Guest Sima Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 Where did I say I would kill any intelligence lead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckypierre 0 Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 Where did I say I would kill any intelligence lead? 147508[/snapback] where did I say you said you would? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 You show - again - your ignorance of matters concering security and defence of public safety. The simple fact is - police must act on intelligence received, although I realise you would rather suspected killers would be free, while you wait for the bomb to go off for your conclusive proof. 147478[/snapback] Can't really argue with that tbh 147483[/snapback] That is what they're doing though. Hasnt the chemical bomb raid proven that? Hamza was a loud mouth who was suspected of prior terrorist links. Now if you want to follow Leazes approach the guy wouldnt have been deported as soon as this came to light. Hamza is a mouth piece, someone behind the scenes, who doesnt get his hands dirty. Ive got to assume this wasnt know when he first apllied for asylum. Seeing as Leazes is the one who thinks he knows about security and intelligence I find it strange that you would have policy of killing any intelligence lead by immediately deporting a suspect. I agree entirely that these people should be eventually arrested and/or deported but it makes sense for this to only happen after the security forces feel there is no more intelligence to gain from them being free. The people in charge who know a lot more about his then either you or I and certainly more than Leazes have to make that decision. Its a difficult job but no doubt they'll have to weigh public safety with potential intelligence and the greater good that may do for future public safety. They probably have to make that decision daily. 147494[/snapback] Umm there.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckypierre 0 Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 You show - again - your ignorance of matters concering security and defence of public safety. The simple fact is - police must act on intelligence received, although I realise you would rather suspected killers would be free, while you wait for the bomb to go off for your conclusive proof. 147478[/snapback] Can't really argue with that tbh 147483[/snapback] That is what they're doing though. Hasnt the chemical bomb raid proven that? Hamza was a loud mouth who was suspected of prior terrorist links. Now if you want to follow Leazes approach the guy wouldnt have been deported as soon as this came to light. Hamza is a mouth piece, someone behind the scenes, who doesnt get his hands dirty. Ive got to assume this wasnt know when he first apllied for asylum. Seeing as Leazes is the one who thinks he knows about security and intelligence I find it strange that you would have policy of killing any intelligence lead by immediately deporting a suspect . I agree entirely that these people should be eventually arrested and/or deported but it makes sense for this to only happen after the security forces feel there is no more intelligence to gain from them being free. The people in charge who know a lot more about his then either you or I and certainly more than Leazes have to make that decision. Its a difficult job but no doubt they'll have to weigh public safety with potential intelligence and the greater good that may do for future public safety. They probably have to make that decision daily. 147494[/snapback] Umm there.... 147516[/snapback] A general 'you'. I thought that was obviously aimed at Leazes view on immediately arresting and deporting, especially seeing as the bit in the sentence you didnt bold actually says so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 Ah ok, seen as you quoted my post I thought you meant me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 11, 2006 Author Share Posted June 11, 2006 You show - again - your ignorance of matters concering security and defence of public safety. The simple fact is - police must act on intelligence received, although I realise you would rather suspected killers would be free, while you wait for the bomb to go off for your conclusive proof. 147478[/snapback] Can't really argue with that tbh 147483[/snapback] That is what they're doing though. Hasnt the chemical bomb raid proven that? Hamza was a loud mouth who was suspected of prior terrorist links. Now if you want to follow Leazes approach the guy wouldnt have been deported as soon as this came to light. Hamza is a mouth piece, someone behind the scenes, who doesnt get his hands dirty. Ive got to assume this wasnt know when he first apllied for asylum. Seeing as Leazes is the one who thinks he knows about security and intelligence I find it strange that you would have policy of killing any intelligence lead by immediately deporting a suspect. I agree entirely that these people should be eventually arrested and/or deported but it makes sense for this to only happen after the security forces feel there is no more intelligence to gain from them being free. The people in charge who know a lot more about his then either you or I and certainly more than Leazes have to make that decision. Its a difficult job but no doubt they'll have to weigh public safety with potential intelligence and the greater good that may do for future public safety. They probably have to make that decision daily. 147494[/snapback] Of course I am aware there will be instances when the security services make a decision to allow someone free with bigger fish to fry in mind, while keeping a close surveillance. However, in Hamzas case, I think if this was the original intention - and we don't know if it was or not - because he was undoubtedly free for a long time, and used his mosque to store weapons and train/recruit/preach to potential terrorists, they lacked the necessary power to do it as efficiently as they wanted, or to alternatively detain Hamza. Having said that, you can also accept that they may have let him store weapons so they at least knew where they are. Who knows. Dangerous game though I would say. They wanted to close the mosque for a long time. His sermons disrupted public life in the area. It exposed the need for tighter measures. You can't allow people in the UK to preach hatred on the streets like that. My point was simply to underline that intelligence needs to be acted on, and we have no choice but to trust the people in charge, whichever course of action they decide. They can't get everything right, it's impossible. There is also a Bill going through Parliament at the moment, giving power to extend the time they can hold someone in custody, this confirms they feel their current powers are inadequate, I'm not sure exactly what stage it is at, but they seem to be dragging their feet with it. Thats a very good post BTW. How many successes do you think we don't get to hear about BTW ? I would say, many, and it has to be done that way too to protect their sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratboy 0 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 I'm glad the cunts dead,and as for Hookie we'll see him turn to jelly when we hand him over to the Yanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now