Manchester blast

[Beest]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Seems to me: we're well past the crack of dawn on this, their intent is crystal, 'diplomacy' (bribery) has been tried (and has failed)...time to kill some people.

Off you go, see how that works for you.

Or were you expecting the Government to do that for you.

[henry quirk]

What I expect is for our employees to put law-abiding citizens first, and to eliminate threats to those citizens (the folks who pay the bills).

What I get is a lotta noise from folks who, for some godamned reason, wanna hesitate and shuffle their feet and not do much else.

As for my neighborhood: I do what I can.

What about you?

#

"He was investigated and deemed to be only peripherally involved in radicalism and not an imminent danger."

Yeah, that seems to be the story over and over. Seems like, at some point, folks would say 'okay, the last ten violent acts were done by persons only peripherally involved in radicalism and not an imminent danger, so mebbe we need to redefine our terms, lower the bar, tolerate less'.

[henry quirk]

tw, what the holy fuck does fox news have to do with anything?

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

tw, what the holy fuck does fox news have to do with anything?

It explains your attitude. And contempt for honesty and facts.

Since you have none, it also explains your excessive use of irrelevant and profane adjectives. And your love of violence.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

What I expect is for our employees to put law-abiding citizens first, and to eliminate threats to those citizens (the folks who pay the bills).

The Manchester bomber was a citizen and, as far as I know, a law abiding one until this incident.

"He was investigated and deemed to be only peripherally involved in radicalism and not an imminent danger."

Yeah, that seems to be the story over and over. Seems like, at some point, folks would say 'okay, the last ten violent acts were done by persons only peripherally involved in radicalism and not an imminent danger, so mebbe we need to redefine our terms, lower the bar, tolerate less'.

The last ones that succeeded. Investigators have to do triage, and if the ones that they do consider to be a threat end up not making the news, that's probably in their favor.

Do you want to pay for an agency to put permanent surveillance on everyone who has ever shown up on their radar?

Would you want them to be able to do that, even if there were no monetary cost?

Or are you just advocating skipping the surveillance and imprisoning or killing people without evidence? Evidence against one [insert ethnicity/religion/etc] is evidence against all?

[henry quirk]

What facts have I ignored, tw?

#

HM, I don't have all the solutions. Just seems to me what our employees are doin' now isn't succeeding well enough, often enough.

[xoxoxoBruce]

We don't know if they stopped any, stopped 99 or stopped 999.

[henry quirk]