President Trump was right that Scotland Yard knew about terror suspect(s). Now being admitted.

a reply to: Revolution9

Reading the posts on this thread I see an example of how sometimes people hate
when someone was right against the odds, instead of admit it.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
'Loser terrorist' is a statement of the obvious. Aren't they all?

If Trump was privy to anything, he was an utter moron to put it out there on Twitter. Ongoing investigations are kept quiet for good reasons.

I believe you are correct: "Ongoing investigations are kept quiet for good reasons."

In this case, it was to keep UK leadership from falling into an embarrassing position. Maybe now Ms. May will keep her personal judgements of President Trump checked. A little bit more tit-for-tat and President Trump might stir up the mob over there.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: seagull

He should've just lied in the rose garden like our last potus

Yep...treat all citizens as dumb sheep. That has worked for decades in America, and maybe that long in the U.K. too.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: queenofswords

Not if there is an active investigation on going.

We have no need to know these things when they're on going. Afterwards, certainly, but not during. That could jeopardize the investigation and allow suspects to escape.

With all due respect, what investigative details were revealed by president Trump merely stating, the authorities know about the suspect beforehand? This is a serious question.

Did he reveal any names? No
Did he reveal any details of the actual investigation or procedures? No
Did he reveal how the authorities planned to target and find the suspect? No

All he did was say what everyone not in politics knows and says openly. Perhaps it is time for the politicos to stop lying to the people "for their protection" since it has not be such a great success to date....has it?

a reply to: Krakatoa

Where is it his place to reveal anything at all? It was London, England--not London, Ohio.

There's not enough for him to tweet on, or open his yap about, here in the US? Really? Sometimes less is more. Someone really should educate him on that.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Krakatoa

Where is it his place to reveal anything at all? It was London, England--not London, Ohio.

There's not enough for him to tweet on, or open his yap about, here in the US? Really? Sometimes less is more. Someone really should educate him on that.

That may be so, however, does he not still have the same right to free speech that we common folk do here in the U. S.? Who are you to say what he should and shouldn't be saying? Your opinion is just as valid as mine in this case.

AS I said, he Tweeted what many of us all know and say on a daily basis when this type of thing happens. All he is guilty of is telling the truth as he sees it. The fact that the U.K. politicos got embarrassed and had to back peddle is not his problem, now is it?

I don't think it takes insider knowledge to figure out what has been proven, repeatedly, after the last 3 terrorist attacks in the UK this year.

Every time it's the same old story. The perpetrators are known jihadi's who were already under surveillance by the authorities because they pose a threat to the public, but they couldn't do anything about it, not even warn their neighbors, people living right next to them, due to political correctness.

As this guy blatantly points out, the UK government is more concerned about keeping terrorists safe than their own citizens.

I never think it’s helpful for anybody to speculate on what is an ongoing investigation

she didn`t actually lie she was just using typical political double speak.

politicians and the elite think they are being clever by using vague and general terminology to respond to something.

it makes me wonder how competent the authorities are, since after most terrorist attacks the authorities claim to have been aware of the person and their terrorist ties.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: queenofswords

Not if there is an active investigation on going.

We have no need to know these things when they're on going. Afterwards, certainly, but not during. That could jeopardize the investigation and allow suspects to escape.

With all due respect, what investigative details were revealed by president Trump merely stating, the authorities know about the suspect beforehand? This is a serious question.

Did he reveal any names? No
Did he reveal any details of the actual investigation or procedures? No
Did he reveal how the authorities planned to target and find the suspect? No

All he did was say what everyone not in politics knows and says openly. Perhaps it is time for the politicos to stop lying to the people "for their protection" since it has not be such a great success to date....has it?

All good questions. The only answer you will get is Trump sucks.so wjatever he says sucks.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Krakatoa

Where is it his place to reveal anything at all? It was London, England--not London, Ohio.

There's not enough for him to tweet on, or open his yap about, here in the US? Really? Sometimes less is more. Someone really should educate him on that.

What did he reveal at all? I mean every single terrorist ever was known about before the event. We here it every single time even with 9/11. "they were on a watchlist or a no fly list or whatever long before they commit the crime.

You guys hate Trump so much it blinds you.

a reply to: Revolution9

I am in the UK...and May and Rudd did NOT deny Trump was factually correct....they were upset by Trump sticking his nose POLITICALLY into British politics by alerting the British public that a Conservative government wasn't up to doing it's job. You Trump supporters are just smart enough to type, but not quite smart enough to know of what you are typing.

originally posted by: Tardacus

I never think it’s helpful for anybody to speculate on what is an ongoing investigation

politicians and the elite think they are being clever by using vague and general terminology to respond to something.

