finally added their manufacturing base, technology and a grit to finish this thing.

You are still not acknowledging my point...never mind.  I think you might also find that Russia did quite a bit of bludgeoning.  You must have borrowed your history books from the US 

Just now, spiderorchid said:

The conversation has got out of hand. The amount of graves should be a topic of remembrance, not a topic of bragging rights.

Lest we forget.

The poms and allies bore the brunt of nazi Germany until US changed the course of that war after they chose to enter.

Read about US  bombing and fighter roles. They fought in daytime and suffered huge casualty rates.

It is not about bragging rights.

As for UK self protection spending. The submarine fleet is a disgrace for starters. 

i dont disagree with you, that was not my point....my point was he was making it sound like it was only the Yanks that ever did anything, please don't bore us with how the US saved us all, it was a joint effort and nothing you can say will change that 

5 hours ago, Basil B said:

Maybe time to consider hard what information is shared... 

 

UK stabbed in the back by America  ...again.

 

There have been many arrests in the UK and probably many just arrested as witnesses to get them into a controlled system that their memory of events is not clouded by hearsay, speculation and leaked news.

Yes the arrests are great, its amazing what you can achieve when you dont tell the US anything  

24 minutes ago, KBsinter said:

Well, someone has to pay, who pays, the rent for that massive building they work from

I think TRUMP is asking for 2% of GDP from participants in NATO how he"s going to

retrieve these amounts from the likes of Greece and most of the other countries in the 

"E.U WHO ARE MOSTLY BROKE" but would expect the USA to send forces to free them

 

(more American graves)....................I am from the UK  by the way............................

you talk like they are the only ones that ever do anything and have more graves, maybe you should look closer to home 

Just now, onthesoi said:

Grouse was replying to a post which said arrests have been made, he asked what was being done about those applauding the attack online ...try to keep up.

 

Btw I always pay in cash...

Oh, i am keeping up alright, looking at your trolling posts

...and good for you 

35 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

 

Is applause illegal?

Not a very bright post

unless of course you think it should be applauded.  

Grouse did not mean it that way 

So stop playing with words 

Just now, Baerboxer said:

Some countries consider lying, cheating and getting what you can for nothing out of any alliance as nothing wrong. 

 

Ignoring the lack of agreed spending on defense, which was freely signed up to, would anyone really want those countries as an ally?

 

If push came to shove, would they honor their mutual defense pact? Or do they expect it only benefits them if they're attacked?

The jury is out for me in honouring the mutual defence pact...I could be wrong but i was under the understanding that NATO had an agreement with Ukraine not to have Nukes and NATO would look after it....that worked really well!?

1 hour ago, Andaman Al said:

Like, Trump, You have little idea what you are talking about.

 

NATO is designed such that an attack on one is considered an attack on all. So regardless of the size of your nations defence you contribute to the effort of bringing down your allies foe. This CANNOT apply to terrorist attacks when there is no formal declaration of war by the ally against another sovereign nation. "war on terror" does not legally qualify.

 

Since WW2, the USA has had a global policy of finding as many countries as it can that will permit it to have strategic military bases so that it can project military power in close proximity to its main adversaries. The US military presence in the vast majority of other countries is one of choice by the US and NOT to be there for the defence of that nation, but to allow a rapid American military response against countries that could threaten American interests if conflict broke out. These bases which are used as forward deployment and logistics hubs are vital for US force projection. The USA does NOT pay anywhere near as much 'rent' as it should for the use of these bases and the land they are on, and when it rightfully does pay rent, Trump sees that as a contribution of payments to NATO - which it is NOT. The US military strategy could not work if they were to move out of all their foreign military bases. For example, the anti ballistic missile defence shield being set up in Eastern Europe is not for the protection of Eastern Europe but for the protection of the USA but Trump thinks NATO or the country it is based in should pay more to have it there!!. Trump and his mass-hypnotised supporters are WRONG, and the heads of state knew it when they were all smirking and thinking <deleted> at the NATO meeting.

Yes, agreed.  I wonder what reaction they would get if the rest of NATO said' if you don't like it f off and take everything with you"?  

2 hours ago, goldenbrwn1 said:

Fake news is actually a real phenomena. But it can and has been spewed by some at every opportunity to avoid debate ect. ( but not sure if that warrants suspensions). Anyway back on topic, the Brits will continue to share intelligence with the US just not with certain authorities methinks. The Manchester police on the ground may now hold on to certain info a tad longer than usual until the leak problem is resolved.

Yes I can see the info still been shared but NOT until we have finished with it.  That way no one (the US) can mess things up with the ongoing investigation 

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

Some Muslim leaders have condemned the attack in Manchester as contrary to the teachings of Islam e.g.

 

 

Different teachings  

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/jesus-muhammad.aspx

Just now, dick dasterdly said:

I understand - you are bored of responding to arguments against your POV.

 

This isn't a criticism as I feel the same way every now and again - depending on my mood.

 

Nonetheless, I could have done without the dismissive "Enjoy the rest of your day" when you hadn't come up with an argument against any of the points raised .

