It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Trump was right that Scotland Yard knew about terror suspect(s). Now being admitted.

page: 4
63
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: soberbacchus

I beg to differ. There was no secret here to divulge. It did not compromise any ongoing investigation.


The earth is flat.

Just as long as we are living in non-factual world.

BTW Trump's UN Mouthpiece couldn't even deny that what Trump did was insanely ignorant.

The best she could do was offer a child's excuse...He didn't mean to do it! He's just a child!



“Look, the president would not want to do any harm to the investigation – let’s be clear,” Haley said. “There was no ill intent.”

www.latimes.com...

I think we need more Nanny's in the WH beside John Kelly.




posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: intrptr


as new CCTV emerges appearing to show alleged bomber

Ive seen that 'footage'.

I also know that SS men were seen around the Reichstag with gerry cans of gas just before it burned.

But the next day the state paraded a 'perpetrator' before the cameras to justify more police state and pave the road to war.

What is the source of that quote, if I may ask? I would like to read more on that aspect.
Thanks

So you can ridicule?

In the history books. Do your own research.

quick check



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: intrptr


I also know that SS men were seen around the Reichstag with gerry cans of gas just before it burned.

But the next day the state paraded a 'perpetrator' before the cameras to justify more police state and pave the road to war.

What is the source of that quote, if I may ask? I would like to read more on that aspect.
Thanks

So you can ridicule?

In the history books. Do your own research.

quick check





You placed this quote into your post.

as new CCTV emerges appearing to show alleged bomber

So I asked where you got THAT quote from. Not to ridicule. So I can read it. No need to be snarky about it. I asked a perfectly good question.

Way to be condescending.



ETA: Besides, adding a quote to a post should also have a corresponding link to the source. It's only common courtesy let alone ATS norm.


edit on 9/18/2017 by Krakatoa because: Added addiional thought



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Kandinsky

Yes and no. If the ultimate goal here was to slingshot the UK's possible mishandling into a US change in policy, then Trump's "revelation" makes perfect sense. Sorry the UK is serving as the class dunce, if you will, but 'through constant pained disgrace, a young boy will learn the rules...' The US will hopefully learn from Europe's mistakes and Trump being on the ball here is more likely to make that happen.


If that was his intent, then why would he not simply have waited until the suspect was apprehended before disclosing that UK Intelligence knew his identity?

The most generous interpretation of what Trump did was to exploit a terrorist attack on an ally to advance his own proposed polices.

The reality of what he did was to likely use classified intelligence shared by the UK for political purposes in trade for risking giving the terrorist suspect an advantage by making him aware UK Intelligence had identified him and were closing in.

Given the facts, the behavior either demonstrates dangerously low impulse control, frightening ignorance about emerging terrorism investigations or pure sociopathic mentality or some combination thereof.

I lean toward some combination thereof.

It reminds of when he shared highly classified UK intelligence with the Russians in a meeting earlier this year.

His mouthpieces best defense then was ...Well...it aint classified anymore now that he said it.

It also reminds me of his inexcusable attack on the Mayor of London immediately after the concert bombing.

Ignorance? Sociopathy? Sever Impulse Control Deficit?

Alternate explanations have evaporated.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Didn't trump predict the attacks in his book?

It seems like he's the highest profile person out there who cares to warn people or stop terrorist threats from happening.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: gdkknxnqkc
Didn't trump predict the attacks in his book?

It seems like he's the highest profile person out there who cares to warn people or stop terrorist threats from happening.


????

Link please.

You might have Trump confused with Nostradamus.


edit on 18-9-2017 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

Just as long as we are living in non-factual world.

....


And, living in the darkness waiting for those precious government entities to tell YOU the truth is living in a factual world to you? Really?

Wow, talk about living in a non-factual world.

Just because a man you seem to hate makes a statement of commonly known fact (based upon all previous cases to date), something we here state all the time following one of these events, you need to declare it as if the world is flat.


Way to be hyperbolic in your little world based upon belief in the government's honesty and forthright openness with its subjects.




edit on 9/18/2017 by Krakatoa because: spelling



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

He is not president of the UK, thus his loyalties and concerns belong purely within the USA. As a result of that, if he sees a chance to push an agenda (an agenda of protectionism which, IMO, is sorely needed throughout the nonMuslim world) he's going to push that agenda. It may be to the UK's detriment, but if the UK was adopting a smarter, more protective position, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: soberbacchus

He is not president of the UK, thus his loyalties and concerns belong purely within the USA. As a result of that, if he sees a chance to push an agenda


If in publicly disclosing that UK intelligence knew the identity of the bomber, that bomber had successfully fled the UK prior to apprehension and went on to plan an attack in the USA?

If some of the Bombers associates or handlers that would have been otherwise apprehended made use of Trumps disclosure to immediately vacate their apartments and escape and went on to coordinate other attacks on Western targets?

If the UK Intelligence agencies began sharing less and less with US intelligence about terrorist investigations out of just fear that the President of the United States would leak it for perceived political advantage?

Trump very much put's the USA at risk every time he screws over an ally who will less likely to back or assist the USA's GLOBAL terrorist threat.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

That works both ways. The CIA alone accounts for 65% of the global intelligence budget, and if you considered black ops budgets for NSA and all the other alphabet groups, that number skyrockets even higher. I've heard the "Allies will stop sharing intel with the US" threat before... but c'mon, what country is dumb enough to also cut themselves off from the most massive and intrusive data collection, cyber security, and technologically embedded nation on the planet? It's not gonna happen, regardless of how pissed off they get at Trump.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's all political posturing in a lame attempt at saving face.

There was no actionable intel revealed.....period. He said nothing anyone with a brain already knew and could predict without any connections the the intel world.

