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

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: queenofswords

Hell yeah! American Presidents should be broadcasting ongoing investigations on Twitter!

Raiding properties will be pointless when Trump's tipping the whole world off about investigations.

Not sure what tip-off he gave? He was just right, that's all.
How would the refugee terrorist benefit from knowing the police knew of him? If anything, if it prompted him to act differently (i.e. head to the airport, port and try to run), it would alert police.

All this angst at Trump for being right is misplaced. Focus on the disgusting refugee terrorist.

a reply to: notsure1

Hate? Hardly.

To hate requires a somewhat more intimate knowledge of the person than I have. Do I dislike some of his behaviours? Now that I can safely say yes to. I find much of his behaviour juvenile, even childish...this inveterate need of his to splash his opinions all over twitter bothers me.

...but, yes, he can say pretty much whatever he wants, when he wants...and I can dislike it, and say so.

I think it's very good that Trump broadcasted that tweet to the world. Even if someone doesn't condone Trump's tweet while their was an active investigation ongoing, ask yourself this. How would we have obtained that knowledge, if one is even able too get ahold of that information, by any other means without having to wait years for the judiciary system. Had Trump not done this, nobody would even know about it. This is the kind of corruption hammer that blows tptb arguments right out of the water... IN REAL TIME. Not after a narrative/story has already been spun and amalgamated into whatever answers the most questions somewhat logically or the press has had their chance to get their grubby hands on that information and deem what we're to be told. This kind of instant confirmations show everybody exactly who their elected leaders really are, and for London it doesnt look good but we already knew this... And i think its important for ALL OF US nowadays to be able to see the inside of these elitist encampments and the way they operate on us unwitting citizens. Bc anyone with half a brain cell can usually smell the lies and corruption that line the entire system.

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?

Trump spoiled their surprise. lol.

Don't need to be Nostradamus to call it.

Some of us did and only a couple mins after someone posted it.

It's the same in the states, mateen, boston bombers, the 9/11 crew.

Meh.

originally posted by: elysiumfire These terrorist incidents are not too big nor too small, but just right to keep the circus rolling on and on.

indeed - they are 'goldilocks' incidents.

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.

Lol, Trump will type "WARNING! SPOILER ALERT" the next time, ok?

I don't think anybody was denying he was right.

The problem was he leaked important information about an ongoing terrorist investigation, and tipped off the guilty parties that they were already known to the security services.

This might have prompted the guilty parties and their extended network to burn all their contacts and hard drives, suddenly finding out that the security forces were already onto them and closer than they might have previously thought.

a reply to: Revolution9

There has not, I think it is safe to say, been an attack on the UK, in which the terrorist who carried it out, was not known to the police and intelligence agencies.

The fact that these individuals have not been swept up and out of public circulation before being able to make good on any threat they posed, is nothing to do with their skill at evasion of security services, but everything to do with the following...

The government require our fear of terrorism, in order to justify war budgets which feed the need of the worlds greediest bastards, to make heaps of money from conflict. Every one of the attacks in our country, could have and should have been avoidable. But instead, the government permits its proxy agents, the terrorists, to kill our citizens. This is not, as the fascist dirt in the world would have us believe, because the government are afraid of causing offence to the Muslim community here in Britain. In actual fact, the Muslim community reports these scumbags to the police with the expectation they will be arrested, and is often dismayed to have done its due diligence, only to be ignored by the police entirely, and have terror attacks go ahead, despite their warnings.

The government, by extension the security services, refuse to act because they NEED the occasional successful attack, to drum up support for their illegal war, to make it appear as if their war against terror is anything other than a creation of theirs. They pay, equip and aid these terror groups after all, they helped create most of them, along with the USA. They do not act against these terrorists, because these terrorists are, whether they realise it or not, agents of the government themselves, paid and trained to play a role.

President Trump was not "right" in the strictest sense, except on the singular and narrow matter of whether or not the agent who carried the attack out, was known to the police and authorities besides. Yes, he was. However, he was only able to carry out the attack at all, because the government and its agencies are complicit in the murder of our citizens, complicit in the creation of jihadist networks globally, just as the American government is complicit in the events of 9/11, the creation of Osama Bin Laden's army of idiots, and every other major terror group on the face of Earth, in conjunction and tandem with the British government, and or its security services.

Its a money maker, all this war, and all that is necessary to fan the flames, when they ebb somewhat, is accessing the amygdala of the citizens of our nations respectively, so that they forget how to reason well enough, that they support the next war, the next fight, the next crushing of an innocent population, under the weight of tens of thousands of pounds of high explosive, launched from planes no one can afford, for no reason other than to make money for arms traders. Support for war declining? Blow up some commuters then, or bomb a marathon. Everyone will forget how opposed to war they are, when their own arses are on the line.

Its all nonsense, utter nonsense. Trump was right to suggest the individual was known to the police... but he is wrong about what must be done to prevent terrorism. More bombing, deportations willy nilly, unreasonable access restrictions for Muslims when it comes to immigration, these are not solutions to any problem worth solving.

Actually acting on intelligence from the community is a solution. Stopping the bombing of innocent people, in response to the actions of proxy armies your own nations control by the back door, these things are a good start.

Continuing the lie that is the idea that Islamic Terror is Islamic in origin, rather than originated in the minds and bank accounts of western powers, will avail the future of no peace in the matter at all... of course, peace does not make nearly as much money in arms sales, to all sides of the fight, as war does, which is what its all about, in reality.

