Explosion? UK's Ariana Grande Concert [Archive] - Debate Policy

jimnyc

05-22-2017, 07:10 PM

Here's from NBC too...

--

At Least 20 Killed in Possible Suicide Blast at Manchester Arena Concert Featuring Ariana Grande

At least 20 people were killed and possibly hundreds of others were injured after one or more loud bangs were heard Monday night at an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena in England, multiple law enforcement told NBC News.

Multiple U.S. officials briefed on the investigation so far said preliminary reports indicate that a single explosion took place outside the arena on the southwest side opposite the Manchester Victoria transit station, which is part of the greater arena complex.

The explosion occurred as the concert ended, catching people as they exited.

Law enforcement sources in both Britain and the United States told NBC News that at least 20 people were killed but that the information was preliminary and subject to change.

Greater Manchester Police said only that there were "a number of confirmed fatalities and injuries" as hundreds of fans fled the arena. Emergency crews rushed to the scene after the possible blasts, which were first reported about 10:40 p.m. (5:40 p.m. ET).

Multiple senior U.S. intelligence officials who are monitoring British authorities told NBC News that preliminary reports indicate that a single explosion took place outside the arena on the southwest side opposite the train station. The explosion occurred as the concert ended, catching people as they exited.

U.S. officials said initial reports from the scene indicated that a number of the casualties might have been caused by a stampede of concert-goers.

New York City counterterrorism police said they were monitoring developments.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/deaths-injuries-confirmed-after-explosions-heard-u-k-concert-featuring-n763286

Kathianne

05-22-2017, 07:17 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/may/22/manchester-arena-ariana-grande-concert-explosion-england

<time datetime="2017-05-23T00:16:19.000Z" data-relativeformat="med" class=" js-timestamp" itemprop="datePublished" title="1.16am BST" style="display: inline-block; margin-bottom: 0.375rem;">19s ago</time> (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/may/22/manchester-arena-ariana-grande-concert-explosion-england?page=with:block-59237c76e4b0ca009308f087#block-59237c76e4b0ca009308f087)01:16 (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/may/22/manchester-arena-ariana-grande-concert-explosion-england?page=with:block-59237c76e4b0ca009308f087#block-59237c76e4b0ca009308f087)
Manchester suspected terror incident: what we know so farKevin Rawlinson

Here’s a summary of what we know so far after the incident in Manchester (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/manchester) this evening:

Police have confirmed that at least 19 people have been killed in a suspected terror attack at an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena.
Officers said a further 50 were injured.
One explosion was reported to have hit the foyer of the building at about 10:30pm, British Transport police said.
Manchester Arena said the incident took place “outside the venue in a public space”.
Multiple witnesses said they heard an explosion, with one telling the Guardian the blast shook the building.

Kathianne

05-22-2017, 07:27 PM

Just for clarity, been listening to: 1. left side of stage 2. Side of venue 3. Foyer

Now this, which puts more emphasis on 'initial reports often change.' :

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/may/22/manchester-arena-ariana-grande-concert-explosion-england

<time datetime="2017-05-23T00:24:47.000Z" data-relativeformat="med" class=" js-timestamp" itemprop="datePublished" title="1.24am BST" style="display: inline-block; margin-bottom: 0.375rem;">1m ago</time>01:24 (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/may/22/manchester-arena-ariana-grande-concert-explosion-england?page=with:block-592380e4e4b0ca009308f096#block-592380e4e4b0ca009308f096)
A statement from Manchester (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/manchester) Arena says the incident took place outside the venue – earlier reports had suggested it happened in the foyer. It’s very common for details to be conflicting in the immediate aftermath of an incident like this; we will confirm as soon as we can.
The statement reads:

<svg width="17" height="10" viewBox="0 0 33 20" class="inline-quote__svg inline-icon__svg">
</path></svg>We can confirm there was an incident as people were leaving the Ariana Grande show last night.

The incident took place outside the venue in a public space.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims.

Kathianne

05-22-2017, 07:36 PM

Looking like a suicide bomber:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/22/serious-incident-at-uks-manchester-stadium-during-concert-where-loud-bang-heard.html

Seems he couldn't get into the arena, so waited for people to come out.

Looks like there was a secondary device:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/may/22/manchester-arena-ariana-grande-concert-explosion-england

<time datetime="2017-05-23T00:32:05.000Z" data-relativeformat="med" class=" js-timestamp" itemprop="datePublished" title="1.32am BST" style="display: inline-block; margin-bottom: 0.375rem;">4m ago</time> (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/may/22/manchester-arena-ariana-grande-concert-explosion-england?page=with:block-592382ece4b03ddbc8d5c163#block-592382ece4b03ddbc8d5c163)01:32 (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/may/22/manchester-arena-ariana-grande-concert-explosion-england?page=with:block-592382ece4b03ddbc8d5c163#block-592382ece4b03ddbc8d5c163)
Greater Manchester (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/greater-manchester) police are warning people not to be alarmed as officers carry out a controlled explosion:
<figure class="element element-tweet" data-canonical-url="https://twitter.com/gmpolice/status/866813662505447424" style="margin: 1rem 1.25rem 0.75rem 5rem; position: relative;"><twitterwidget class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" id="twitter-widget-5" data-tweet-id="866813662505447424" style="width: 500px; position: static; visibility: visible; display: block; transform: rotate(0deg); max-width: 100%; min-width: 220px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;">

Follow (https://twitter.com/gmpolice)
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/865097534955438080/LBZYhnu5_normal.jpgG M Police
✔@gmpolice (https://twitter.com/gmpolice)

There will be a controlled explosion in Cathedral gardens shortly if you hearing anything don't be concerned.

</twitterwidget></figure>
5:30 PM - 22 May 2017 (https://twitter.com/gmpolice/status/866813662505447424)

Kathianne

05-22-2017, 07:46 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/may/22/manchester-arena-ariana-grande-concert-explosion-england

Seems hotels and local people are letting children in who've been separated from parents or whose parents haven't been able to locate the kids yet.

Kathianne

05-22-2017, 07:52 PM

More reports that shops have reopened to take in parents/children trying to locate each other. This makes me feel much better.

Now hearing second device was just 'clothing,' that too has to be good news:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/may/22/manchester-arena-ariana-grande-concert-explosion-england

<time datetime="2017-05-23T00:47:29.000Z" data-relativeformat="med" class=" js-timestamp" itemprop="datePublished" title="1.47am BST" style="display: inline-block; margin-bottom: 0.375rem;">2m ago</time>01:47 (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/may/22/manchester-arena-ariana-grande-concert-explosion-england?page=with:block-59238628e4b0ca009308f0b3#block-59238628e4b0ca009308f0b3)
Here’s a video in which it’s possible to hear the controlled explosion carried out by Greater Manchester (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/greater-manchester) police on a suspicious device in Cathedral gardens, just minutes from the arena. Police have since confirmed that the item was abandoned clothing and now not thought to be suspicious.

Kathianne

05-22-2017, 08:48 PM

NBC is reporting that forensic evidence including a body at the point of explosion indicates a suicide bomber.

https://twitter.com/search?q=body+at+manchester&ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Ese arch

Black Diamond

05-22-2017, 09:18 PM

Targeting young girls.

NightTrain

05-22-2017, 09:59 PM

Reports I've read was a suicide bomber in the foyer, with nails as the shrapnel.

Black Diamond

05-23-2017, 01:53 AM

Death toll at 22

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

05-23-2017, 05:44 AM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36912-I-take-my-stand-you/page93

THEY LIKE THE CRAVEN COWARDS AND BLACK-HEARTS THAT THEY ARE, ATTACK THE WEAK AND HELPLESS INNOCENT, UNARMED PEOPLE.
Such will come here soon enough... just after they consolidate more power in Europe and by clever and devious means of infiltration in our government weaken us even more!
obama gave deliberate aid to his brother muslims and placed many in high positions, while using other means to help set up hidden operatives in our cities. All the while being hailed as a great leader, hero and demi-god by the libs/dem morons.-Tyr

Kathianne

05-23-2017, 08:20 AM

It looks like a 'controlled explosion' at the site of apartments raids and arrest of at least one, were likely real deal, as opposed to the bag of clothes last evening:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/may/22/manchester-arena-ariana-grande-concert-explosion-england

<time datetime="2017-05-23T13:15:03.000Z" data-relativeformat="med" class=" js-timestamp" itemprop="datePublished" title="2.15pm BST" style="display: inline-block; margin-bottom: 0.375rem;">4m ago</time> (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/may/22/manchester-arena-ariana-grande-concert-explosion-england?page=with:block-592434efe4b0ca009308f369#block-592434efe4b0ca009308f369)14:15 (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/may/22/manchester-arena-ariana-grande-concert-explosion-england?page=with:block-592434efe4b0ca009308f369#block-592434efe4b0ca009308f369)
It sounds like that that controlled explosion in Fallowfield occured on Elsmore Road. PA has this:
Armed police sealed off Elsmore Road this morning as residents heard a large bang in the street.
Rosemary Ward, 21, said: “They were all running out of the house when a big bomb went off. “That’s obviously what it was because the whole house was shaking. Everyone was panicking. I heard there was 20 people in that one house. It was scary.”
She said: “I’m shaking. I’m just worried about my child.”

Ward added: “It was the bang that shook us up. I started crying and just picked my child up.” She said the police operation was at about 11.30am.

jimnyc

05-23-2017, 10:37 AM

Little girls dead. Less than 10 years old.

Anyone that doesn't want us going after ISIS - fuck you.

Every country in the world needs to get on board, step up the game and step on their throats. Make it so that they would be too damn scared to be a part of their group.

NightTrain

05-23-2017, 11:00 AM

Terrorist identified as Salman Abedi, age 22.

The UK cops nailed a suspected accomplice who reportedly was smiling when arrested.

http://heavy.com/news/2017/05/salman-abedi-manchester-ariana-grande-concert-attack-suspect-name-photos-isis/

How many more civilians will be murdered before the moonbats recognize the danger? I'm beginning to suspect they won't until someone within their small bubble of reality is slaughtered.

jimnyc

05-23-2017, 11:14 AM

Black Diamond

05-23-2017, 11:20 AM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9971&stc=1

NightTrain

05-23-2017, 01:16 PM

Parents immigrated from Libya, displayed Libyan flag outside of their home occasionally, didn't talk to neighbors, mother teaches the Koran & has been out of the country for several months, UK cops had to blast their way into the house.

Expecting a siege, were they?

Drummond

05-23-2017, 03:52 PM

The site of this attack - Manchester, north west England - isn't a stranger to terrorist attacks. Nonetheless, this is the most major such attack they've ever suffered.

Reports say that this ranks as the most major attack the UK has seen on its soil since '7/7' ... the London attack in 2005. This has been totally dominating our domestic news reports since last night (our time, of course).

As has been said ... it was the very young who were deliberately targeted this time.

Characteristically, it's said that Manchester's empathetic community spirit has come to the fore over this. Multiple reports of strangers going out of their way to help traumatised youngsters have been broadcast. Oh, and of course, the BBC has made a point of broadcasting MUSLIM declarations of sympathy .. an 'on message' political aspect of this that the BBC will never fail to push for all they can.

Manchester has recently gained a new Mayor, by the way ... one Andy Burnham, formally a leading figure in the British Labour Party (Socialist opposition to the Conservatives). Though he's not been totally silent -- neither has he appeared at all, yet, from all I've seen, on screen, to deliver any message of his own .. either to Manchester or anyone else.

Kathianne

05-23-2017, 05:10 PM

UK has raised the terror threat there from severe to critical. They've called out the armed forces to assist police for certain venues. PM May said that it seems that they have to consider another attack may be imminent.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/24/uks-terror-threat-level-likely-attack/

Abbey Marie

05-24-2017, 01:38 PM

That photo of the 8 year old victim is killing me.

BoogyMan

05-24-2017, 02:17 PM

Ariana Grande offers to pay for bombing victims funerals. Classy move. (http://wgntv.com/2017/05/24/ariana-grande-offers-to-pay-for-funerals-of-manchester-bombing-victims/)

Kathianne

05-24-2017, 04:34 PM

Ariana Grande offers to pay for bombing victims funerals. Classy move. (http://wgntv.com/2017/05/24/ariana-grande-offers-to-pay-for-funerals-of-manchester-bombing-victims/)

Since I've been following this mostly through the Guardian and Sky News, I've been surprised how often the US media is reporting things not found in these British outlets. Nearly from the start, there's been complaints about leaks, first it was on naming victims, then came NY Times with pics of evidence. Of course Trump is being blamed for this, but it seems pretty obvious this is more likely to have been from intelligence agencies:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/24/theresa-may-to-tackle-donald-trump-over-manchester-bombing-evidence

Theresa May to tackle Donald Trump over Manchester bombing evidence
Prime minister will raise concerns at Nato suA senior Whitehall source said: “These images from inside the American system are clearly distressing to victims, their families and other members of the public. Protests have been lodged at every relevant level between the British authorities and our US counterparts. They are in no doubt about our huge strength of feeling on this issue. It is unacceptable.”

Police chiefs also criticised the leaking of information from the investigation. A National Counter Terrorism Policing spokesperson said: “We greatly value the important relationships we have with our trusted intelligence, law enforcement and security partners around the world.

“When that trust is breached it undermines these relationships, and undermines our investigations and the confidence of victims, witnesses and their families. This damage is even greater when it involves unauthorised disclosure of potential evidence in the middle of a major counter-terrorism investigation.”

The government does not believe the president is directly responsible for the potentially compromising leaks; but May will raise her concerns with him at the Nato summit where she will push for the military alliance to join the coalition against Islamic State.mmit that intelligence leaks from the US have damaged investigation.

Theresa May will confront Donald Trump over the stream of leaks of crucial intelligence about the Manchester bomb attack when she meets the US president at a Nato summit in Brussels on Thursday.

British officials were infuriated on Wednesday when the New York Times published forensic photographs of sophisticated bomb parts that UK authorities fear could complicate the expanding investigation into the lethal blast in which five further arrests have been made in the UK and two more in Libya.

It was the latest of a series of leaks to US journalists that appeared to come from inside the US intelligence community, passing on data that had been shared between the two countries as part of a long-standing security cooperation.

...

