FU from Charlie !

This is the place for posts that don't fit into any other category.

Moderator: RichardW

Northern_Mike

Re: FU from Charlie !

Post by Northern_Mike » 10 Jan 2015, 15:36

DickieG wrote:
northern_mike wrote:I would like it if they'd be intelligent enough to act on evidence they already have. The two gunmen in the Charlie Hebdo shootings were very well known to police, one had been inside, as had their nutcase Imam who was preaching violence 10 years ago.

Security fail. As was 9/11, and the London bombings. All could have probably been averted if the forces acted on information they had.
Just look at Iraq, Saddam was clearly a brutal dictator but you may bring out the question that maybe that is the only way of controlling the various factions within the country, I'm certainly not saying I agree with him but I do wonder that had he been left in power whether less blood would have been shed
Well. Seeing as the invasion was totally illegal and based on a pack of lies anyway, he should have been left in power. I believe the situation in the region would have still been reasonably stable had be been left alone. He wasn't a pleasant chap, no, but is that any of our business?

Oh, yes, of course it must have been because George W wanted the oil...



Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Northern_Mike

Re: FU from Charlie !

Post by Northern_Mike » 10 Jan 2015, 15:47

DickieG wrote:
northern_mike wrote:I would like it if they'd be intelligent enough to act on evidence they already have. The two gunmen in the Charlie Hebdo shootings were very well known to police, one had been inside, as had their nutcase Imam who was preaching violence 10 years ago.

Security fail. As was 9/11, and the London bombings. All could have probably been averted if the forces acted on information they had.
If only it was that simple, the bare facts are that if security forces acted on all the information they have then hundreds of looneys would need to be interned as far too often they know only too well what the looneys are up to but gathering sufficient evidence to secure a conviction within current legislation is almost impossible.
You know as well as I do that current legislation wasn't in place back in 2001 or 2005 Richard ;-)

It was blindingly obvious from all the information that the CIA and FBI had on the 9/11 gang that something was going to happen. Pretty much every report ever published has said this, it's not hyperbole on my part. The same was said about 7/7.


Security fail - 9/11? Hell yes. Throwing aside all intelligence gathered prior to it for a moment, the authorities let 19 armed men (who were already known to the CIA) get on aeroplanes ffs. If that isn't a security fail, I have no idea what is.

I'm not blaming all this at the door of the police or other authorities. You can't account for nutters, but please don't blame it on legislation when it's blatantly obvious there were, on these two occasions, large failings.

At least they managed to shoot an unarmed electrician in a Streatham tube station.



Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Northern_Mike

Re: FU from Charlie !

Post by Northern_Mike » 10 Jan 2015, 16:00

DickieG wrote: Lib Dems vetoed legislation to allow said security forces to monitor the internet. What on earth are people bothered about unless you have something to hide? Dig as deep as anyone wishes into my background and it wouldn't bother me one bit as I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of.

Personally I'd far sooner give security services the tools they require to do their job properly rather than them having to mince around and later be blamed for a "security failure", you can't have it both ways.
I'm glad they voted against it. It serves no purpose. It's a more convenient way of communicating for sure but.... really? If I wanted to arrange such an attack I'm damn sure I'd not use the Internet, email, SMS or even mobile phone to do it.

The issues around monitoring any sort of private communications are many. What if that information gets out? What if something I did in the past becomes particularly unacceptable in later years? What if my employer finds out I used to do something in the past that goes against their ethos? What if... etc etc. Perhaps them finding out that I spent time in a Brazilian police cell, or that I smoked a joint once or twice might backfire on me...

A private life should be just that. Private. I don't have an issue with them monitoring known nutters... but even then.. are they really nutters? They spent millions keeping Abu Qatada under house arrest and trying to deport him, despite him never being found guilty of a crime here. Then when they do deport him, he's found not guilty of the offences anyway.






Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

User avatar
DickieG
Monaco's youngest playboy
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Nov 2006, 10:15
x 12

Re: FU from Charlie !

Post by DickieG » 10 Jan 2015, 17:25

northern_mike wrote:
DickieG wrote:I'm glad they voted against it. It serves no purpose. It's a more convenient way of communicating for sure but.... really? If I wanted to arrange such an attack I'm damn sure I'd not use the Internet, email, SMS or even mobile phone to do it.
Nice thought Mike but the reality of the situation is that much of the lead up to these attacks are planned using these methods and having had one to one conversations with the guys who try to prevent them I have a different opinion on the benefits of allowing security services to monitor looneys.
northern_mike wrote:You know as well as I do that current legislation wasn't in place back in 2001 or 2005 Richard ;-
I was referring to legislation relevant to the time in question :wink: