Bombs go off in Manchester.

[Au165]

(05-24-2017, 02:27 PM)Millhouse Wrote: British investigators believe he was part of a network, or at least became a bomber of one. Travelling to Libya a month ago, which is now a hot bed of terrorist camps, doesnt look like coincidence. A ban on Libya, or at the least extra vetting is perfectly fine by me. And that bomb he used looked to be something made by someone that knew what they were doing, not a simple internet bomb. 

Of course this is still early in the investigation as more will come out in the next few days and weeks. But that is what has been reported so far by the Brits.

Not sure what he did there (one theory is visiting family members knowing he was going to die ), but the question is could he have done it without going there? The answer is probably yes. If going to Libya were to get you flagged in the future, would they just meet in another country not flagged? Maybe. As for the bomb itself, he didn't bring the bomb from Libya which means he was able to get supplies and make it in Britain. According to reports the dark web has things like very advanced bomb blueprints and such.

I get that, by I stand by closing of people from coming in doesn't change the fact radicalization of nationals already in the target areas is going to be the easiest and best way to continue attacking countries. No ban can keep out what is already in. The ban to me is a strawman. While it looks like an attempt to do something it doesn't really stop anything.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-24-2017, 02:41 PM)Au165 Wrote: Not sure what he did there (one theory is visiting family members knowing he was going to die ), but the question is could he have done it without going there? The answer is probably yes. If going to Libya were to get you flagged in the future, would they just meet in another country not flagged? Maybe. As for the bomb itself, he didn't bring the bomb from Libya which means he was able to get supplies and make it in Britain. According to reports the dark web has things like very advanced bomb blueprints and such.

I get that, by I stand by closing of people from coming in doesn't change the fact radicalization of nationals already in the target areas is going to be the easiest and best way to continue attacking countries. No ban can keep out what is already in. The ban to me is a strawman. While it looks like an attempt to do something it doesn't really stop anything.

They believe people helped him make the bomb last I read.  

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2017, 02:15 PM)Au165 Wrote: Well you see the context of my comment was pointing out that it being on the ban list really had nothing to do with anything. It was being alluded to that him going to a country on the banned list somehow is conformation that a ban on travel from that country helps in some way.  You see a ban on keeping someone from coming from somewhere only works if they aren't already in the place they wish to travel to. So let's say for instance Britain had Trump's ban. The guy could have simply not gone to Libya and still did the attack...because he was already there.

You don't need to go somewhere to learn how to make a bomb, that information is readily available on the internet. If traveling there would have defeated his plan, I am sure he wouldn't have gone.

As I said there is going to be a conflict between liberties and securities and some will only entertain this if someone fresh off the boat commits a mass attacks and then probably some still will not.

This guy travelled to a country from which a travel ban would have stopped him from returning from. We can argue reasons he went and did he need to go, but the bottom line; in this instance the travel ban would have done exactly what it was designed to do and still some will not see the rational behind such a ban.

[Au165]

(05-24-2017, 03:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This guy travelled to a country from which a travel ban would have stopped him from returning from. We can argue reasons he went and did he need to go, but the bottom line; in this instance the travel ban would have done exactly what it was designed to do and still some will not see the rational behind such a ban.

If he knew going there would disallow him form returning do you think he would have gone? If he was smart enough to pull of the attack he is probably smart enough to know that traveling there would end his objective. As I said, the ban in this case does nothing. Telling someone they can't come back if they go somewhere merely makes them go somewhere else, it doesn't make them give up on doing something bad.

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2017, 03:09 PM)Au165 Wrote: If he knew going there would disallow him form returning do you think he would have gone? If he was smart enough to pull of the attack he is probably smart enough to know that traveling there would end his objective. As I said, the ban in this case does nothing. Telling someone they can't come back if they go somewhere merely makes them go somewhere else, it doesn't make them give up on doing something bad.

Perhaps, just perhaps that is why Trump implemented his without warning. But folks blew a gasket over that one. being as we are speculating. What would have happened if England had imposed a travel ban while this dude was in lybia doing whatever he was doing?

[Vas Deferens]

(05-24-2017, 11:18 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You directly said cutting off funding to Israel would end some of the violence immediately.  I pointed out the logical problems with that statement.  Israel could vanish into thin air tomorrow and the level of violence in that part of the world would be completely unaffected at best.  At worst it would intensify as various powers rush to fill the vacuum.  You'll have to actually explain a bit how my statement; 1.  Implied that you said Israel was the sole cause of of islamic extremism and 2. how I claimed that your statement was anti-Semitic.  

I did neither.

I was merely saying that if the poster I was replying to wanted to stop handing out "free bes to non-citizens'" we could stop handing them to Israel immediately. The plight of the Palestinians has created a vast amount of hatred and anger in the Middle East and is a major talking point for many terrorist organizations. My point is ceasing our support for an apartheid state would invariably help.

To your request, I concede. You didn't call me a anti-Semite it's just the normal line of argument when someone brings this topic up.

[Au165]

(05-24-2017, 03:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps, just perhaps that is why Trump instilled his without warning. But folks blew a gasket over that one. being as we are speculating. What would have happened if England had imposed a travel ban while this dude was in lybia doing whatever he was doing?

If their laws are like the U.S. he would be allowed to return. You can't lose your citizenship without warning.

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2017, 03:17 PM)Au165 Wrote: If their laws are like the U.S. he would be allowed to return. You can't lose your citizenship without warning.

So he could have freely travelled to and from Lybia as long as he was a English citizen? Seems counter to the point you've been making.

[Au165]

(05-24-2017, 03:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So he could have freely travelled to and from Lybia as long as he was a English citizen? Seems counter to the point you've been making.

Huh? You said "what happens if they imposed a ban while he was in Libya". The answer is trying to play the "gotcha" game while he was already there would not work. He would be allowed re entry if he was abroad when it was imposed but would have barred from traveling in the future basically making it moot that it was imposed while he was there.

I have been saying all along the ban, no matter where the guy was when established, wouldn't have mattered. If it was before he traveled he wouldn't have traveled there. If it was while he was there he would have been allowed back in. If it was after then it was too late anyways. Point being a ban on travel has NO IMPACT on terrorists that are citizens of the country they wish to attack.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(05-24-2017, 03:09 PM)Au165 Wrote: If he knew going there would disallow him form returning do you think he would have gone? If he was smart enough to pull of the attack he is probably smart enough to know that traveling there would end his objective. As I said, the ban in this case does nothing. Telling someone they can't come back if they go somewhere merely makes them go somewhere else, it doesn't make them give up on doing something bad.

Speculation is just that, speculation. 

You say the travel ban wouldn't have helped since he's already in Great Britain and could still have committed this act of terrorism.

I say that by him going to Syria, it emboldened him, gave him ideas and the plan. If the travel ban was in place, he would have had to get the plans, ideas or whatever in a different way which could have gotten him caught before he could act. Or, by going and getting stuck in Syria, he would eventually be killed fighting.

Or...he may have changed his mind

Or...he could have accidentally talked with someone who changed his mind

Or...postponed the terrorist attack and wised up

Or...

Or...

Or...

Speculation

But, no amount of speculation will change minds especially in the days of "I'm right, you're wrong".

That's directed at everyone, myself included.

[Au165]

(05-24-2017, 03:40 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Speculation is just that, speculation. 

You say the travel ban wouldn't have helped since he's already in Great Britain and could still have committed this act of terrorism.

I say that by him going to Syria, it emboldened him, gave him ideas and the plan. If the travel ban was in place, he would have had to get the plans, ideas or whatever in a different way which could have gotten him caught before he could act. Or, by going and getting stuck in Syria, he would eventually be killed fighting.

Or...he may have changed his mind

Or...he could have accidentally talked with someone who changed his mind

Or...postponed the terrorist attack and wised up

Or...

Or...

Or...

Speculation

But, no amount of speculation will change minds especially in the days of "I'm right, you're wrong".

That's directed at everyone, myself included.

We are speculating that by blocking travel to these countries it will stop terrorism. There is no proof it will so we probably shouldn't do it then since it's simply speculation right? It literally can be argued on either side for every topic on the board. Not sure where your trying to go with this.

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2017, 03:32 PM)Au165 Wrote: Huh? You said "what happens if they imposed a ban while he was in Libya". The answer is trying to play the "gotcha" game while he was already there would not work. He would be allowed re entry if he was abroad when it was imposed but would have barred from traveling in the future basically making it moot that it was imposed while he was there.

I have been saying all along the ban, no matter where the guy was when established, wouldn't have mattered. If it was before he traveled he wouldn't have traveled there. If it was while he was there he would have been allowed back in. If it was after then it was too late anyways. Point being a ban on travel has NO IMPACT on terrorists that are citizens of the country they wish to attack.

Guess I just don't see your point of he wouldn't have travelled there if the ban was already in place, if being a Citizens of England would not have restricted his movement.

