UK claims to have foiled 'terrorist' plot against airbase

[Ziggurat]

I know the police don't tend to release details about ongoing investigations, unless they think it will lead to more leads from the public. Why would I want to add to the febrile atmosphere? If the intention was to trigger an incident that could be used to stir up division, why should I play along and be part of it?

Informing the public that it's NOT terrorism would seem to tamp down the "febrile atmosphere", not contribute to it.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Informing the public that it's NOT terrorism would seem to tamp down the "febrile atmosphere", not contribute to it.

Or be called by "patriots" as a false flag.

 

[llwyd]

It probably is different in the USA but this tight lipped approach of the British officials is very familiar in Finland too. They won't release much material or speculate much at all before the actual prosecution and even then many things will be kept under a lid.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Informing the public that it's NOT terrorism would seem to tamp down the "febrile atmosphere", not contribute to it.

This "febrile atmosphere" - this would be people saying stuff, right? And I recall you're unconcerned about that. Like when you dismissed any significance in Trump's reaction because he was just saying stuff.

 

[Ziggurat]

This "febrile atmosphere" - this would be people saying stuff, right? And I recall you're unconcerned about that.

I'm not very concerned about that. But P.J. Denyer is.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Rubio definitely can't find Wiltshire nor Glowsighsesstershooooor on a map, and wouldn't know a bit of oolite if someone hit him in the gob with some.

Marco Rubio is from Miami, and Miami oolite is a thing, so it is entirely possible he was gob-smacked by the stuff at some point in his life. That might help to explain some of the things he says.

But that's just speculation, an unevidenced possibility.

Epistemologically speaking, we rest upon a more solid foundation when we say Rubio's contributions to this (and many other) conversations would improve if a therapeutic dose of oolite were applied to his gob.

Trump told the press they had been watching these terrorists for some time.
Trump declared he would not have let them out on bail.
Rubio covered for his boss by telling the press he was pretty sure there was some nasty foreigners involved somehow, so maybe Trump wasn't just BS'ing after all.

Which sort of makes sense, more sense than many of the things Rubio says. We know Trump doesn't like to let foreigners out on bail, regardless of whether there is any evidence to suggest those foreigners are terrorists. On the other hand, we also know Trump is unlikely to realize US military personnel in England would be foreigners in that country. But Rubio would know that.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'm not very concerned about that. But P.J. Denyer is.

You seem to like projecting concerns onto people.

Indeed, you seem to like asking how can such and such a thing be so? And if anyone ventures to suggest a possible reason, you like to ask them why they are so very concerned about that.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

We know Trump doesn't like to let foreigners out on bail, regardless of whether there is any evidence to suggest those foreigners are terrorists.

We recall that Trump still wanted the Central Park Five executed after the real guilty party had confessed and had his guilt confirmed by DNA evidence. He is not a man to have his opinion changed by mere evidence.

 

[Pixel42]

UK believes Iran involved in RAF Fairford incident, Burnham says

Iran's foreign minister has responded, saying the PM was "barking up the wrong tree".

www.bbc.co.uk

The government believes that Iran played a part in the RAF Fairford incident which resulted in five men being arrested and then bailed, Prime Minister Andy Burnham has said.

"There are strong indications that Iran played a part in what happened over the weekend at RAF Fairford," he told the BBC. He did not provide further details. Tehran has strongly denied any involvement.

 

[Ziggurat]

You seem to like projecting concerns onto people.

What are you talking about? He explicitly voiced that concern. I directly quoted that concern. And I wasn't dismissing that concern, I was pointing out what I think would be the logical step to address that concern.

 

[catsmate]

And what do you imagine the consequences would be of the police announcing that the suspects are not terrorists?

Further hysterical, nonsensical, rubbish from your Rapist-in-chief, his sycophants and right-wing idiots in general.

 

[catsmate]

Informing the public that it's NOT terrorism would seem to tamp down the "febrile atmosphere", not contribute to it.

No it wouldn't.

 

[Ziggurat]

Further hysterical, nonsensical, rubbish from your Rapist-in-chief, his sycophants and right-wing idiots in general.

Explain the logic behind this claim.

 

[Mojo]

They said ridiculous stuff which will make them look increasingly stupid and ignorant as the full story comes out, if our assumptions as to what that story is are correct. If that's what the perpetrators intended, then job done. A rather petty goal, if so, but one achieved far more easily than it should have been.

To the people voting for Nigel Farage: is this really the finger you want on the red button? | Marina Hyde

The Reform leader’s reaction to the RAF Fairford affair is again revealing. If what’s needed is a steady hand and cool head, he’s not the guy, says Guardian columnist Marina Hyde

www.theguardian.com

 

[P.J. Denyer]

You seem to like projecting concerns onto people.

Indeed, you seem to like asking how can such and such a thing be so? And if anyone ventures to suggest a possible reason, you like to ask them why they are so very concerned about that.

^This

 

[Ziggurat]

It's terrible that people are speculating that this might be terrorism, but the last thing police should do is tell people it wasn't terrorism.

Yeah, sorry, I don't get the logic here.

 

[Steve]

It's terrible that people are speculating that this might be terrorism, but the last thing police should do is tell people it wasn't terrorism.

Yeah, sorry, I don't get the logic here.

Why should they tell people something they have not confirmed?

 

[Mojo]

Why should they tell people something they have not confirmed?

Because the Right want to complain about not being informed. Or, alternatively, about being informed.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why should they tell people something they have not confirmed?

We have two possible options:
(1) Police have confirmed that the suspects are not terrorists.
(2) Police have not confirmed that the suspects are not terrorists.

If (1) is true, then my position is that it's reasonable to let them out on bail. In addition, it's my position that the police should announce that they are not terrorists.

If (2) is true, my position is that they should not be released on bail, and the police should not announce that they are not terrorists.

Under both possibilities, police have not done what I think they should do. Under option (1), they have not announced that the suspects are not terrorists even though police have confirmed that they are not terrorists. Under option (2), they have let suspects out on bail despite not confirming that the suspects are not terrorists.

Your response addresses possibility (2), not possibility (1). I have been operating under the assumption that we are dealing with possibility (1), but it seems like you don't share that assumption. So my first question to you is, if option (1) is true, do you have an argument against announcing the suspects are not terrorists, and if so, what is that argument? And my second question to you is, if option (2) is true, do you think they should have been released on bail?

 

[catsmate]

Explain the logic behind this claim.

Seriously?
Have you been paying the slightest attention to the behaviour of the stupid, tantrum prone, spoiled man-child you and you fellow USAians elected president?