Can you?

No, I can't - and that's why I tend to be slow and careful in my posts to threads like this.

So much for the "Special Relationship".

The New York Times has published leaked photos and information from the scene of the Manchester suicide bombing. Kurt Volker, the former US permanent representative to NATO, said the leak was "very unfortunate". He told Radio 4: "If you are an allied intelligence service, you are going to think twice about sharing something if you think it could be published in the New York Times."

Now do you " understand " my view of the ohh so " special , special relationship" they " screw " GB over every time and no one can argue against my stance after the as#ewipes did this , that's at the very least " sensitive info " at this stage let alone what about the family's feelings of the dead , injured and missing . Two faced bunch of wa#kers just like your current " pres" !!!!

Your police leak info to a private citizen person whose job is to make money fast and then are upset? Oh that's right, over there all press is run by the government. If you don't want it on the front page don't leak it!

---

I'll sitck with what i posted and I'd say it to your's or any other American's face , Just go " kiss up " with Israel & Mossad and hope they have forgotten bout " paperclips" !!!

---

4t it was Rupert Murdoch , whatever his name he's scum .
I'm sticking with what i said easy as that , just another example of how two faced the American's are !!!

---

Your police leak info to a private citizen person whose job is to make money fast and then are upset? Oh that's right, over there all press is run by the government. If you don't want it on the front page don't leak it!

Apparently all information about terrorists is passed openly and immediately between 'the 5 eyes' and in this case the leak was in the US, not in the UK.

Reports say that at the moment the UK is not sharing any intelligence with the US until this problem is resolved.
Apparently the UK has taken the stance that it will not tolerate the leaking of UK intelligence by the President or anybody else.

---

Reports say that at the moment the UK is not sharing any intelligence with the US until this problem is resolved

+1 !!!!!

---

Wondered when would the media focus on this aspect. I'll put money on that there are many out there whose 1st thought would be "Well it's their choice" as they sit there with a single malt whiskey in one hand & a Havana in the other, all the while discussing the far left, centre left, left, right, centre right, right & all the others in between.

Venturing into hell

Your police leak info to a private citizen person whose job is to make money fast and then are upset? Oh that's right, over there all press is run by the government. If you don't want it on the front page don't leak it!

Apparently all information about terrorists is passed openly and immediately between 'the 5 eyes' and in this case the leak was in the US, not in the UK.

Then you know the name of the person who leaked, otherwise you are just blowing steam.

---

Trump seems embarrassed and so he should be.

Makes a change for the people having to stand with him . ( example the Pope,NATO meeting where the AW* HAD to be center stage )

This picture is not something that any of us thought we would see in peace time Britain. Well think again, it is here and now. Those who think we cannot win should stay within their little islands both literally and emotionally.

Hate to say Chris but the Army was deployed during the Olympics held in London , also they were for the Queens Jubelie celebrations , so it ain't that rarer ocurence here , just this time it's in the media spotlight . The Army are guarding buildings etc , free's up the Police firearm teams to " deal " with situations as they arise and it's just better deployment of their skills .
And it also sends out a certain message to people wanting to " try anything " + reasures the public don't it .
* AW = shortend from " behind wipe "

---

Those who think we cannot win should stay within their little islands both literally and emotionally.

I assume you are not telling me to keep quiet?

"I may not agree with what you say but will defend your right to say it"

Something you have never stood by, hence you leave SETI politics and come here.

It is chilling for me that on the day we see armed soldiers on our streets I and others are told to shut up as this is not a country that believes in free speech..

I say again, we will never beat them this way!

You say we defeated the IRA, no, we negotiated with the IRA and two of their main supporters ended up becoming MP's. Some defeat.

The key here is "negotiated" we sat down and talked to their leaders and tried to find common ground and a way forward.

We cannot negotiate with the so called "IS", Imagine talking to their "leaders".

"What do you want?" - "All of you to submit to our law."

"Is their no other way" - "Yes you all die"

As I said in my earlier post, this reaction is helping the terrorists.

To stop them this way we will have to get used to armed security forces outside every major building in the UK, and at every major event in the UK.

I agree that having armed security forces in Manchester would have prevented the atrocity. But until every single so called "IS" supporter in the UK and Europe is dead or behind bars we must now get used to this.

If we drop or guard, allow the soldiers to return to normal duties, there will be further attacks.

And of course to be effective the armed security forces will have to shoot to kill, you cannot take the risk of just injuring a suicide bomber.

How many IRA attacks were suicide bombers?

Also the IRA suffered huge setbacks if children were killed, they lost backing and support.

These terrorists don't care.

Going down this route we have to become "fortress Britain"

It seems that up to now our intelligence services have been doing a good job preventing this sort of outrage, however the more successful you are the more the enemy learns your ways and tactics, and they change theirs

My main beef with you is that you can't accept that you are on the periphery of mainstream thinking, throughout the country and the world. And you also do not use the time honoured convention of "mod hat off" and "mod hat on". For your information I had a nice letter from Fred this morning within which he clearly states.

The only persons authorized to speak on behalf of SETI@home are the Project Administrators. Anything else, unless explicitly stated by a Project Admin, is the opinion of that individual or individuals.
Don't worry your job is quite safe!

Sorry but I am not a moderator here and never have been, of course I am speaking as an individual, what else did you think?

So you are saying that Jord is not allowed to say here what he thinks about subjects in the news unless his thinking is representative of the mainstream.

Where have I ever stated that I don't except I am in a minority? Strangely I do read the news, I know I am in a minority otherwise I would not have bothered to post here as you are doing a great job defending the current security measures.

I suppose I will have to succumb to your pressures and stop posting unless it agrees with what you perceive as "the correct way a moderator should behave". which is toe the party line and not make waves.

They don't pay me enough to worry about what you think of me.

No I am not and I never have done. All I have reminded you is that firstly, you have views that are seemingly against the rest of the country, HM the Queen, and the leaders of most world countries. You stated that we will not win. You did not state "in this way" which you are doing now.

How is it that whenever you are being taking to task, you state all rather than I?

But that also gives me the right to disagree with you and say why.

You fail to realise that what you state is a two way street

Something you have never stood by, hence you leave SETI politics and come here.

That is an untruth. You know why I left Seti main politics, because I was forced out by a gang of 4 people who didn't like my opinions and wanted to silence them. I chose to come here as a pleasanter haven, only to be followed.

That's not the 1st time you've stated that. What makes me wonder as to why you continue to do so, as we both know that it was just one person & we both know who you named, Who are the other 3?

You have not been told to shut up, don't tell lies. You were advised that your views are out of sync with most everybody else, and that if you were to voice them in real life you might get unwanted attention.

Again with the statement all. Care to back those "facts" up with actual stats?

The Muslim and Islam community have taken much time to come out and say that they do not support the aims of the IS, It is they not us that have the best chance of defeating them from within. In the meantine we simply have to take all precaustions necessary to protect ourselves. That does NOT mean giving up or curtailing our freedoms, that means being more vigilant and aware, whilst carrying on with our daily lives.

Therein lies a major problem. Yes it is nice that they speak out, however that is only because it will look bad if they do not. The one thing they will not do is to report their own to "infidels" & should you look around you, ask questions of them, you will get told that (if they deign to speak to you at all regarding serious issues such as this). That is what needs to be addressed.

My main beef with you is that you can't accept that you are on the periphery of mainstream thinking, throughout the country and the world.

Again with the "everyone" statement. You do not speak for everyone. As for you stating you have a beef? You have had such "beefs" against everyone that disagreed with your views. When you failed to shut them up...

...well, many have now seen the results. At the end of the day you made a rod for your own back. Haven't you consistently stated that you would much rather see kids cloned from a set age? Haven't you consistently run down the young? Yet what do we see? A post to hit on our emotions with regards to an 8 year old girl preceding by a "plea" comment. Hmmm.

Regardless of whatever reason, to see troops on the streets just says one thing. The police have failed in their duties. The world saw 9/11 & 7/7, yet what did our prime minister do while she served as Home Secretary? Cut police numbers.

As one particular poster was reminded at Seti bya mod a short while ago, a post on an internationaly read site is an invitation for critique.

Sadly there are those who dislike being critiqued, even to the extent that a warning from a moderator is seen as a threat.

With such an attitude of which there are many that hold one, how can any security service hope to defeat outsiders when it is at home amongst their own?

Oh stop with the melodramatics please.

And so say all of us. Please drop all the ad hominem sniping - all of you - and talk about grown-up politics instead. I've had a long post about the usefulness of the military / armed police response brewing all morning (on the whole I think it's a bad idea, and would focus the energies of public authorities in the wrong direction): that applies both on the micro scale (armed guards at the entrance to every public space in the western world) and the macro scale (laser guided bombs, cruise missiles, armed drone aircraft in the skies over the Middle East).

I'd give my reasoning, but I don't think anyone's listening: so I'll save my breath and go out for a walk in the sunshine instead.

Oh stop with the melodramatics please.

And so say all of us. Please drop all the ad hominem sniping - all of you - and talk about grown-up politics.

Maybe you should e-mail that comment to the politicians. Hasn't Manchester already been used in the election campaign?

Therein lies a major problem. Yes it is nice that they speak out, however that is only because it will look bad if they do not. The one thing they will not do is to report their own to "infidels" & should you look around you, ask questions of them, you will get told that (if they deign to speak to you at all regarding serious issues such as this). That is what needs to be addressed.

I think that I can judge from that what your views abut Muslims and Islamists are.

Really? Care to tell us all what those views are?

You'd be very very wrong!

@Richard - Am I not allowed to respond to personal attacks?

'Allowed' = free speech. Of course you are.

'Go on and on and on about it' = personal judgement.

I'm out of here, for the rest of the day at least.

! know that you don't like any government from whichever party they maybe, I also know that you dislike any Prime Minister, or indeed any senior government minister. You believe that any politicician is corrupt and has their nose in the trough. In WWII you would be known as a 5th Columnist. Just look at your avatar over at seti.

You ever heard of Winston Churchill or Maggie Thatcher?

Several hours after the bombing a comment was made that had the party concerned disavow the view put forward. Nice grown up politics!

Am I not allowed to respond to personal attacks?

The problem being that you see personal attacks where others are having a discussion, or are trying to have one. Also, as far as I can read back, Bernie didn't attack you. Attacks on Bernie happened, but those posts have mysteriously disappeared. Attacks on you happened, and most of those disappeared as well.

I agree with Richard that the ad hominem attacks should stop. Everyone is allowed to discuss in this thread and they should be able to freely post their opinion, without getting slapped in the face.

I must also note that before you started posting in this thread, Chris, the discussion may have been heated at times, and some people may have had a face to face on standpoints, but the responds were never on the personal level. So perhaps if you can change your posting method and post about the discussion. Instead of about the person (or person's state of mind), or that you feel they have a different opinion than you have. (and therefore need to be silenced in some way).