Kathianne

05-24-2017, 04:37 PM

It seems this may have been a family affair. 1 son in custody in UK; father and youngest son in custody in Libya. So far it seems that the authorities have scooped up 4 or 5 others, as of late afternoon today:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/05/24/manchester-bomber-salman-abedis-father-was-part-al-qaeda-linked-group-ex-libyan-official-says.html

Manchester bomber Salman Abedi's father and brothers arrested, linked to ISIS, Al QaedaPublished May 24, 2017

Manchester bomber Salman Abedi apparently wasn't the only member of his family to harbor extremist views, as Libyan officials arrested the suicide bomber's father and two brothers and uncovered what investigators called a plot for a new attack.

...

Kathianne

05-24-2017, 04:48 PM

The number of arrests in UK is now up to six men and one woman: 7. ;)

Kathianne

05-24-2017, 08:05 PM

This is whom they are feverishly looking for. They don't 'blow up' the brains.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/manchester-arena-bomb-maker-search-13086027

Manchester Arena bomb maker at large and could strike again

Intelligence services now believe that Salman Abedi who detonated the nail bomb in the foyer of the venue was a ‘mule’ using a device made by someone else

The person who made the bomb that blew up Manchester Arena is still at large and could strike again at any time.

Intelligence services now believe that Salman Abedi who detonated the nail bomb in the foyer of the venue was a ‘mule’ using a device made by someone else.

...

Drummond

05-25-2017, 05:43 AM

Since I've been following this mostly through the Guardian and Sky News, I've been surprised how often the US media is reporting things not found in these British outlets. Nearly from the start, there's been complaints about leaks, first it was on naming victims, then came NY Times with pics of evidence. Of course Trump is being blamed for this, but it seems pretty obvious this is more likely to have been from intelligence agencies:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/24/theresa-may-to-tackle-donald-trump-over-manchester-bombing-evidence

Leaking of intelligence by American media is currently a big news item in the UK. Considerable anger over this is now reported. The latest on this says that release of information from our people has now stopped. Theresa May will indeed be raising the issue with President Trump .. no doubt assertively ...

http://conservativecircle.org/forums/topic/uk-slams-us-for-irritating-leaks-on-manchester-terror-attack/

U.K. home minister warned the United States on Wednesday for leaking information regarding the terror attack in Manchester, England, and made it clear “it shouldn’t happen again.”

“The British police have been very clear they want to control the flow of information in order to protect operational integrity – the element of surprise – so it is irritating if it gets released from other sources,” Home Secretary Amber Rudd said. “And I’ve been very clear with our friends that that should not happen again.”

Rudd told BBC Radio 4’s “Today” show she wouldn’t go as far to say the U.S. compromised the investigation, “but I can say that they are perfectly clear about the situation and it shouldn’t happen again.”

U.S. law enforcement sources leaked details about the attack that took place at an Ariana Grande concert before the British police or officials released it.

Kathianne

05-25-2017, 07:03 AM

Leaking of intelligence by American media is currently a big news item in the UK. Considerable anger over this is now reported. The latest on this says that release of information from our people has now stopped. Theresa May will indeed be raising the issue with President Trump .. no doubt assertively ...

http://conservativecircle.org/forums/topic/uk-slams-us-for-irritating-leaks-on-manchester-terror-attack/

The media is doing what it does, report what is happening. The info coming from UK intel is not going to US politicians, including Trump; it's going to US intel. That is where the leaking is coming from and there's no doubt that is prosecutable. It's proof that there are intel sources working on a political agenda.

Kathianne

05-25-2017, 07:31 AM

Gunny

05-25-2017, 01:12 PM

Leaking of intelligence by American media is currently a big news item in the UK. Considerable anger over this is now reported. The latest on this says that release of information from our people has now stopped. Theresa May will indeed be raising the issue with President Trump .. no doubt assertively ...

http://conservativecircle.org/forums/topic/uk-slams-us-for-irritating-leaks-on-manchester-terror-attack/My contempt for the US media is universally known by anyone paying attention. I consider the US MSM ruthless/unscrupulous, tasteless, bigoted/one-sided, irrational and sensationalists. Not to mention flat-out liars.

HOWEVER ...

WHO leaked any info to the US MSM? Seems far more plausible the leaks have to start in the UK. ESPECIALLY when you know our government is currently practicing McCarthyism over alleged leaks.

Get a name or jury's still out on the original source with me.

Drummond

05-25-2017, 01:28 PM

I've said plenty of times that Trump picked fights with the intel community, he was upset about the leaks that came out in retaliation. While there isn't any excuse for Trump himself to play fast and loose with intel, the onus on the intel community with the breaches on leaking this information from UK sources with US media is worse, as there is no other conclusion for citizens to come to than they don't care about securing information that is needed to protect the US from future dangers.

Something needs to be done and it better happen publicly and immediately. It's not just our allies that need to be reassured.

Something does indeed need to be done. I've just watched the first few minutes of a BBC News broadcast I recorded from a few hours ago. This was the BBC's lead story. Mrs May went on camera to say that intelligence sharing had now stopped ... and she went on to assure the people here that she'd be raising this matter at the highest level (.. meaning, she'd be having some stern words for President Trump).

Regardless of precisely who gets intel, or who precisely leaks it .. I can assure you that on this side of the Pond, any sharing of intel which can subsequently prove compromising (or even has the potential to be such) to any anti-terrorist investigation creates a situation which we simply cannot tolerate.

I don't blame Mrs May for being angry ... I share that anger. This is unacceptable. I want any possibility of a repeat to be dealt with. This cannot happen again.

Drummond

05-25-2017, 01:34 PM

My contempt for the US media is universally known by anyone paying attention. I consider the US MSM ruthless/unscrupulous, tasteless, bigoted/one-sided, irrational and sensationalists. Not to mention flat-out liars.

HOWEVER ...

WHO leaked any info to the US MSM? Seems far more plausible the leaks have to start in the UK. ESPECIALLY when you know our government is currently practicing McCarthyism over alleged leaks.

Get a name or jury's still out on the original source with me.

To the extent that any detail is available for us to know (by the nature of it, it basically won't be ..) .. it's our understanding on this side of the Pond that whatever usual channels of intelligence sharing exist, were utilised in the proper way .. at least, on our side, they were. We have no reason to believe whatever that fault in this comes from ourselves.

Mrs May seems clear on this: something went wrong in AMERICA. She further expects the highest echelons of power in the US to deal with this immediately. Precisely how, or who is involved, is the US's issue, not ours. Ours is to know, and be confident, that no repetition will occur.

Drummond

05-25-2017, 01:50 PM

I appreciate President Trump's determination to get to the bottom of this 'leaks' issue. As reported minutes ago (as I type) ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40048565

US President Donald Trump has said leaks of the investigation into the Manchester Arena attack to American media are "deeply troubling".

They were a "grave threat to our national security", he added, and pledged to get to the bottom of it.

His remarks come after US media published photos from the scene of Monday night's explosion.

Salman Abedi blew himself up after an Ariana Grande concert, killing 22 people and injuring 116.

Mr Trump, who is at a Nato summit in Brussels along with UK Prime Minister Theresa May, said: "These leaks have been going on for a long time."