I don't need an argument against the points raised and IF you think that the US opening their  trap with intel given in trust  during an on going investigation to hopefully stop more atrocities is acceptable,  then good for you 

6 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

At the end of the day it boils down to those that believe the authorities should be as open and honest as possible, and those that believe any 'leaking' of 'secrets' (regardless of whether those 'secrets' are in the public interest) should never be allowed as they are against 'national security' or some other reason that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I am getting bored of batting this about, if you think its acceptable thats great for you, I don't and find it a breach of trust and yes Security in an on going investigation should come first.

Enjoy the rest of your day  

Just now, dick dasterdly said:

I'm not trying to 'butter up' anything!

 

Just pointing out that there is unlikely to be a good reason for withholding this information - other than the normal authorities response of 'this information is privileged, and so should be confined to us important people for a while to make us feel important'!

 

But of course its always possible that others involved in this atrocity had assumed that it would take a while for the police to discover that it was a suicide bomber and his identity - and so felt safe taking their time to escape....

Whatever excuse, or whatever may or may not have happened due to this leak my point still stands, intel shared in good faith should not be leaked.  That is the only point I am making

5 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

In this case, I can see no reason to believe the information from the US could be at all detrimental to the investigation.

That maybe so...we will never know now...my point still stands...they should have kept their mouths shut.  Maybe leaking the info prompted the Security Service to act a lot quicker than they had wanted to.  Therefore not closing the full net

No matter how you butter it up, it should not have happened.

10 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I was watching BBC news on the TV and so learned that American sources said it was a suicide bomber.

 

Not sure how this knowledge being made public would hamper the UK police/result in others involved escaping - unless, of course any others involved had assumed this would never be known and so hadn't already prepared for this information being 'discovered'.....

 

I wasn't watching when the killer was named by US sources (I gather the terrorist had identifying papers on him???) - but think its safe to assume that others involved knew this would happen and had planned accordingly .

Possibly so but the point is, when the sharing of intel is leaked by the people you are sharing it with then its time to re-evaluate what you share and when you share it. 

9 hours ago, iReason said:

 

You can thank the inept fool in charge.

Yes I suppose we can, the UK government were a fool to think they good trust the yanks with intel, hope we have learned our lesson.  I suppose lead by Trump act like Trump 

10 minutes ago, iReason said:

 

Would that be this government? :

 

US leak of Manchester attacker's name strikes new blow to intelligence sharing

 

"Salman Abedi was identified in media reports that attributed “US officials” as the source even as their British counterparts remained tight-lipped."

 

"The disclosures renewed concerns over leaks from Donald Trump’s administration two weeks after the US president revealed classified information, apparently from Israel, to Russia’s foreign minister in a White House meeting."

 

"Critics warn that US allies may be less willing to share intelligence in the future."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/23/trump-administration-manchester-bomber-name-leak

...as I said, way to go! 

Thanks to the US (being condemned by the UK Gov) spilling the beans instead of the UK doing the job correctly, we have probably lost some of the people we might have got.....way to go! 

20 minutes ago, thaihome said:

Well, I have worked for going on 20 years with muslims from the country that makes up about 12% of the total muslim population in addition to many others from the Asia Pacific region that make up some 62% of muslims in the world  and disagree with your assessment.  

 

I will readily admit that if your experience is in the ME, particularly saudi, which is a very small minority of muslims, then there are indeed issues.  Issues that I  attribute more to cultural problems, under the guise of religion,then to Islam itself. 

TH 

Iraq all the time....fully Muslim, Baghdad and Basrah ...and i ain't here for the love of the people 

13 minutes ago, thaihome said:

Funny, but I have personally attended two weddings of Christian men marrying muslim women, both taking place in the Father's home with his blessings.  Your intial error doesn't help the credibility of the remainder of your post. 

 

It seems to me that the most vehemently anti-muslims here tend have the least experience with muslims. Their experience seems to consist of mostly watching you-tube videos by demogues intent on whipping up hatred for their personal gain.

 

TH 

Marvellous....I have been working with them for 4 years out of the last 6 and still am....i would not give them an inch or trust them with anything.  So I think a little bit more than youtube 

4 minutes ago, transam said:

You are NOT reading what I said, you are reading what YOU want to read....

People who are bigoted tend to just read what they want 

Just now, Flustered said:

Exactly. When I was "a kid" 1950s there were hardly any Muslims at all in the UK

 

Census Year	Number of Muslims	Population of England and Wales	Muslim (% of population)	Registered Mosques	Muslims per mosque
1961	50,000	46,196,000	0.11[20]	7	7,143
1971	226,000	49,152,000	0.46[20]	30	7,533
1981	553,000	49,634,000	1.11[20]	149	3,711
1991	950,000	51,099,000	1.86[20]	443	2,144
2001	1,600,000	52,042,000	3.07[20]	614	2,606
2011	2,706,000	56,076,000	4.83[21]	1,500	1,912
2014 (estimate)	3,047,000	–	5.4[6]	1,750 (2015)[23]	1,741

seems like the breeding out of white non believer population is starting to work