# Fatalities & many injured after two explosions in Manchester Arena at the end of Ariana Grande show



## Ooh-Rah (May 22, 2017)

Hmmm....this is just breaking, but stay tuned:

Concertgoers killed after explosions at Manchester Arena | Daily Mail Online

Ariana Grande Concert Ends in Emergency Evacuation After Explosions Reported


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 22, 2017)

Like wtf bombs an Ariana Grande concert.  Geeze.  Hope the Met gets after the perps.


----------



## RackMaster (May 22, 2017)

19 dead and 50 injured so far.  The blast was outside of the box office.

Deaths at Ariana Grande gig as police treat blast as possible terror attack


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 22, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> 19 dead and 50 injured so far.  The blast was outside of the box office.
> 
> Deaths at Ariana Grande gig as police treat blast as possible terror attack



Jesus. 

I mentioned the Netflix series Fauda, in the TV thread.  That these types of things do not happen more often is always a genuine surprise to me.


----------



## Kraut783 (May 22, 2017)

Damn.....rest in peace to the victims.


----------



## Grunt (May 22, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Like wtf bombs an Ariana Grande concert.  Geeze.  Hope the Met gets after the perps.



Cowards who can't seem to fight like men and target innocent victims who are mostly kids and young people. They can't and won't be reasoned with. People need to understand that those types will only be stopped by physical intervention.

Rest In Peace to the fallen and prayers out for the injured!


----------



## CDG (May 22, 2017)

RIP to those killed.  I won't be surprised at all if this is another ISIS lone wolf, or possibly a small independent cell pledging ISIS allegiance.


----------



## Gunz (May 22, 2017)

The UK's been on a Level 4 terror alert lately, meaning an attack is _highly_ probable. And yet somebody still managed to plant a bomb at an incredibly inviting soft-target mass-casualty high-profile opportunity. How does this happen?


----------



## SpitfireV (May 22, 2017)

Because you can't stop everything.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 22, 2017)

This one just seems more fucked upmthsn average. They targeted young girls. That is who goes to these concerts.


----------



## Kraut783 (May 22, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Because you can't stop everything.



It's the new world....nothing will be the same for at least the rest of my life....probably my daughters life too.


----------



## Il Duce (May 22, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Because you can't stop everything.



I'm guessing those alerts are as useful as the DHS' initial color codes were.  So, I'm at purple so I'm looking out - but now I've moved to yellow so I'm at a cat-like state of alertness?  Red means I karate-chop any motherfucker that comes within striking distance?

I think those alerts are law enforcement's version of the Army TRiPS program.  Spend a shit load of money on something useless so you can't be accused of not 'doing something' if an incident happens.  A free society is vulnerable to this sort of thing - it sucks, but it's better than the alternative.


----------



## Kraut783 (May 22, 2017)

yeah, it just a response for the sheep, "look we are doing something"  but the govt knows you can't stop everything and as you said, a free society is vulnerable.


----------



## racing_kitty (May 22, 2017)

Nobody's going to say something about a possible terror attack if they're afraid of getting arrested for being a racist bigot.


----------



## Marine0311 (May 23, 2017)

Rest in Peace to the victims.

Kill all the enemies.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 23, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> Nobody's going to say something about a possible terror attack if they're afraid of getting arrested for being a racist bigot.



I think the demographic is less likely to have people that it would even occur to.


----------



## Gunz (May 23, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Because you can't stop everything.




No you can't but crowd events are prime targets. Thousands in a confined space, families, kids, media presence, lots of terror potential, a lot of bang for the buck. And UK cops and MI5 have been running down leads and kicking in doors the past few weeks so it's not like they've been asleep with their heads on their desks.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 23, 2017)

RIP to the dead, Hope the wounded heal quickly.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 23, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> No you can't but crowd events are prime targets. Thousands in a confined space, families, kids, media presence, lots of terror potential, a lot of bang for the buck. And UK cops and MI5 have been running down leads and kicking in doors the past few weeks so it's not like they've been asleep with their heads on their desks.