We have no idea what a travel ban new or already in place would have prevented/allowed. What we do know is that this man travelled to and from a country that we had on a banned list just days before he committed an act of mass terror.

You are free to go with it would not have mattered; but keep in mind you are speculating. Just as I would be speculating in saying it would have mattered.

As I have said there is going to come a time when folks must decide between securities and liberties when they are in conflict. Right now liberties are getting the nod.

[Au165]

(05-24-2017, 03:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Guess I just don't see your point of he wouldn't have travelled there if the ban was already in place, if being a Citizens of England would not have restricted his movement.

We have no idea what a travel ban new or already in place would have prevented/allowed. What we do know is that this man travelled to and from a country that we had on a banned list just days before he committed an act of mass terror.

You are free to go with it would not have mattered; but keep in mind you are speculating. Just as I would be speculating in saying it would have mattered.

As I have said there is going to come a time when folks must decide between securities and liberties when they are in conflict. Right now liberties are getting the nod.

No his movement can be restricted if he knows before leaving that traveling there would do such a thing. The issue is it can't be established while one is already somewhere. A law that isn't a law at the time can't be applied retroactively especially when dealing with something like citizenship and basic rights.

You are speculating that traveling to Libya had any impact on the act of terror. You are speculating that the ban would have a positive impact on terrorism as it relates to the U.S.. Your whole argument is built on speculation like every argument when it comes to terrorism.

30k people a year die from guns, but including 9/11 only about 3k people have died from terrorists in the U.S. (2900 were from 9/11 BTW), maybe people should sacrifice their liberties for security? I don't really think this, and I'm not really saying any right should be given up, but it is interesting the way perception works.

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2017, 04:05 PM)Au165 Wrote: Your whole argument is built on speculation like every argument when it comes to terrorism.

Except for the part where he travelled to and from a country days before he committed a mass terror attack that was on Trump's original ban list. It validates those calling for restricted travel to that country; I have no idea how you can refute that with "what if".

[Au165]

(05-24-2017, 04:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Except for the part where he travelled to and from a country days before he committed a mass terror attack that was on Trump's original ban list. It validates those calling for restricted travel to that country; I have no idea how you can refute that with "what if".

It validates nothing. Correlation does not imply causation. You are speculating that the trip to Libya was a requirement to commit the act, which there is no proof it was.

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2017, 04:41 PM)Au165 Wrote: It validates nothing. Correlation does not imply causation. You are speculating that the trip to Libya was a requirement to commit the act, which there is no proof it was.

Valid means to have a sound basis in logic. If you do not think that someone could point to a terrorist travelling to and from a Country on a travel ban list days before they committed an act of mass terror as a reason to validate the assertion then we differ.

Nobody has stated travel was a requirement. Of course we'll have to see more of what comes from his visit before we kick the can down that road. But it does not change to facts of his travels days before he committed the act.

[Au165]

(05-24-2017, 05:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Valid means to have a sound basis in logic. If you do not think that someone could point to a terrorist travelling to and from a Country on a travel ban list days before they committed an act of mass terror as a reason to validate the assertion then we differ.

Nobody has stated travel was a requirement. Of course we'll have to see more of what comes from his visit before we kick the can down that road. But it does not change to facts of his travels days before he committed the act.

The only fact you keep presenting is he traveled. Everything after that is speculation and casual correlation your trying to paint as causation. Other people were on the flight that didn't commit mass murder, so if the correlation of traveling to Libya is somehow causation of a terrorist attack then why haven't they, or anyone on other flights over your choice of time period, not committed attacks? The reason is because the correlation is so loose that it doesn't pass muster.

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2017, 05:17 PM)Au165 Wrote: The only fact you keep presenting is he traveled. Everything after that is speculation and casual correlation your trying to paint as causation. Other people were on the flight that didn't commit mass murder, so if the correlation of traveling to Libya is somehow causation of a terrorist attack then why haven't they, or anyone on other flights over your choice of time period, not committed attacks? The reason is because the correlation is so loose that it doesn't pass muster.

Okey Doke. The fact that he travelled to and from Syria days before he committed a Mass Terror act gives no validity to those that argue for a travel ban to those countries.

We are not going to agree on this, so good day.

[Au165]

(05-24-2017, 05:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Doke. The fact that he travelled to and from Syria days before he committed a Mass Terror act gives no validity to those that argue for a travel ban to those countries.

We are not going to agree on this, so good day.

:andy:

[Belsnickel]

This is remarkable & fairly damning: Manchester Mayor tells CNN we've suspended intel sharing with US specific to #ManchesterBombing

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) May 25, 2017