[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I'm going to be frank and some people won't like this but if we don't speak frankly, we stagnate and just go round in an endless circle. Let me just start by saying, I think a lot of these 'false flag' suggestions are bollocks. I know people can make a conspiracy out of anything. I remain open minded about the death of Princess Diana and the twin towers. I don't believe those who say they have proof that we never walked on the moon but I do believe Monroe's death was suspicious.

The day before this recent atrocity, a colleague at work suggested there would be a terrorist atrocity before June 8th. I asked why he believed this but he remained tight lipped. When this terrorist attack happened, all I could think about was this colleagues prediction. I asked him about it yesterday and he feels certain it was a government act.

Let me just say, I disagree with him. No government would stoop so low... would they?

His words opened my curiosity though and so last night, I decided to trawl through some political forums that are normally out of my league and see what members from parties other than the Tory party were talking about. It surprised me that people, were being so openly cynical about other possibilities. Was this ISIS or was it a well timed move by, not the government, but those funding the Tory party? The coffers from the middle east who are sending £hundreds of millions to the Tories, who in turn promises unprecedented government support for the fossil fuel industry.

Another thing I picked up on is, to say such things publicly is to be monsterized by the blowhard press. We're simply not allowed to talk about this and anyone who dares to pass comment, will be jumped upon and an apology demanded.

Why?
why can't we talk about these possibilities?

That works both ways- political correctness of one sort or another.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by smudgie

All this false flag bull**** does is take away the blame from the real guilty perpetrators, they must be laughing their ruddy heads off at how they can blow innocents up and then the double whammy is the victims blame each other.

ISIS want the blame for this because it promotes their cause, whatever that is.
Should we allow them to celebrate our grief? Should we not be allowed to ask questions? Should we believe everything fed to us by the press? Should others be shut down from voicing their own concerns?

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

ISIS want the blame for this because it promotes their cause, whatever that is.
Should we allow them to celebrate our grief? Should we not be allowed to ask questions? Should we believe everything fed to us by the press? Should others be shut down from voicing their own concerns?

So, ISIS want the blame, therefore we take the blame away from them....that is some screwed up logic.

[Beso]

We could ask why someone known to the security forces and known to have links with isis as well as regular travel to syria and lybia was left to do as he pleases on the streets of the uk.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by smudgie

So, ISIS want the blame, therefore we take the blame away from them....that is some screwed up logic.

ISIS jump on the back of every terrorist attack. That doesn't mean an ISIS member (as far as we know so far, the bomber was not a member of ISIS) is necessarily responsible for that attack, but they sure want the glory.

I've been saying for a while now, its not only ISIS that radicalise people. There are Muslims who hate ISIS and equally hate the West so just because ISIS always grab the headlines, doesn't make it truth.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by parmnion

We could ask why someone known to the security forces and known to have links with isis as well as regular travel to syria and lybia was left to do as he pleases on the streets of the uk.

He was probably friend of a friend who was an ISIS member.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

That works both ways- political correctness of one sort or another.

Here we go with this term again, do you ever feel that this is a form of state sponsored radicalisation these blanket terms used for anyone who thinks differently to the 'bomb bomb bomb' rhetoric that is advocated with increasing regularity?

[Beso]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

He was probably friend of a friend who was an ISIS member.

Oh yes, probably.

Sorry me bad for insunuating someone willing to blow up 8 yr old girls may be an isis member or have links to the orginisation...sorry.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

He was probably friend of a friend who was an ISIS member.

They know he had links to Isis especially with him travelling to Libya then Syria

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

What is the solution? How can we possibly get ISIS around a table and talk? Most of us balk at that idea, and its hard to see how anything could be achieved even if we did, but if we don't, honestly, what is going to happen? If we don't change our strategy it will keep on and keep on and keep on happening and I, just like you, don't want to see more deaths.

I am simply saying, why are we talking like a broken record that keeps saying the same thing over and over again when this kind of thing keeps happening over and over again, without stopping to look at this seriously?

What could we possibly talk about?

They want the world to become an Islamic caliphate.They want us to drop our western values and convert to Islam.
There really is nothing to discuss.
This is going to carry on whatever we do.All we can do imo is up security and intelligence and stop IS's territory from growing.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

ISIS jump on the back of every terrorist attack. That doesn't mean an ISIS member (as far as we know so far, the bomber was not a member of ISIS) is necessarily responsible for that attack, but they sure want the glory.

I've been saying for a while now, its not only ISIS that radicalise people. There are Muslims who hate ISIS and equally hate the West so just because ISIS always grab the headlines, doesn't make it truth.

I tried to suggest this yesterday withe the Lee Rigby killers example, they were political extremists, we are only given extremism in terms of religion or culture.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Oh yes, probably.