Not untrue but it seems to me the person came in *after* the concert and detonated in the foyer. How do you guard against that? It's almost as difficult to stop as a car attack.


----------



## The Pooze (May 23, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Not untrue but it seems to me the person came in *after* the concert and detonated in the foyer. How do you guard against that? It's almost as difficult to stop as a car attack.


Push your perimeter out.  Start screening outside at the front door instead of inside at the lobby to the arena.  Use multiple entrances to limit crowd size outside at security checkpoints?  Many are right though, this type of attack is tough to stop.  The only thing you can do is to have a plan that would limit casualties.  Most of the world wasn't designed with these type of attacks in mind. That makes eliminating the root cause all that more important.


----------



## The Pooze (May 23, 2017)

It's sad a global liberal,left wing, pc, whatever you want to call it, ideology assists or allows pure evil to continue to take innocent lives.  My deepest condolences to those impacted.  My deepest disappointment in those that aid or allow these types of events to continue to happen by way of politics.


----------



## Gunz (May 23, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Not untrue but it seems to me the person came in *after* the concert and detonated in the foyer. How do you guard against that? It's almost as difficult to stop as a car attack.




When the attacker is determined to die, granted, very difficult.

A great deal of money is going to have to be spent to ramp up crowd management and security at these type of events, barriers, crowd disbursement channels or pens, security checkpoints, surveillance cams etc...but still there's never a guarantee.

While this event can't compare in scope to the New Year's Eve celebration in NY's Times Square, the security and crowd management procedures at that event are, IMHO, second-to-none and quite worthy of study. (As they should be in a city that lost 3,000+ on 9/11).

Here's a long but very interesting article from Popular Mechanics:

*How does the world's largest police department balance the security of the spontaneous masses with the freedoms that make us who we are? The counterterrorism cops of the NYPD take us deep inside their extraordinary operation.*

How the NYPD Secures Times Square on New Year's Eve


----------



## Il Duce (May 23, 2017)

The Pooze said:


> It's sad a global liberal,left wing, pc, whatever you want to call it, ideology assists or allows pure evil to continue to take innocent lives.  My deepest condolences to those impacted.  My deepest disappointment in those that aid or allow these types of events to continue to happen by way of politics.



So, liberals and 'pc culture' is what allows terrorism to thrive?  I get that plays well at a Trump rally but that's total bullshit.  Take a look at conservative, repressive regimes the world over - zero terrorism you say, not by a long shot.

I'll be interested to see now that conservatives have their way and leaders shout 'Islamic Terrorism' and 'we're at war with you - you Muslims suck' if terrorism will dry up.  I'm going to go out on a limb and predict nope.


----------



## Topkick (May 23, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> So, liberals and 'pc culture' is what allows terrorism to thrive?



Exclusive: 'Dozens' of Terrorists May Be in US as Refugees

And its not from FOX news!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 23, 2017)

Topkick said:


> And its not from FOX news!



But it is from November 2013.

I only checked the dateline because after the past few years, that particular headline did not exactly surprise me.


----------



## Topkick (May 23, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> But it is from November 2013.



That's the point, in 2013 we had a liberal, PC administration allowing these people into the country. I'll go out on a limb here and say some are still in the country and considering future acts.


----------



## Grunt (May 23, 2017)

I blame it on blanket "tolerance" more than on any one group of so-called liberals or PC lovers. Tolerance has become the all-encompassing "let everyone do what they want because I don't want to hurt their feelings" mantra. 

No...not everyone gets to do what they want! People need to get that!


----------



## Il Duce (May 23, 2017)

Topkick said:


> Exclusive: 'Dozens' of Terrorists May Be in US as Refugees
> 
> And its not from FOX news!