He pledged to ask the US Department of Justice to launch a review, and "if appropriate, the culprit should be prosecuted".

"There is no relationship we cherish more than the special relationship between the US and the UK," he added.

Gunny

05-25-2017, 02:17 PM

To the extent that any detail is available for us to know (by the nature of it, it basically won't be ..) .. it's our understanding on this side of the Pond that whatever usual channels of intelligence sharing exist, were utilised in the proper way .. at least, on our side, they were. We have no reason to believe whatever that fault in this comes from ourselves.

Mrs May seems clear on this: something went wrong in AMERICA. She further expects the highest echelons of power in the US to deal with this immediately. Precisely how, or who is involved, is the US's issue, not ours. Ours is to know, and be confident, that no repetition will occur.So Ms May's stance is there are no leaks to the media in the UK who can then leak it to us? Anyone can point a finger with no proof. The left does it all the time. Perhaps Ms May out to check her own ship and not running to the media worrying about ours?

And don't get me wrong ... if it turns out someone on this side of the Pond is guilty, I'm ALL FOR frying his/her a$$. I consder the BS tasteless as Hell right out of the chute, REGARDLESS where the info came from.

I just don't think a world leader should be shooting off her mouth without anything more than an assumption.

Kathianne

05-25-2017, 04:03 PM

Gunny

05-25-2017, 04:45 PM

The British know what they shared and with whom. That it's repeatedly made its way onto the pages of various news outlets, including the NYTimes, BEFORE it is known to UK news outlets, make the path quite clear. It's coming from the US intel services by someone.

Without a doubt, it's to bring the administration into as bad a light as possible. The DOJ needs to set up a sting or something.

Okay. Sorry, but no sale. If the leak is a Brit and his/her outlet is American. You're totally fixated on this "leak" junk. There are ALWAYS leaks in EVERY government. And it isn't as easy as you think to catch one. There is no classified material here. There IS a public event, viewable by any and all.

Ms Whats-er-name's sensibilities being violated is NOT a violation of the law. Nor is it a crime.

Drummond

05-25-2017, 04:59 PM

So Ms May's stance is there are no leaks to the media in the UK who can then leak it to us? Anyone can point a finger with no proof. The left does it all the time. Perhaps Ms May out to check her own ship and not running to the media worrying about ours?

And don't get me wrong ... if it turns out someone on this side of the Pond is guilty, I'm ALL FOR frying his/her a$$. I consder the BS tasteless as Hell right out of the chute, REGARDLESS where the info came from.

I just don't think a world leader should be shooting off her mouth without anything more than an assumption.

On your first point ... yes. Mrs May is clear that we, on our side, acted properly. The timeline seems clear enough ... our police shared information to your intelligence people, they - somehow - in turn managed to leak it to your press. It was at this point, after we became aware of the release of material in a US newspaper, that our media became involved, picking up on the AMERICAN leak.

From this link, already posted (which I think has been updated since the last time I quoted from it) ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40048565

... we see ....

Leaks to American media about the investigation into the Manchester Arena attack are "deeply troubling", US President Donald Trump has said.

They were a "grave threat to our national security", he added, and pledged to get to the bottom of them.

US media published photos of evidence from the scene of Monday night's blast.

Earlier, UK police said they had stopped sharing information with the US as a consequence but those ties have now been resumed.
The decision to end the suspension was taken after assurances were received by counter-terrorism officers in the UK.

I'm wondering what there is for Trump to order to be investigated, unless the fault lies with the US ? Doesn't it follow that he's admitted culpability on the American side, to say this and to commit to such an action ?

You say that Mrs May committed herself to just an assumption. How do you conclude that this was all it was ? What's your basis for saying that her charge was itself baseless ?

Gunny

05-25-2017, 05:12 PM

On your first point ... yes. Mrs May is clear that we, on our side, acted properly. The timeline seems clear enough ... our police shared information to your intelligence people, they - somehow - in turn managed to leak it to your press. It was at this point, after we became aware of the release of material in a US newspaper, that our media became involved, picking up on the AMERICAN leak.

From this link, already posted (which I think has been updated since the last time I quoted from it) ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40048565

... we see ....

I'm wondering what there is for Trump to order to be investigated, unless the fault lies with the US ? Doesn't it follow that he's admitted culpability on the American side, to say this and to commit to such an action ?

You say that Mrs May committed herself to just an assumption. How do you conclude that this was all it was ? What's your basis for saying that her charge was itself baseless ?For the same reason your PM shouldn't be so quick to judge, blame us, and not look at YOUR end too. I would think finding the leak, if in fact there is a leak, would be more important than finger pointing.

I'm just remembering there is a difference between legal and ethics. Do I consider it unethical? You betcha. Does that make it illegal? Not necessarily. As a matter of course, I would investigate the legality. I would also reconsider who I release what info to.

Drummond

05-25-2017, 05:14 PM

Okay. Sorry, but no sale. If the leak is a Brit and his/her outlet is American. You're totally fixated on this "leak" junk. There are ALWAYS leaks in EVERY government. And it isn't as easy as you think to catch one. There is no classified material here. There IS a public event, viewable by any and all.

Ms Whats-er-name's sensibilities being violated is NOT a violation of the law. Nor is it a crime.

The UK has no right to expect an ally to treat intelligence material we share with proper consideration for its nature ? If that's so ... you're saying we're wrong to place trust in your own people.

Well, we could do that, I suppose, and act accordingly. Our GCHQ has shared intelligence material it's gathered with your people, for decades ... that goes back to the Soviet era. We're world leaders, in the UK, when it comes to communications interception capability and its analysis. Perhaps we should reconsider that long-standing arrangement.

This isn't just an issue of 'Ms Whats-er-name's sensibilities being violated'. It's way more serious. With a police force trying to control the knowledge of what material it has as evidence of a heinous crime committed, it could compromise that investigation for someone to disseminate detailed information about it outside the control of the investigating officers.

I grant you that PERHAPS our police should never have entrusted that information to American authorities in the first place. Perhaps we are too trusting. Then again .. what if there's something in the methodology used in the attack that bears a similarity to something being investigated, or known about, in the US ? THEN, you'd need to have us share what we know.

But maybe we should be less trusting. Maybe so. I think that would be an enormous shame. But at the end of the day, we have to put our own security concerns first and foremost. Mrs 'Whats-er-name' has every conceivable right to take such a position .. if she finds she must.

Gunny

05-25-2017, 05:40 PM

The UK has no right to expect an ally to treat intelligence material we share with proper consideration for its nature ? If that's so ... you're saying we're wrong to place trust in your own people.

Well, we could do that, I suppose, and act accordingly. Our GCHQ has shared intelligence material it's gathered with your people, for decades ... that goes back to the Soviet era. We're world leaders, in the UK, when it comes to communications interception capability and its analysis. Perhaps we should reconsider that long-standing arrangement.

This isn't just an issue of 'Ms Whats-er-name's sensibilities being violated'. It's way more serious. With a police force trying to control the knowledge of what material it has as evidence of a heinous crime committed, it could compromise that investigation for someone to disseminate detailed information about it outside the control of the investigating officers.