Sorry me bad for insunuating someone willing to blow up 8 yr old girls may be an isis member or have links to the orginisation...sorry.

Well as far as we know, he wasn't an ISIS member so what was he? why, you asked, didn't the authorities take more notice of him? why were they not alarmed enough to follow his footsteps 24/7. You are blaming the athorities, I am saying that they probably had very little on him other than him having some odd connection somewhere down the line.

What's the bolded part about. What does it even mean?

[Northern Monkey]

This guy apparently had connections to "The Libian Islamic Fighting Group" who are "connected to Didsbury mosque" and are a "hotbed for Islamic State".

All from the Daily Politics BBC2 today

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

This guy apparently had connections to "The Libian Islamic Fighting Group" who are "connected to Didsbury mosque" and are a "hotbed for Islamic State".

All from the Daily Politics BBC2 today

Ok, so we have all this information now? or before the atrocity?

If the Didsbury Mosque is a hotbed for IS, why aren't we closing it down?

[Beso]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Well as far as we know, he wasn't an ISIS member so what was he? why, you asked, didn't the authorities take more notice of him? why were they not alarmed enough to follow his footsteps 24/7. You are blaming the athorities, I am saying that they probably had very little on him other than him having some odd connection somewhere down the line.

What's the bolded part about. What does it even mean?

An odd connection..wtf..he had just come back from lybia and without doubt syria 2 days before the attack..he had preached hate towards the west, was known to the authorities and has links to isis...as well as what nm has just added..what more do you want demo? Do we need them to chop of some poor buggers head on video before we act?

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I tried to suggest this yesterday withe the Lee Rigby killers example, they were political extremists, we are only given extremism in terms of religion or culture.

Yes, I saw that and you're right.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Here we go with this term again, do you ever feel that this is a form of state sponsored radicalisation these blanket terms used for anyone who thinks differently to the 'bomb bomb bomb' rhetoric that is advocated with increasing regularity?

State sponsored - nope.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Ok, so we have all this information now? or before the atrocity?

If the Didsbury Mosque is a hotbed for IS, why aren't we closing it down?

I think they meant that this group is a hotbed for IS.Not necessarily the mosque itself

[Northern Monkey]

Possibly could be a terror cell rather than just a lone wolf.
Devices like that apparently are not easy to make successfully.
He could've been mule.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by parmnion

An odd connection..wtf..he had just come back from lybia and without doubt syria 2 days before the attack..he had preached hate towards the west, was known to the authorities and has links to isis...as well as what nm has just added..what more do you want demo? Do we need them to chop of some poor buggers head on video before we act?

For a start, you are reading very different news to what I'm reading. I was aware he'd been to Syria but I've not read that he preached hate towards the West. I know he was known to the authorities, hence my questions.

As for your second comment. Your spitting out of control anger. I'll say again, if the authorities had all this information on him, why weren't they following him? why weren't they questioning him? Why weren't they able to stop this?

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Possibly could be a terror cell rather than just a lone wolf.
Devices like that apparently are not easy to make successfully.
He could've been mule.

I think he was definitely a mule. There's more to this than some lone wolf making a complex explosive in his mums bathroom.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

This guy apparently had connections to "The Libian Islamic Fighting Group" who are "connected to Didsbury mosque" and are a "hotbed for Islamic State".

All from the Daily Politics BBC2 today

It's been mentioned that his father was affiliated with this group as well.
Maybe that was the connection.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by smudgie

It's been mentioned that his father was affiliated with this group as well.
Maybe that was the connection.

It's weird.Apparently his father went back to Libya before the regime change.Strange as this group were anti Gadaffi.Makes no sense he would go back while Gadaffi was still in power.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

For a start, you are reading very different news to what I'm reading. I was aware he'd been to Syria but I've not read that he preached hate towards the West. I know he was known to the authorities, hence my questions.

As for your second comment. Your spitting out of control anger. I'll say again, if the authorities had all this information on him, why weren't they following him? why weren't they questioning him? Why weren't they able to stop this?

Check out his video on this thread to see him spouting hate..and in answer to your question on why the authorities wernt watching him, well thats simple.

Liberal lefty do gooders spouting human rights and racism claims time and time again have made the government wary. Perhaps the labour government of the 90s and noughties have set a president of looking the other way or sweeping stuff under the carpet for fear of the public backlashes.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Check out his video on this thread to see him spouting hate..and in answer to your question on why the authorities wernt watching him, well thats simple.

Liberal lefty do gooders spouting human rights and racism claims time and time again have made the government wary. Perhaps the labour government of the 90s and noughties have set a president of looking the other way or sweeping stuff under the carpet for fear of the public backlashes.

That's right, swing it back to the left. I thought that's where your anger was taking you