So, four years ago 'terrorists' may have slipped through our immigration vetting system.  No attacks from them so far - though plenty of terrorist attacks in the US since then - but, apparently liberalism and 'PC culture' is what allows people to immigrate to the US, or maybe just forces investigators to do their jobs poorly?  Certainly conservatives rail against immigration constantly but I'm not aware immigration has stopped under the Trump administration - or that investigations are somehow magically more effective?  Let's say the Muslim ban had actually been constitutional and made it through the courts - or does so in the future - does that eliminate the danger of terrorists slipping through, non-terrorists shifting their views to become terrorists, or citizens becoming home-grown terrorists?

People will disagree on policy.  Maybe the conservative position on a host of issues - immigration, religious tolerance, military intervention, diplomacy, policing, etc. - is the better policy for fighting terrorism or a variety of other things.  But, the idea those that don't agree with a specific set of policy prescriptions or worldview somehow love terrorists and abet their operations needs a shit-ton more proof in my book - and that goes across the spectrum.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 23, 2017)

Man fuck these pieces of shit. 

Attacking people trying to enjoy their lives in the freedom they have in their own goddamn country. Fucking savages. 

I'm going to go to a show tomorrow night and enjoy the fuck out of it just to spite these lunatics. 

Attacks like these remind how great it is to live in a free society. That these attacks bring us together, and bring out the best in us is a reminder of how great civilized nations and people are. 

Kudos to the first responders. 

RIP to the fallen.


----------



## Topkick (May 23, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> But, the idea those that don't agree with a specific set of policy prescriptions or worldview somehow love terrorists



I didn't accuse anyone of that!


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 23, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> So, four years ago 'terrorists' may have slipped through our immigration vetting system.  No attacks from them so far - though plenty of terrorist attacks in the US since then - but, apparently liberalism and 'PC culture' is what allows people to immigrate to the US, or maybe just forces investigators to do their jobs poorly?  Certainly conservatives rail against immigration constantly but I'm not aware immigration has stopped under the Trump administration - or that investigations are somehow magically more effective?  Let's say the Muslim ban had actually been constitutional and made it through the courts - or does so in the future - does that eliminate the danger of terrorists slipping through, non-terrorists shifting their views to become terrorists, or citizens becoming home-grown terrorists?


Uh...San Bernardino.


----------



## DocIllinois (May 23, 2017)

More greatest hits from religion, in this case the Religion of Peace.

Such a shame, RIP.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 23, 2017)

Topkick said:


> That's the point, in 2013 we had a liberal, PC administration allowing these people into the country. I'll go out on a limb here and say some are still in the country and considering future acts.



Got it. With just the link and no context I was under the impression you thought that was a recent story.

 That said, I am not prepared to blame the Obama administration for potential terrorists coming into the country.  If we did that, then wouldn't we have to extend that thinking out to the Bush administration and blame him for 9/11 happening on his watch?

 Other than 9/11, both the Bush and Obama administration have done a damn good job of preventing terror on our shores.  The fact that I can sit at an outdoor Starbucks all day, and generally not worry that someone is going to come in and drop a bomb on top of me is a comforting feeling. Not many places throughout the world still have that luxury.

 I cannot be convinced that if "they" were here, we would have significantly more acts of terror within the US than we have now.


----------



## Topkick (May 23, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> That said, I am not prepared to blame the Obama administration for potential terrorists coming into the country. If we did that, then wouldn't we have to extend that thinking out to the Bush administration and blame him for 9/11 happening on his watch?



I am not sure that's completely relative. Prior to 9/11, most were probably not as rigid in our beliefs in regards to immigration. We didn't expect 9/11, so it was not as big an issue before then. However, under Obama, we were well aware of the consequences of not properly vetting people.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 23, 2017)

Topkick said:


> I am not sure that's completely relative. Prior to 9/11, most were probably not as rigid in our beliefs in regards to immigration. We didn't expect 9/11, so it was not as big an issue before then. However, under Obama, we were well aware of the consequences of not properly vetting people.