I grant you that PERHAPS our police should never have entrusted that information to American authorities in the first place. Perhaps we are too trusting. Then again .. what if there's something in the methodology used in the attack that bears a similarity to something being investigated, or known about, in the US ? THEN, you'd need to have us share what we know.

But maybe we should be less trusting. Maybe so. I think that would be an enormous shame. But at the end of the day, we have to put our own security concerns first and foremost. Mrs 'Whats-er-name' has every conceivable right to take such a position .. if she finds she must.Not what I said at all. First, security is a separate issue from the the media.

Second, for the 4th or 5th time, where's the evidence that precedes the accusation? I don't want to hear this "because we know" crap from the same people on any give occasion will argue completely the opposite. She has NO right to take such a position without PRESENTING facts. Those work real well for me. He said-she said does not.

And again, WHAT is classified about this? Neither you nor we are endowed with the power to control any-and-everything we want. If it's unclassified, it's unclassified. The public, to include the heathen media, are entitled by Constitutional RIGHT to the information. It doesn't matter whether you or I or your PM or Trump like it.

If it IS classified? Put them in a cell next to Hitlery. I'm in a unique position here because I wouldn't tolerate the behavior, classified or not. Neither however would I go as far as pointing a finger at an entire government for the actions of the few idiots it may or may not employ.

Righteous indignation denied without factual evidence.

Oh, and I would trust someone else to know everything I know NEVER. So let's don't even go the trust route. As I recall, Churchill used every trick in the book to drag the US into WWII. To include withholding information.

Also don't be offended I don't know who your PM is. There is nothing personal meant by my stance, nor in who's running your country.

Drummond

05-25-2017, 06:44 PM

Not what I said at all. First, security is a separate issue from the the media.

They can be separate, or, they can be interwoven. You can have a media outlet broadcasting sensitive material that's deeply damaging to security concerns.

Second, for the 4th or 5th time, where's the evidence that precedes the accusation? I don't want to hear this "because we know" crap from the same people on any give occasion will argue completely the opposite. She has NO right to take such a position without PRESENTING facts. Those work real well for me. He said-she said does not.

What you're really saying is that what our Prime Minister says cannot be trusted unless she supplies chapter and verse as to WHY she says it, first. So tell me, why do you reject the idea of trusting what she says ? Do you not think she has people to brief her ? She has no way of knowing in advance where she stands on an issue ? Greater Manchester police wouldn't have briefed her, or an aide of hers, beforehand ? She will have no concept of the timeline of events before speaking out ??

Does she even have a right to speak knowledgeably about anything, without first explaining herself in the smallest detail beforehand ?? AND ... compromising WHAT data, in the process ... ?

And again, WHAT is classified about this? Neither you nor we are endowed with the power to control any-and-everything we want. If it's unclassified, it's unclassified. The public, to include the heathen media, are entitled by Constitutional RIGHT to the information. It doesn't matter whether you or I or your PM or Trump like it.

Yes, well. John Sopel for the BBC did report that Americans are far more relaxed about secret information than the British are .. he said it was a cultural difference. You seem to be confirming that.

OK .. try this out for size.

Pictures of a device which it was said helped to detonate the bomb had distinctive characteristics. Now ... Manchester's investigations have shown that a 'terrorist network' backed up this terrorist's actions (there have been several subsequent arrests). Question ... this 'network' ... is it just local, or, is it linked to others ? Maybe one or more on US soil ?

Then again ... devices and materials used could be characteristic of specific bomb-makers, couldn't they ? Does it help said bombmaker to know that what does characterise his work is well known among agencies across the world ? What if dissemination of that information causes the bombmaker to change his methods, making him and people associated with him a lot harder to trace ??

What if that spooks people using him for their own purposes ? What if they go to ground, become inactive for a while, and so fail to be traced, when otherwise they COULD have been ??

Thanks to the paper which printed those pictures, a promising line of inquiry could've been compromised and corrupted. And, for what, the so-called 'right to know' ... ? Which gives WHAT terrorists, WHAT advantage that they NEED NOT ENJOY ??

Oh, and I would trust someone else to know everything I know NEVER. So let's don't even go the trust route. As I recall, Churchill used every trick in the book to drag the US into WWII. To include withholding information.

Well, it was in a good cause. The world was much the better off by seeing the US enter the war. Actually, you've given a good defence of where the strategic withholding of information can do a power of good !

We in the UK have long joked about how the US enters wars 'late'. For us, World War One was 1914-1918. World War Two was 1939-1945. What's the US's version of those dates ? We don't enter wars for the fun of it ... we fight them because it's RIGHT to. It was certainly right to defend against Hitler's bombing of us in 1940 ... which we did very largely unaided.

Also don't be offended I don't know who your PM is. There is nothing personal meant by my stance, nor in who's running your country.

I'm sure that's true, and I thank you for that. Nonetheless ... it's my firm belief that the American side of this issue we've been discussing has been unacceptably lax with information we gave them. According to our people, your very culture may have acted against our interests. Sadly ... I think that, maybe, you've done something to confirm the truth of that.

Sensitive material needs to be treated accordingly. Sheer commonsense - to say nothing of peoples' lives !! - may depend on it.

Gunny

05-25-2017, 07:15 PM

They can be separate, or, they can be interwoven. You can have a media outlet broadcasting sensitive material that's deeply damaging to security concerns.

What you're really saying is that what our Prime Minister says cannot be trusted unless she supplies chapter and verse as to WHY she says it, first. So tell me, why do you reject the idea of trusting what she says ? Do you not think she has people to brief her ? She has no way of knowing in advance where she stands on an issue ? Greater Manchester police wouldn't have briefed her, or an aide of hers, beforehand ? She will have no concept of the timeline of events before speaking out ??

Does she even have a right to speak knowledgeably about anything, without first explaining herself in the smallest detail beforehand ?? AND ... compromising WHAT data, in the process ... ?

Yes, well. John Sopel for the BBC did report that Americans are far more relaxed about secret information than the British are .. he said it was a cultural difference. You seem to be confirming that.

OK .. try this out for size.

Pictures of a device which it was said helped to detonate the bomb had distinctive characteristics. Now ... Manchester's investigations have shown that a 'terrorist network' backed up this terrorist's actions (there have been several subsequent arrests). Question ... this 'network' ... is it just local, or, is it linked to others ? Maybe one or more on US soil ?

Then again ... devices and materials used could be characteristic of specific bomb-makers, couldn't they ? Does it help said bombmaker to know that what does characterise his work is well known among agencies across the world ? What if dissemination of that information causes the bombmaker to change his methods, making him and people associated with him a lot harder to trace ??

What if that spooks people using him for their own purposes ? What if they go to ground, become inactive for a while, and so fail to be traced, when otherwise they COULD have been ??

Thanks to the paper which printed those pictures, a promising line of inquiry could've been compromised and corrupted. And, for what, the so-called 'right to know' ... ? Which gives WHAT terrorists, WHAT advantage that they NEED NOT ENJOY ??

Well, it was in a good cause. The world was much the better off by seeing the US enter the war. Actually, you've given a good defence of where the strategic withholding of information can do a power of good !

We in the UK have long joked about how the US enters wars 'late'. For us, World War One was 1914-1918. World War Two was 1939-1945. What's the US's version of those dates ? We don't enter wars for the fun of it ... we fight them because it's RIGHT to. It was certainly right to defend against Hitler's bombing of us in 1940 ... which we did very largely unaided.

