‘More unarmed police does not stop terrorism. How could it’?

Ever heard of ‘intelligence’? No, probably not.

The black flag example was deliberately ridiculous because this particular terrorist actually did hang a black flag out of the window.

Let me explain how it used to work. There would be a policeman who spotted that young Yusef has started going to that dodgy Mosque not through some anti-terror operation but because he passes him every day. Chatting to his mate Iqbal in the paper shop it turns out he’s stopped doing footie, he’s dumped his girlfriend and started saying weird stuff about women. He’s off to see an uncle he’s never mentioned before in Syria. The day the black flag appears is the day the anti-terror lot get a phone call.

Now, in Manchester no bobby, no chat in the paper shop, no phone call.

Simples. Look, I am not saying this is what did or did not happen here. But I am answering your question.

Sorry. I am not feeling ‘fair’. I am feeling angry. As long as we persist in our idiocy we are f*cked. A senior and experienced policeman warned that police were needed to keep Manchester safe and current levels were not enough. I would rather listen to that testimony than some politician after the event saying it wasn’t their fault. Or one of her supporters saying ‘LOL’ about terrorism because they think that and some Googled statistics about Chinese policing supports an argument.

Especially when that politician was the home secretary responsible and asked by the police for more resources to prevent the very thing that happened.

He was not talking about airport security before boarding a bus. He was talking about a policeman on the estate. One who might notice the black flag.

These facts would been all over the press if it had been the ‘other side’. In fact Corbyn would already have been branded a child killer. Instead we get an ‘assurance’ that police have nothing to do with the prevention of terrorism. What were we thinking, eh? Strong and stable.

That aside, CD, as you very well know the attack on the Palace of Westminster was unsuccessful because it was deemed worth policing.

So what is the ‘affect’ of Labour spending policies you have seen? More schools? More teachers? More hospitals? Nurses? More R & D? Reduced crime, reduced poverty, reduced homelessness? Oh, you mean the crash of the oh-so-productive financial system.

The best analysis of the stupid position were have got ourselves into I have seen so far:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-jeremy-corbyn-opinion-p…

Signing off for a while. Stay strong and stable y’all

Look it up, Ryan. Any of it. Religious sectarianism in the middle ages, forced renunciation, pointy cushions. Have to start somewhere. Just do that before calling anyone else’s approach medieval.

If you think you can get a religious zealot to reconsider the truth of their interpretation of their holy book by just asking them to then you can’t get out much. That is what it has to do with the current situation – or specifically your idea as to how to solve it.

Yes, I was reaching a bit – the BBC are not usually biased. Still stand by the observation that the BBC’s report of the conversation and the actual conversation were not the same in this particular specific case, for whatever reason.

No-one has said ISIS are not bad people. That does not mean we have to join in the war in Syria. Not the same thing.

I am not digressing into ‘who bombed flight 103’ That is a conversation full of nutters and tinfoil hatters that is beneath even this forum.

Also I am not playing ‘My religion is better than your religion’. I am just pointing out the dificulties in your own rather medieval approach.

ISIS in Syria are fighting against a dictator. To join in the fighting would be to side with Assad and Putin who are barrel bombing civilians. No I know it’s no worse, but is messy and wading in there would make it messier. That is why Corbyn (and a lot of people who have actually thought it through) are against doing it. Lessons of history and all that. It really isn’t as simple as the Mail would like you to believe (Stroppy brown people ‘running wild’. Bomb them).

So his father was an activist in the early nineties. Hmm. Do you recall what happened in 1986? Come to that, do you remember Lockerbie?

Think how untennable your ‘solution’ is. Imagine you were suggesting the way forward would be for committed Christians to admit the Bible was wrong – as the starting point in your plan? How would you do that – the rack? Pulling out their fingernails? Brainwashing? What? Come on, think it through.

Foreign policy has added to extremism. I am sorry, but it has.

If you really believe that terrorism is ‘inherent’ to the Qu’ran then there is no hope.

As for the stupidity of the statement that Islam is the ‘root cause’ of terrorism – words fail me. Tell that to the victims of the IRA, or the Tamil Tigers, or Baader Meinhof. I cannot find the source for your cut and pasted “quote”, and I notice it wasn’t referenced. All I can find is Nasreem tweeting “Terrorism can be eliminated only by addressing the root cause of it. Brainwashing children with religion has to stop”. Which is hardly the same thing, is it?

Our policy of blundering into the middle east, using weaponry and then blundering out again has simultaneously angered, militarised and radicalised a lot of people.

If you read what he said not what your comics tell you he said, he was very far from making excuses for anything.

It was that part of the statement about policy now that was the error, as it stimulates the knee jerk. Even though the correct policy to deal with the situation is what a healthy grown-up society would be debating, we are not that.

Research – yes. We agree on something, Ryan!

I am guessing you are post-Thatcher in age? The clue is your statement that “if they can’t afford rented accommodation in X location, don’t work there” is how the ” market is supposed to work”. Supposed by whom?

Work to what end?

What if you were born there? Why is it “supposed” to be the case that you need to become an economic migrant? Market before people – if the people are not wealthy enough to be.. what was your word.. worthwhile people?

No. No-one is planning or wants to ‘do away’ with anyone. Where on earth do you get your information?

Giving someone a council house? No one gives anyone a council house. A council house is available to rent. And that is to workers no less than the unemployed. The unemployed get housing benefit to cover their rent. AS THEY DO NOW – only currently a) it costs more and b) the council don’t get it back. Excuse the caps, yes I am shouting – do you still not get that basic point?

Wouldn’t need council houses if they were ‘beneficial’ people?

What the actual f**k?

Interesting documentary on Radio4 right now.