People are afraid of the last thing. Before 9/11 it was white supremacist bombings(from OKC), and the original WTC.  Terrorism was mostly relegated to our interests overseas. 

To be honest I don't have any fear of a terrorist attack. I worry much more on the daily that one of my nephews will be shot at his school by some bullied nerd, or I will be shot in the hospital I work in by some disgruntled family member or former employee. Statistically that is still a small chance but a much more likely one.


----------



## Topkick (May 23, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> To be honest I don't have any fear of a terrorist attack



At this point, the chance of you or I experiencing a terrorist attack on US soil is probably very slim. However, its the growing ideology and the immigration combined that concerns me.


----------



## Il Duce (May 23, 2017)

Topkick said:


> I didn't accuse anyone of that!



If you think immigration and a philosophy of tolerance contribute to terrorism ok, I don't think that by and large (I think immigration is significantly more complicated in it's relationship to terror than just liberal/conservative policies).  I take issue with the blanket idea liberals or 'PC culture' bears responsibility - I think that's a fucked up thing to put on people.  I think the same thing in saying someone who believes in pro-2nd amendment causes is responsible for school shootings or 'blue lives matter' folks are responsible for minority children murdered/wrongfully shot by law enforcement.

Policy disagreements are very easy to bleed over into condemnations of individual or collective values - and I think that's wrong and dangerous.  @Agoge clarified his statement, and though I don't agree with the view, I accept it's a valid opinion.


----------



## Topkick (May 23, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> If you think immigration and a philosophy of tolerance contribute to terrorism ok, I don't think that by and large (I think immigration is significantly more complicated in it's relationship to terror than just liberal/conservative policies). I take issue with the blanket idea liberals or 'PC culture' bears responsibility - I think that's a fucked up thing to put on people. I think the same thing in saying someone who believes in pro-2nd amendment causes is responsible for school shootings or 'blue lives matter' folks are responsible for minority children murdered/wrongfully shot by law enforcement.
> 
> Policy disagreements are very easy to bleed over into condemnations of individual or collective values - and I think that's wrong and dangerous. @Agoge clarified his statement, and though I don't agree with the view, I accept it's a valid opinion.



Agreed. But when a President is hampered in his efforts to conduct better vetting and the extraction of  _illegal_ immigrants by liberal, PC policy in regards to immigration, then is it not contributing to the problem? This IS a policy disagreement. If one didn't feel that this is part of the problem, wed having nothing to discuss here. This IS NOT calling anyone a Terrorist lover.


----------



## Il Duce (May 23, 2017)

Topkick said:


> Agreed. But when a President is hampered in his efforts to conduct better vetting and the extraction of  _illegal_ immigrants by liberal, PC policy in regards to immigration, then is it not contributing to the problem? This IS a policy disagreement. If one didn't feel that this is part of the problem, wed having nothing to discuss here. This IS NOT calling anyone a Terrorist lover.



Fair enough.  Although, I'm not sure that's a fair characterization of all the opposition to the President's immigration policies.  The courts are ruling on constitutional questions regarding the policies/executive orders - and so far have found them deficient.  Also, I think 'liberal' is a decent description of group(s) of views - I'm not sure 'PC culture' meets a defined enough definition to be a useful descriptor.  It seems to me a lot like who a 'snowflake' is that can't take criticism and wants ideas pre-vetted for them - your definition of who fits the criteria depends an awful lot on where you're standing.


----------



## Gunz (May 23, 2017)

Terrorism isn't anybody's fault but the terrorists. There's nobody to blame but them and their fucking twisted interpretation of their religion. That's it. And they're going to strike no matter what party is in power. 

You can tweak immigration laws, you can pass a few acts that restrict some personal freedoms, but there's a limit to what you can do in a constitutional republic. Regardless, they're going to find a way to hit you. That's what they do. Tactical innovation. You come up with an idea to stop them and they come up with an idea to counter it.