I'm sure that's true, and I thank you for that. Nonetheless ... it's my firm belief that the American side of this issue we've been discussing has been unacceptably lax with information we gave them. According to our people, your very culture may have acted against our interests. Sadly ... I think that, maybe, you've done something to confirm the truth of that.

Sensitive material needs to be treated accordingly. Sheer commonsense - to say nothing of peoples' lives !! - may depend on it.That we have different views of what is important and what is not is a given. The price of freedom is chuckleheads get access to more info here than in the UK, and they cry "First Amendment" if they are hampered in any way.

We ARE different people and have different principles. The media doesn't care who they hurt here. As long as they got the scoop first. It gets worse every day as they strive to be the most shocking and sensational. WHy do you think conservatives don't like them? I wouldn't consider putting some of that crap in print out of regard for the families.

As far as a leak? I'm for the investigation and if one is found, and the person in any way, shape or form holds a position of responsibility and was in any way bound to keep their mouths shut ... crucify them.

I'm more concerned that it has devolved into finger pointing instead of finding the person/persons responsible. ESPECIALLY in public by a Head of State. The PM should address her concerns to the President in private and decide on a course of action, not go to the media.

Drummond

05-25-2017, 07:50 PM

H'm. You've said a lot I can agree with in your last post, Gunny.

That we have different views of what is important and what is not is a given. The price of freedom is chuckleheads get access to more info here than in the UK, and they cry "First Amendment" if they are hampered in any way.

Freedom is a precious thing. But, it can be abused. With freedom, comes responsibility. The 'chuckleheads' you refer to presumably have no concept of the importance of what might be termed 'wartime conditions'.

Perhaps Obama would've given you and I an argument about it ... but I would argue that the War on Terror should never have been relaxed for an instant. Whether or not OUR side thinks it's at war .. the terrorist scum who perpetrate atrocities think, in their own minds, that a form of war is ongoing. They won't stop. WE stop, or relax, at our peril, and give the enemy an advantage it need not have.

Wartime conditions are not peacetime conditions. Flows of information are not the same. Information deemed useful to an enemy is NOT disseminated.

We ARE different people and have different principles. The media doesn't care who they hurt here. As long as they got the scoop first. It gets worse every day as they strive to be the most shocking and sensational. WHy do you think conservatives don't like them? I wouldn't consider putting some of that crap in print out of regard for the families.

Our media has been known to be reckless as well, sometimes disreputable. But ... we are heavily regulated, most probably to an extent which your culture would never accept. Our media knows to be careful in what it does. Sometimes it's out of a sense of responsibility, sometimes because they dare not take the consequences of where their actions might lead them.

We have a set procedure here - we have had, for many decades - where the Government can step in and, if they have credible grounds to do so, they can invoke a 'set legal procedure' which has the action of restricting our media from disseminating any story, or any reference to one, deemed deleterious to the public good. [I believe the common term for it is the issuing of a 'D' notice ... it's existed, literally, for a century in our system]

I've just now looked it up. See ....

http://www.serendipity.li/cda/dnot.html

The most institutionalised method of self-censorship is the D Notice system (short for Defence Notices). They are a unique peacetime arrangement of voluntary suppression of certain categories of information on the advice — not orders — of the Government. The system was established in 1912 and continues to this day. The justification for the system, as stated in the official guidelines, is as follows: Hostile intelligence services draw on information from a variety of sources both overt and covert, and by piecing it together can build up a composite picture of a subject. The dissemination of sensitive information can make their task easier and put national security at risk. It can also be of value to terrorist groups who lack the resources to obtain it through their own efforts. For these reasons there are dangers inherent even in the publication of information covered by D Notices which has already appeared elsewhere. It is strongly requested that there should be no elaboration, nor confirmation or denial, of the accuracy of items published elsewhere, without reference to the [D Notice] Secretary.

There are currently eight general [kinds of] D Notices (which, incidentally, used to be secret information themselves, but were made public in 1982):

Defence plans, operational capability, state of readiness and training
Defence equipment
Nuclear weapons and equipment
Radio and radar transmissions
Cyphers and communications
British security and intelligence services
War precautions and civil defence
Photography etc. of defence establishments and installations

This is how we do things, here in the UK. Do I understand that America has no equivalent, or even anything that goes anywhere near to being recognisable as one ?

As far as a leak? I'm for the investigation and if one is found, and the person in any way, shape or form holds a position of responsibility and was in any way bound to keep their mouths shut ... crucify them.

On this, I couldn't agree with you more. :clap::clap:

Note, though, that Trump has spoken of an investigation THERE, in America. I read his words to say that American culpability is a 'given'.

I'm more concerned that it has devolved into finger pointing instead of finding the person/persons responsible. ESPECIALLY in public by a Head of State. The PM should address her concerns to the President in private and decide on a course of action, not go to the media.

I see your point. That we're in an election period, with a General Election due on 8th June, might be a consideration ! Imagine a PM skulking around, in the near-immediate aftermath of a terrorist atrocity, who might just be 'outed' as being secretive behind closed doors rather than totally candid to a newly-grieving community in Manchester.

'D' notices, or recourse to them, are one thing. For a PM to be seen to be sticking up for her people, in an electioneering period, is another. We have a very nasty, unscrupulous, Socialist opposition here. They'd spin this against the PM any way they could. Silence from our PM would, I assure you, be perverted to their own ends.

Gunny

05-25-2017, 08:12 PM

H'm. You've said a lot I can agree with in your last post, Gunny.

Freedom is a precious thing. But, it can be abused. With freedom, comes responsibility. The 'chuckleheads' you refer to presumably have no concept of the importance of what might be termed 'wartime conditions'.

Perhaps Obama would've given you and I an argument about it ... but I would argue that the War on Terror should never have been relaxed for an instant. Whether or not OUR side thinks it's at war .. the terrorist scum who perpetrate atrocities think, in their own minds, that a form of war is ongoing. They won't stop. WE stop, or relax, at our peril, and give the enemy an advantage it need not have.

Wartime conditions are not peacetime conditions. Flows of information are not the same. Information deemed useful to an enemy is NOT disseminated.

Our media has been known to be reckless as well, sometimes disreputable. But ... we are heavily regulated, most probably to an extent which your culture would never accept. Our media knows to be careful in what it does. Sometimes it's out of a sense of responsibility, sometimes because they dare not take the consequences of where their actions might lead them.

We have a set procedure here - we have had, for many decades - where the Government can step in and, if they have credible grounds to do so, they can invoke a 'set legal procedure' which has the action of restricting our media from disseminating any story, or any reference to one, deemed deleterious to the public good. [I believe the common term for it is the issuing of a 'D' notice ... it's existed, literally, for a century in our system]

I've just now looked it up. See ....

http://www.serendipity.li/cda/dnot.html

This is how we do things, here in the UK. Do I understand that America has no equivalent, or even anything that goes anywhere near to being recognisable as one ?

On this, I couldn't agree with you more. :clap::clap:

Note, though, that Trump has spoken of an investigation THERE, in America. I read his words to say that American culpability is a 'given'.