Sheesh....all this hyperbole over nothing.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I don't think Trump actually had any intelligence that this guy was known to the police.

Rather I think he was just spouting off his usual rhetoric and on this occasion he has been found to be right.



US Intelligence Agencies would have been near instantaneously briefed and updated by British Intelligece. Coordinated and simultaneous attacks on western targets are common and US embassies, citizens abroad and other targets were in play.

Also, UK Security would immediately ask CIA/NSA for any and all information they had on the suspect.

YES..US Intelligence was notified about the suspect, YES the President was near immediately briefed and made aware that the UK had identified the suspect and that US Intelligence was assisting the investigation in every way possible.




Ohhh so you work for British intelligence then and have intimate knowledge of how intelligence is shared???

Trump made a educated guess. And it's not even been confirmed yet he was a known terrotist suspect



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6



Came across this!! Thought it was rather apt, the way things are going!




posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I don't think Trump actually had any intelligence that this guy was known to the police.

Rather I think he was just spouting off his usual rhetoric and on this occasion he has been found to be right.



US Intelligence Agencies would have been near instantaneously briefed and updated by British Intelligece. Coordinated and simultaneous attacks on western targets are common and US embassies, citizens abroad and other targets were in play.

Also, UK Security would immediately ask CIA/NSA for any and all information they had on the suspect.

YES..US Intelligence was notified about the suspect, YES the President was near immediately briefed and made aware that the UK had identified the suspect and that US Intelligence was assisting the investigation in every way possible.




Ohhh so you work for British intelligence then and have intimate knowledge of how intelligence is shared???


US and British Intelligence Services have been closely sharing intelligence for the better part of a century.
Not mysterious.




Trump made a educated guess.


There was nothing "guess" about it and "educated" is not how any objective observer would describe Trumps twitter addiction.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

That's the thing about sharing secret information. It is secret and the recipient of the sharing would not be aware of intelligence withheld.

There is no tit for tat, just the UK sharing less of it's most classified information.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Ok let's assume that while the UK launches a massive terrotist manhunt they decided to take the time to give a foreign state a full briefing on the investigation in its very early stages.

What the hell does it say about trumps nations Security credentials when he then starts blabbering about it all over the news???

Either way his comments make him look like a moron



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: soberbacchus

Ok let's assume that while the UK launches a massive terrotist manhunt they decided to take the time to give a foreign state a full briefing on the investigation in its very early stages.


It is a near certainty. They ask NSA/CIA for anything they have in chatter and anything they have on persons of interest X, Y and Z.

While publicly, UK Intelligence had not shared anything about if a suspect was identified or who (if anyone) they were closing in on, Trump tweeted "These are sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard. Must be proactive!”

In these scenarios, for obvious reasons, authorities don't want suspects to know they are "known" or identified or are being specifically hunted.




What the hell does it say about trumps nations Security credentials when he then starts blabbering about it all over the news???



not sure what this means. can you clarify "trumps nations Security credentials"?



Either way his comments make him look like a moron

Agree



edit on 18-9-2017 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Well at least we can agree he was being a moron.

I personally do not believe that Trump had any kind of knowledge about who Scotland Yard had as a main suspect so early on in the investigation, hell the Home Secretary even that Trumps comments were "pure speculation" and may also said it did not help to speculate on the investigation. Seems like everyone on our side of the pond is saying that Trumps comments, at that time were speculation.

Also I found this which is interesting.




At 6:42 a.m., Mr. Trump tweeted that “sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard” carried out the attack, which injured at least 29 people in the blast and ensuing panic. It was not clear where Mr. Trump got that information, though 23 minutes earlier, “Fox & Friends,” a program he regularly watches, broadcast a report in which a security analyst said he feared that the London police had already known the identity of the attackers.

“Can someone tell Scotland Yard?” asked Brian Kilmeade, one of the hosts of the program.


Then there was also This from the White House



National security adviser H.R. McMaster appeared to try to clean up Trump's comment, telling reporters later on Friday afternoon that Trump was speaking generally about Scotland Yard, and that he was trying to broadly convey that law enforcement is focused on the threat of terrorism.


So they tried to spin it as saying that Trump did not mean that the suspect was in the sights of Scotland Yard but rather Scotland Yard was focused on terrorism in general and not that specific individual.

Additionally Trump made his comments only a few hours after the attacks when the security operation and the investigation had only just started.

So while you may disagree with me on this, which is fine, based on my reading of the situation Trump had not been briefed that the main suspect was known to either MI5 or cO15 and as of writing this post there has yet to be any confirmation that the suspect was known to British counter terrorism authorities.

Again, I have to respectfully disagree with your assertion that Trump had been told by British intelligence that they had this guy in their sights only hours after the attack.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Revolution9

There's around 3000 people on the terror watch list currently.

Each time there's an atrocity, it is revealed the bomber / terrorist or whatever moniker they give, was known to the authorities and on the terror watch list.

The solution to simple...anyone and everyone who is placed on the terror watch list is automatically electronically tagged....simple to keep tabs, track movements and so on.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You sold me on the likelihood that he was speculating vs. having been briefed.

I do maintain that channels to US Intelligence services were immediately opened and US Analysts at NSA/CIA were immediately being queried for any intercepted chatter or human intelligence regarding a London Attack.

But if your timeline is correct, I don't think a suspect would be identified and Trump briefed that early.

And the Fox thing. Trump loves himself some Fox news.

I will note, that whether his source was Fox News or an Intelligence briefing makes little difference in end-user perception of the comment. The President of The United States says the suspect is known, that suspect and associates take evasive measures they would not have under the cover of presumed anonymity.

edit on 18-9-2017 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)







 
63
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join