That's another reason. Politicians dislike Trump. He says the things the public already thinks and politicians don't know how to respond to blunt truths sometimes. It's got to gall quite a few people when he says things that end up being the truth.

originally posted by: KeithCooper
a reply to: Revolution9

I am in the UK...and May and Rudd did NOT deny Trump was factually correct....they were upset by Trump sticking his nose POLITICALLY into British politics by alerting the British public that a Conservative government wasn't up to doing it's job. You Trump supporters are just smart enough to type, but not quite smart enough to know of what you are typing.

I mentioned that, perhaps you missed it. AS part of the side-effect of his tweet, he embarrassed them. That is really what rubbed their fir the wrong way here. And IMO, who cares if they are embarrassed. Their own citizens are being maimed and killed by people their own authorities have known about. The point president Trump made was time to be proactive, and not reactive. The British laws are a it more lax in that regard than the U.S. laws. They have more ability to limit a citizen's reach.

The time to be reactive in the U.K. is over. Time to begin to truly act more on those they are investigating. Time to actually make a budget for that. Time to address the case of people who leave to fight in the M.E. and return to the U.K., fully trained in war and bomb making.

a reply to: KeithCooper

....so the British public doesn't know that "a Conservative government wasn't up to doing it's job". ?? Shouldn't they be aware of it?

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: KeithCooper

....so the British public doesn't know that "a Conservative government wasn't up to doing it's job". ?? Shouldn't they be aware of it?

Obviously not. I mean, it might upset someone. Or worse, open their eyes to the ineffectiveness of the current policies.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: 727Sky
I do not remember where I heard this or even who said it but.... 35,000 possible Jihadist are known to reside in the UK with 3000 under surveillance plus another smaller number have tags (increased surveillance)...

When has anything happened, that some agency later said, " Oh they were on our watch list"! As if that makes it all better...

How did the idiots think this was all going to work out ?

Just wanted to pop in to correct this.

There are actually only 3000 who have been identified as potential terrorists of them even fewer present a current threat

www.google.co.uk...

Carry on

So in your mind 3,000 is an acceptable amount of extremists who would, given the chance, kill you and everyone you love? Because 1 is too many. Period.

Carry on

originally posted by: Konduit
I don't think it takes insider knowledge to figure out what has been proven, repeatedly, after the last 3 terrorist attacks in the UK this year.

Every time it's the same old story. The perpetrators are known jihadi's who were already under surveillance by the authorities because they pose a threat to the public, but they couldn't do anything about it, not even warn their neighbors, people living right next to them, due to political correctness.

As this guy blatantly points out, the UK government is more concerned about keeping terrorists safe than their own citizens.

It's a sad world when Tommy Robinson makes more sense than the politicians representing the people. Hopefully you can sort out this radical Islamic problem you folks have over there.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: 727Sky
I do not remember where I heard this or even who said it but.... 35,000 possible Jihadist are known to reside in the UK with 3000 under surveillance plus another smaller number have tags (increased surveillance)...

When has anything happened, that some agency later said, " Oh they were on our watch list"! As if that makes it all better...

How did the idiots think this was all going to work out ?

Just wanted to pop in to correct this.

There are actually only 3000 who have been identified as potential terrorists of them even fewer present a current threat

www.google.co.uk...

Carry on

This is not where I first heard the figures of 35,000, 3000, and 500 but they are quoting the same figures (30 seconds in the video) which supposedly comes from the UK security sources. youtu.be...

originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

I said in another thread earlier that is was a fake "refugee" who more tha likely came here via France after escaping Iraq.

Well done all you who wanted "Refugees" here from Iraq of all places.

And what about ALL those unaccompanied child refugees

some of them with an adult amount of facial hair


All the bleeding hearts saying but they are only children need to get real


The two arrested 18/21 years would have been *those poor children* taken

into a foster home..... both linked to the same foster home.


That is the REALITY.

a reply to: queenofswords

Careful what you wish for.. I can imagine how this narrative plays out. A system whereby they justify incarcerating an individual before they do something... You can see how this could be used for evil. Their own private method for determining who is a threat, non-verifiable to the public/anyone else. Who's agenda will be served?