I see your point. That we're in an election period, with a General Election due on 8th June, might be a consideration ! Imagine a PM skulking around, in the near-immediate aftermath of a terrorist atrocity, who might just be 'outed' as being secretive behind closed doors rather than totally candid to a newly-grieving community in Manchester.

'D' notices, or recourse to them, are one thing. For a PM to be seen to be sticking up for her people, in an electioneering period, is another. We have a very nasty, unscrupulous, Socialist opposition here. They'd spin this against the PM any way they could. Silence from our PM would, I assure you, be perverted to their own ends.I don't see any culpability in Trump calling for an investigation here. Where else is he going to call for it? He has no authority over GB nor its media.

I see it as a "we'll do our part" sort of statement.

I'm telling you right now, had I stayed in a full 30 years, it would have been 28. I would have thrown in my retirement papers the second Obama was inaugurated. Matter of fact, I would have chosen his inauguration date as my retirement date. I wouldn't serve under him under ANY circumstance. I'd go start my own war without him first. He was an incompetent President and an incompetent beyond the pale Commander in Chief.

And speaking media .... you notice how the left STILL blames Bush for any and everything, and now Trump, but not one single word about Obama's colossal screw-ups? The left/MSM gave Bill Clinton the same free ride.

Drummond

05-25-2017, 09:40 PM

I don't see any culpability in Trump calling for an investigation here. Where else is he going to call for it? He has no authority over GB nor its media.

I see it as a "we'll do our part" sort of statement.

But, what 'part' would he 'do' .. ?

Your point is well made. Trump has no authority over 'GB nor its media'. EXACTLY. Which means, his calling for an investigation would have no meaning at all, if in fact it was the 'GB' end of this which was at fault. No such investigation could start, much less achieve anything.

So, since he has called for an investigation, he can only be referring to American culpability. This was the point I was trying to make earlier. Trump has, by making that call, declared America's culpability to be accepted fact.

I'm telling you right now, had I stayed in a full 30 years, it would have been 28. I would have thrown in my retirement papers the second Obama was inaugurated. Matter of fact, I would have chosen his inauguration date as my retirement date. I wouldn't serve under him under ANY circumstance. I'd go start my own war without him first. He was an incompetent President and an incompetent beyond the pale Commander in Chief.

I have only one answer to this. Which is .. :clap::clap::clap:

And speaking media .... you notice how the left STILL blames Bush for any and everything, and now Trump, but not one single word about Obama's colossal screw-ups? The left/MSM gave Bill Clinton the same free ride.

Oh, but of course. No Left-leaning media would do anything else. Expecting realism, and reputability, from a Leftist media has about as much likelihood of being seen as a nearby ant becoming a world class expert in quantum physics.

The Left only has respect for truth when it serves them. When it doesn't (which is usual), they fall back on propagandising. What they will never do is accept blame for anything dire any of their number ever does. It'd be like tugging at a loose thread on a pullover, only to then see the whole thing unravel.

Kathianne

05-25-2017, 09:46 PM

To think that GB is leaking to US media takes a bit of reach.

Sometimes the simplest explanation will suffice:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/265805/

CHARLIE MARTIN: Stop the Leaking! Just Stop! (https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/05/25/stop-the-leaking-just-stop/)

This week, the New York Times and other U.S. papers published the name and photograph of the Manchester suicide bomber, as well as detailed explanations of how he avoided security, and photographs of essential components of the bomb itself, and they did so before the bomber’s — yes, I’m consciously not naming the son of a bitch — before the bomber’s network had been rolled up.

Worst of all, it turns out that this information was leaked to the New York Times by a member of the U.S. intelligence community from information shared by the Brits.

Prime Minister Theresa May was quite blunt about it this morning: the U.S. can forget further intelligence sharing on this topic. I expect she was quite firm with President Trump when they met privately later.

This has got to stop.

There are people in positions of trust within the United States government who are leaking very sensitive secrets because they have decided the Trump presidency must be undermined By Any Means Necessary (as they say in Berkeley).

There are people in positions of trust within the United States government leaking sensitive information about the murderers of little children, making it harder to catch them, and to prevent other attacks on other little children.

They are doing it with motivations I simply do not understand.

I cannot conceive of someone who would interfere in the capture of child murderers simply to damage Trump.

Or maybe I can. “By any means necessary,” right? “Got to break a few eggs.”

It’s wrong. It’s evil. It has got to stop.

Because they think that Trump is unfit for the job the voters, their alleged employers, elected him to, they’re demonstrating that they are unfit for the job they currently occupy. These leaks are, remember, criminal, and they’re crimes engaged in for political purposes. It’s a disgrace, and if Trump decides to go scorched-earth on them he’d be well within his rights to do so. And hey, Obama was already spying on journalists and government employees, so it shouldn’t be hard to find the leaker.

Drummond

05-27-2017, 01:54 AM

I believe this finally settles the issue as to where culpability belongs for the leak ..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rex-tillerson-us-manchester-attack-intelligence-leaks-uk-snap-visit-secretary-of-state-photos-salman-a7757746.html

The US government takes full responsibility for the leaked information on the police investigation into the Manchester bombings, Rex Tillerson has said.

The American Secretary of State made a snap visit to the UK after the intelligence dispute between the two countries threatened to escalate into a diplomatic row.

Key details of the investigation into the attack, which killed 22 people, were withheld by investigators in the UK but revealed to American journalists, apparently from US government sources.

Kathianne

05-27-2017, 07:55 AM

I believe this finally settles the issue as to where culpability belongs for the leak ..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rex-tillerson-us-manchester-attack-intelligence-leaks-uk-snap-visit-secretary-of-state-photos-salman-a7757746.html

I never doubted they were leaks, thought so as I was watching US media reporting certain details 'I knew' US police would not be releasing that fast if situations were reversed. It had to be leaks.

I don't think Tillerson or Trump could say any different, their problem though imo, is that the 'leaks' are likely not coming from sources that support them. Best guess would have to be part of US intel services-the big problem is the numbers are vast.

Kathianne

05-27-2017, 07:57 AM

I'd say the 'good news' of the morning is that the terror level has returned to 'Severe,' down from 'Critical.' I don't know that it changes things much, certainly not for the holiday.

CSM

05-27-2017, 09:59 AM

I never doubted they were leaks, thought so as I was watching US media reporting certain details 'I knew' US police would not be releasing that fast if situations were reversed. It had to be leaks.

I don't think Tillerson or Trump could say any different, their problem though imo, is that the 'leaks' are likely not coming from sources that support them. Best guess would have to be part of US intel services-the big problem is the numbers are vast.

It wont be long before we are in the midst of Gestapo/KGB tactics by the US Intel agencies. Report your friends and neighbors now before they report you!

Gunny

05-27-2017, 10:17 AM

But, what 'part' would he 'do' .. ?

Your point is well made. Trump has no authority over 'GB nor its media'. EXACTLY. Which means, his calling for an investigation would have no meaning at all, if in fact it was the 'GB' end of this which was at fault. No such investigation could start, much less achieve anything.

So, since he has called for an investigation, he can only be referring to American culpability. This was the point I was trying to make earlier. Trump has, by making that call, declared America's culpability to be accepted fact.

I have only one answer to this. Which is .. :clap::clap::clap: I don't see it as admitting anything, so save your clapping. I see it as a politician saying what he has to to shut everyone else up.

Oh, but of course. No Left-leaning media would do anything else. Expecting realism, and reputability, from a Leftist media has about as much likelihood of being seen as a nearby ant becoming a world class expert in quantum physics.

The Left only has respect for truth when it serves them. When it doesn't (which is usual), they fall back on propagandising. What they will never do is accept blame for anything dire any of their number ever does. It'd be like tugging at a loose thread on a pullover, only to then see the whole thing unravel.Sorry, I don't see the big conspiracy and I see Trump accepting whatever as political expediency.

First, requesting an investigation admits to nothing. Of course he is going to call for it here. Already said that. Same time, May has ZERO authority to demand one here. Door swings both ways.

For ANYONE on ANY side to blame Trump for the behaviour of the MSM is absurd. Nobody controls them here like they do in Europe. They don't care whose feelings they hurt nor whose lives they ruin so ling as they have a story. But then, the media would have to blame the media for THAT to come out, right? We know what the odds of that happening are.

Kathianne

05-27-2017, 10:31 AM

Sorry, I don't see the big conspiracy and I see Trump accepting whatever as political expediency.

First, requesting an investigation admits to nothing. Of course he is going to call for it here. Already said that. Same time, May has ZERO authority to demand one here. Door swings both ways.

For ANYONE on ANY side to blame Trump for the behaviour of the MSM is absurd. Nobody controls them here like they do in Europe. They don't care whose feelings they hurt nor whose lives they ruin so ling as they have a story. But then, the media would have to blame the media for THAT to come out, right? We know what the odds of that happening are.

The British have to bring their concerns to the President/Sec of State, they do not have any 'control' regarding intel community, other than what is granted by the President to 'confer and share with.' When things go wrong, which was what happened with the US media getting information that would only have come from IC, the complaints have to go to the executive. They did, things didn't stop leaking, so UK stopped sharing intel for most of 1 day. NO ONE was accusing Trump of doing the leaking, it had to have been coming from the IC, though those calls are often heard by many on conference. So nailing the individual(s) is not going to be easy.

What is obvious though is that this is against the administration, not the UK. Having shut down the sharing for a short time, may have been the most efficient way to get them to stop, for now.

Gunny

05-27-2017, 10:40 AM

The British have to bring their concerns to the President/Sec of State, they do not have any 'control' regarding intel community, other than what is granted by the President to 'confer and share with.' When things go wrong, which was what happened with the US media getting information that would only have come from IC, the complaints have to go to the executive. They did, things didn't stop leaking, so UK stopped sharing intel for most of 1 day. NO ONE was accusing Trump of doing the leaking, it had to have been coming from the IC, though those calls are often heard by many on conference. So nailing the individual(s) is not going to be easy.

What is obvious though is that this is against the administration, not the UK. Having shut down the sharing for a short time, may have been the most efficient way to get them to stop, for now.Like I said ... you're just fixated on a "leak", and on digging dirt on Trump.

Interesting that "some" info was released to the media in the US before it was the US, but THAT is a "leak"? What? Did GB call first dibs or something? You release media info to us and it's over. The way it is. Do I think it should be that way? Not even close. But it's ALWAYS been that way. Suddenly it's a big international FUBAR nutroll because Trump is President.

Had a LCPL get busted for carrying classified info in the trunk of his car. HE got court-martialed. His Gunny (not me) did NOT. Even though the Gunny accepted responsibility.

I think the whole incident is just more overblown mudslinging at Trump. You don't have to agree, but I'm calling the witch hunts when I see them just what they are.

Kathianne

05-27-2017, 10:42 AM

Like I said ... you're just fixated on a "leak", and on digging dirt on Trump.

Interesting that "some" info was released to the media in the US before it was the US, but THAT is a "leak"? What? Did GB call first dibs or something? You release media info to us and it's over. The way it is. Do I think it should be that way? Not even close. But it's ALWAYS been that way. Suddenly it's a big international FUBAR nutroll because Trump is President.

Had a LCPL get busted for carrying classified info in the trunk of his car. HE got court-martialed. His Gunny (not me) did NOT. Even though the Gunny accepted responsibility.

I think the whole incident is just more overblown mudslinging at Trump. You don't have to agree, but I'm calling the witch hunts when I see them just what they are.

Sorry Gunny, you are the one seemingly fixated on my posts, causing some sort of short circuit in your comprehending what I'm actually writing, not your preconceived perspective. I've been defending Trump in this mess. Sigh. I'm not placing any blame on him or those close to him. Get your mind set on what is being written.

Kathianne

05-27-2017, 11:21 AM

Arrests now up to 11, charges expected.

Gunny

05-27-2017, 01:07 PM

Sorry Gunny, you are the one seemingly fixated on my posts, causing some sort of short circuit in your comprehending what I'm actually writing, not your preconceived perspective. I've been defending Trump in this mess. Sigh. I'm not placing any blame on him or those close to him. Get your mind set on what is being written.Nah. Small board. Not hard to fund someone fixated on something. Thread after thread on the same topic, threads derailed to that same topic. Easy pattern to pick up.

If you call your posts defending Trump, please don't "defend" ME.:laugh: Otherwise, I'm bored with this constant negativity crap. I could care less about Trump. Yes, I find GREAT humor in the fact he won. Not because he won, but because all the others lost. Watching a bunch of sore losers launch failed witch hunt after failed witch hunt is equally as amusing. To a point.

It's getting old.

Kathianne

05-27-2017, 02:18 PM

Nah. Small board. Not hard to fund someone fixated on something. Thread after thread on the same topic, threads derailed to that same topic. Easy pattern to pick up.

If you call your posts defending Trump, please don't "defend" ME.:laugh: Otherwise, I'm bored with this constant negativity crap. I could care less about Trump. Yes, I find GREAT humor in the fact he won. Not because he won, but because all the others lost. Watching a bunch of sore losers launch failed witch hunt after failed witch hunt is equally as amusing. To a point.

It's getting old.

:laugh2: You used to be much better at deflection.

Drummond

05-28-2017, 11:32 AM

Sorry, I don't see the big conspiracy and I see Trump accepting whatever as political expediency.

First, requesting an investigation admits to nothing. Of course he is going to call for it here. Already said that. Same time, May has ZERO authority to demand one here. Door swings both ways.

For ANYONE on ANY side to blame Trump for the behaviour of the MSM is absurd. Nobody controls them here like they do in Europe. They don't care whose feelings they hurt nor whose lives they ruin so ling as they have a story. But then, the media would have to blame the media for THAT to come out, right? We know what the odds of that happening are.

Trump, to me, has always seemed to be an individual who prefers not to accept compromise for compromise's sake.

I think Trump mentioned an investigation because he knows that, on his side of the Pond, one is both appropriate and necessary.

Theresa May has neither issued such a call nor is working towards one, on our side of the Pond. Why ? Because it would be inappropriate. We have done things correctly over here. Over there, somebody did NOT. This is why an investigation is called for over there, and it isn't, HERE.

I don't think anyone blamed Trump for any of this. Rather, the point is to fine-focus where exactly it lies, then to deal with the culprit(s). I trust Trump to see to it that this happens.