----------



## Topkick (May 23, 2017)

Agree that terrorists are 100 % to blame and they will find a way. But that doesn't mean we open the borders and let them in without making the effort to minimize the damage. This is where the policy disagreement lies.


----------



## Il Duce (May 23, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> Terrorism isn't anybody's fault but the terrorists. There's nobody to blame but them and their fucking twisted interpretation of their religion. That's it. And they're going to strike no matter what party is in power.
> 
> You can tweak immigration laws, you can pass a few acts that restrict some personal freedoms, but there's a limit to what you can do in a constitutional republic. Regardless, they're going to find a way to hit you. That's what they do. Tactical innovation. You come up with an idea to stop them and they come up with an idea to counter it.



I think that also gets at part of the tactical disagreement - even beyond policy prescriptions.  Whenever you harden facilities or take defensive action you're pushing a determined enemy towards softer targets - not making them pack up and go home.  It was something we've experienced in both wars.  A lot of times our increased posture and defensive skills pushed the enemy to new tactics or softer targets (like HN forces).  It doesn't mean don't harden targets and take defensive action - it just means you'll always be ceding the initiative to the enemy in those circumstances.

It's mirrored in my own experience in the intelligence enterprise.  I've often thought it's a better tactic on the intelligence side to collect on and map a target network in greater detail - so when you strike you can do so to cripple it for a longer time, or decrease capability permanently.  But, that means taking the risk of allowing the network or target to operate for some time before you're ready to strike - which can mean casualties that could have been prevented.  My experience has been commanders will not take that risk by and large - and I see where they're coming from.

When I was in the intelligence basic course in 2000 one of the instructors was a British Army MAJ who had been a SGM in intelligence before commissioning.  He spent the majority of his career running HUMINT and what we would call CI sources in Northern Ireland.  Amazing stories from that guy but one of the things he did say was the Army policy then was they would not allow one Soldier to die if they could prevent it.  He had much of the IRA penetrated in his sector but they could never get after the top targets because they had to burn sources (pull them out) for every planned attack on a British outpost.  But, in fairness, he did say the civilian intelligence agencies didn't necessarily have the same ROE.


----------



## Topkick (May 23, 2017)

Agreed. I was deployed early in the war on terror. At the time we hadn't learned yet that conventional armor/ infantry tactics where not the answer. We continuously increased our posture and continuously paid for it. A lesson which should have been learned from previous experiences in Guerilla warfare.


----------



## Muppet (May 23, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> People are afraid of the last thing. Before 9/11 it was white supremacist bombings(from OKC), and the original WTC.  Terrorism was mostly relegated to our interests overseas.
> 
> To be honest I don't have any fear of a terrorist attack. I worry much more on the daily that one of my nephews will be shot at his school by some bullied nerd, or I will be shot in the hospital I work in by some disgruntled family member or former employee. Statistically that is still a small chance but a much more likely one.



Agreed so much. The dick head dope slinger popping rounds on the block, the car jacker, the dope fiend looking for an easy target for a few dime bags, worries me more than some terrorist but with that said, I have no doubt something big will happen.

M.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 24, 2017)

Well I suppose it's all contextual isn't it? I would be less worried about a terrorist attack and then a stampede at a large public event than I would be a couple of drunk idiots picking a fight but I might be more worried at a government function about terrorists, potentially. It's all context.

When I say worry I really mean think about.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 24, 2017)

This is some wack shit: Tolerant Fellow on Twitter


----------



## CQB (May 24, 2017)

Terrorists set the time & place. This is a new one, on exit. Searching the punters  as go they in = threat diminished. On the way out = ??  

There's almost never a lone wolf, there's always a network, it's a bit of a misnomer.


----------



## racing_kitty (May 24, 2017)

Didn't Bader Meinhoff target exiting crowds back when they were a thing?


----------



## Gunz (May 24, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> Didn't Bader Meinhoff target exiting crowds back when they were a thing?



I'd almost forgotten about that gang of degenerate Maoist shitheads, AKA, _The Red Army Faction_. I don't recall their modus operandi but they hated cops, capitalists and US military bases. Now that you brought them up, I don't remember them being nearly as proficient at mass casualty attacks as our Jihadists. 

The IRA is another splendid example and it struck me that they also set off a pretty big bomb--in Manchester, no less--in the mid-90s.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (May 24, 2017)

.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 24, 2017)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I think to cancel an entire world tour by the performer was a mistake, and put a win up on the coward's side of the scoreboard. The tour should go on in honor of those lost in this bombing. That's my $.02.



I agree, to a point.  Grande is just a 22 year old disney girl...I imagine she is absolutely devastated that this happened at one of her shows, and don't see her as the "don't let the bastards win" type...I thought I had read that she will go back on tour sometime early June, she just wants to take a respectful break.


----------



## DocIllinois (May 24, 2017)

Perhaps her handlers believe continuing the tour is somehow insensitive to the grieving process for the dead.

Or the authorities fear copycat acts.  Or Ms. Grande is still too shaken to perform.

I agree with maintaining intestinal fortitude and continuing the
tour.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 24, 2017)

DocIllinois said:


> Or Ms. Grande is still too shaken to perform.



I am convinced it is this.  She has lived an absolutely insulated life and likely never imagined anything could happen to her.


----------



## racing_kitty (May 24, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> The IRA is another splendid example and it struck me that they also set off a pretty big bomb--in Manchester, no less--in the mid-90s.



They did, indeed.  Plus, what organization do you think assisted the jihadis in attaining technical proficiency in the exact art and subtle science that is potion, I mean bomb making.


----------



## DocIllinois (May 24, 2017)

Ariana Grande has offered to pay for the victim's funerals.

A class move, IMO.


----------



## racing_kitty (May 24, 2017)

DocIllinois said:


> Ariana Grande has offered to pay for the victim's funerals.
> 
> A class move, IMO.



Damn.  Growing up is painful.  That's touching, and I'm not being facetious about it.  Class act on her part.


----------



## Topkick (May 24, 2017)

DocIllinois said:


> Ariana Grande has offered to pay for the victim's funerals.
> 
> A class move, IMO.



Indeed a class move! Hopefully she doesn't live out her life feeling any guilt....


----------



## TLDR20 (May 24, 2017)

Has anyone seen the documentary on the Eagles of Death Metal following the Paris attack? Sometimes people need a break. If she wants to cancel her tour that is her prerogative. Hard to go out be happy and shake your ass when you may be super depressed.


----------



## Poccington (May 24, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> The IRA is another splendid example and it struck me that they also set off a pretty big bomb--in Manchester, no less--in the mid-90s.



The IRA called in a warning about 90 minutes before the bomb went off in Manchester, in order to allow civilians to be evacuated from the area. It was an attack aimed at Manchester's infrastructure and executed after the British government excluded Irish Republicans from peace talks a few days previous. 

It's not comparable to some little British raised pissant who was given all the freedoms and liberties we in the West enjoy, who  then deliberately targeted children while he used the excuse of religion to try disguise his own inadequacies. Scum like him will never win, of that much I'm certain.


----------



## Gunz (May 24, 2017)

Poccington said:


> The IRA called in a warning about 90 minutes before the bomb went off in Manchester, in order to allow civilians to be evacuated from the area. It was an attack aimed at Manchester's infrastructure and executed after the British government excluded Irish Republicans from peace talks a few days previous.
> 
> It's not comparable to some little British raised pissant who was given all the freedoms and liberties we in the West enjoy, who  then deliberately targeted children while he used the excuse of religion to try disguise his own inadequacies. Scum like him will never win, of that much I'm certain.



Thanks for the clarification. I remember the incident but didn't recall the circumstances. And I wasn't comparing, just noting that Manchester had been bombed before. Still, I'm not willing to give a pass to any person or militant organization that thinks detonating explosives in cities is a good idea. The IRA is not without innocent blood on its hands.


----------



## Poccington (May 24, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> Thanks for the clarification. I remember the incident but didn't recall the circumstances. And I wasn't comparing, just noting that Manchester had been bombed before. Still, I'm not willing to give a pass to any person or militant organization that thinks detonating explosives in cities is a good idea. The IRA is not without innocent blood on its hands.



I very much agree, just felt that it should be pointed out that both bombings had very different aims and stemmed from two very different situations.

Anyway, good to see British police and military fuck shit up since the bombing. They've been rounding up cunts all day, 7 arrested so far with hopefully more to follow. I don't think we can ever really guarantee stuff like this won't happen in the future but the intelligence and security services are doing stellar work to minimise the threat.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 24, 2017)

The leaks coming out of the US are not helping.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (May 24, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> The leaks coming out of the US are not helping.



Please explain this in depth when you get a chance, just curious...

Thanks!!


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 24, 2017)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Please explain this in depth when you get a chance, just curious...
> 
> Thanks!!


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...chester-arena-bomb-materials-photos.html?_r=2

I'm guessing these were shared with the CIA and FBI...or that MI5 leaked it themselves.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 24, 2017)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Please explain this in depth when you get a chance, just curious...
> 
> Thanks!!



Yeah mate.

Theresa May to tackle Donald Trump over Manchester bombing evidence


----------



## SpitfireV (May 24, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...chester-arena-bomb-materials-photos.html?_r=2
> 
> I'm guessing these were shared with the CIA and FBI...or that MI5 leaked it themselves.



MI5 don't leak.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 24, 2017)

Although, I have to say, it's time the NYT thinks before it presses send.  This shit is getting annoying.


----------



## Kraut783 (May 25, 2017)

Unfortunately, the media does not think of what the consequences could be from publishing information...as long as they are first.

Luckily this information wasn't classified Secret or above, just their version of FOUO or LES.  You can't blast the bulletin on NIPR in this day and age....it's gonna get out.


----------



## Il Duce (May 25, 2017)

I think reputable media - like the NY Times - thinks before they publish.  They just have a very different standard from the government.  I think it's always foolish for governments to want to have it both ways.

If you're the government absolutely do everything you can to find and plug leaks, as well as securing information in the first place.  But, a government who complains or imagines the media should be protecting that information and plugging leaks for them I think that's foolish and counter-productive.


----------



## Topkick (May 25, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> If you're the government absolutely do everything you can to find and plug leaks, as well as securing information in the first place. But, a government who complains or imagines the media should be protecting that information and plugging leaks for them I think that's foolish and counter-productive.



Ahh, the old proactive vs reactive lesson. Agreed!


----------



## Kraut783 (May 25, 2017)

While I agree with your statement about the government angle.  I still believe the media has some responsibility with the information they received and what they do with it.


----------



## Il Duce (May 25, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> While I agree with your statement about the government angle.  I still believe the media has some responsibility with the information they received and what they do with it.



I agree, I think it's just one of those things about perspective.  I think it's the same thing when arguing about a lot of topics.  I think some tension in the way institutions look at things on the whole is good for a functioning republic.  Doesn't mean the best result comes out every time - just that the system has some measure of pressure valves for dissent, speech, and expression.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 26, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I think reputable media - like the NY Times - thinks before they publish.  They just have a very different standard from the government.  I think it's always foolish for governments to want to have it both ways.
> 
> If you're the government absolutely do everything you can to find and plug leaks, as well as securing information in the first place.  But, a government who complains or imagines the media should be protecting that information and plugging leaks for them I think that's foolish and counter-productive.


So publishing photos of an active crime scene totally makes sense, because we live in a click-bait world rather than pausing and saying...hey maybe we should just not do that.  

Also, whoever leaked needs to be prosecuted ASAP.


----------