It's a whistle blower move for Americans. We are not very safe visiting the UK or France. In 2012 I flew back from Paris through the Heathrow airport. Two Muslim/ Arab type women in their twenties sat down on each side of me. One of them got up and went to the bathroom and left her baggage on her chair. I hopped up and exited immediately. I went else where quickly. It was very creepy, even back five years ago. The curious thing is I always get baggage checked at Heathrow. I am taller than European women. Usually my hand lotion or books sets off the machine. Tip: bag up your dirty underwear before leaving hotel. I feel they should profile check all the Muslims. If these people start facing inconveniences, they will report their fellow evil Muslims. Losers? Evil people is more accurate. Its a waste of time searching middle aged white American housewives. The airport should target the right age group and culture.

a reply to: frugal

Statistically, you are incorrect.

More terrorist incidents occurred as a result of actions by far right terrorist groups, than Islamic terrorist groups in the US over the last few decades, so actually, failing to check everyone, regardless of their skin tone, age or social status, as thoroughly as they do Muslims, would be utterly idiotic, assuming their actual goal was reducing successful terror attacks of all kinds.

Also, more hate crimes are committed by far right groups than by any other demography in the UK... so your thinking is flawed here... massively.

a reply to: Revolution9

'was spoken to by police several times'

Does not mean he was suspected of being a potential terrorist , or that he was known of by the security services.

Trump had no right publicly commenting on an ongoing investigation.

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

Prime Minister Theresa May and Home Secretary Amber Rudd both said President Trump was acting up and being "speculative".

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

See what you did there? ...Morphed what she said to cover for Trump's dangerous ignorance

Theresa May NEVER said Trump was incorrect.

She RIGHTLY pointed out that LEAKING information during an investigation is not "helpful".

Just insane that Trump did that.

Immediately after a terrorist attack like in London, the investigators do not want suspects to know they are known or identified and being hunted and go into hiding, destroy evidence and all their accomplices hide or run.

Trump's idiotic tweet helped the terrorist suspects and gave them a heads up.

Trump should have his security clearance revoked. He is dangerously ignorant.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

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.?

Yes, but he is also privy to highly classified information that allies share and apparently has a defective impulse control center.

Publicly letting the suspect know he was identified by UK security forces before they had found him was insanely ignorant.

a reply to: soberbacchus

I beg to differ. There was no secret here to divulge. It did not compromise any ongoing investigation. Putting those 3000 or so people on notice that they are known is important. Keeping all these secrets has not helped anyone by the people committing these atrocities. Can't you folks understand that?

By not proactively addressing the situation when these people come under surveillance, making their lives "very inconvenient" lets them know thy are under scrutiny. Keeping it secret has never helped prevent even one of these acts, now has it?

But, you keep up your daily dose of ignorance, until such time as your family is directly affected. Then I think you will have your eyes opened. I say, why wait....open them now. Do not do be this guy......


If you do, it might just cost you someone you love. Then, it's too late....isn't it?

As president Trump tweeted, "proactive" is the way this should be done.

I don't think Trump actually had any intelligence that this guy was known to the police.

Rather I think he was just spouting off his usual rhetoric and on this occasion he has been found to be right.

Its a bit of pattern anyway with these attacks in the UK, it usually turns out that somewhere along the way the perp was on the radar of the security services or police. Its probably worth remembering though that the investigation is still ongoing and being known to the police is not the same as being known to have terrorist tendencies. It could be that "know to police" means he was know to be a petty shoplifter or something or it could be that he was known to have been identified through PREVENT. Lets wait until we find out more before saying Trump is right and had inside knowledge.

So to me this is Just Trump being Trump, its not really anything I think to get too excited about. I don't think Trumps statements really do anything that would impact on the investigation. The only real problem that it could create is that when it comes to intelligence shearing between allies regarding issues of terrorism then in future other states may not be quite so willing to shear with America for the simple reason that Trump might just star leaking it all over the news.

I am a bit "meh" about this whole thing.

originally posted by: PorteurDeMort

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

I never said that and you know it, I was pointing out that 35,000 was wrong, the number is closer to 3000 individuals who present a terrorist threat to the UK according to the security services.

I did not at any point say that this was acceptable.

I am just pointing out that its wrong to claim there are tens of thousands of terrorists in the UK.

Well done though in putting words into my mouth.....am guessing thats the only way you can make a point, pretend I said something else and then write a respond to the thing you are pretending I said. pretty silly really if you think about......

a reply to: Kandinsky

Yes and no. If the ultimate goal here was to slingshot the UK's possible mishandling into a US change in policy, then Trump's "revelation" makes perfect sense. Sorry the UK is serving as the class dunce, if you will, but 'through constant pained disgrace, a young boy will learn the rules...' The US will hopefully learn from Europe's mistakes and Trump being on the ball here is more likely to make that happen.

as new CCTV emerges appearing to show alleged bomber

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Ive seen that 'footage'.

I also know that SS men were seen around the Reichstag with gerry cans of gas just before it burned.

But the next day the state paraded a 'perpetrator' before the cameras to justify more police state and pave the road to war.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I don't think Trump actually had any intelligence that this guy was known to the police.

Rather I think he was just spouting off his usual rhetoric and on this occasion he has been found to be right.

US Intelligence Agencies would have been near instantaneously briefed and updated by British Intelligece. Coordinated and simultaneous attacks on western targets are common and US embassies, citizens abroad and other targets were in play.

Also, UK Security would immediately ask CIA/NSA for any and all information they had on the suspect.

YES..US Intelligence was notified about the suspect, YES the President was near immediately briefed and made aware that the UK had identified the suspect and that US Intelligence was assisting the investigation in every way possible.

originally posted by: intrptr

as new CCTV emerges appearing to show alleged bomber

Ive seen that 'footage'.

I also know that SS men were seen around the Reichstag with gerry cans of gas just before it burned.

But the next day the state paraded a 'perpetrator' before the cameras to justify more police state and pave the road to war.

What is the source of that quote, if I may ask? I would like to read more on that aspect.
Thanks