Islamist suicide plot to assassinate Prime Minister Theresa May foiled

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Trueman

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: nonspecific

I'm reading again what Grambler said and still don't understand why you had such a reaction, it's like you were mad because the Islamist suicide plot wasn't successful.

I' will not go into it too much as it will just get removed and I will likley get banned for speaking my mind but I tend to find that all these threads just end up as free for alls where instead of talking about the subject in question it's just lots of one liner comments about "sorting them all out" or "kicking them all out" or whatever, pointless other than to allow people to have a quick racist rant under the guise of caring.

Theresa May is pretty much dispised by all as a leader in the UK even her own party know she has made an arse of things so why anyone thinks an attack on her would be a victory is baffling to me even.

The threat of real terror from the IRA years ago means security around her is so high that so an improvised (ie; crappy internet instructions) bomb thrown was never likley to be sucessfull anyway.

I think this is not about the thread, I think you probably had a bad day. I wish I could toss you a nice cold beer.

Not had a bad day buddy but thanks for the concern

I just get irritated about the attention these incidents get.

A couple of deluded kids get radicalised and come up with a terrible plan to commit terrorism and get caught.

Then the authorities release a statement and everyone gets there knickers in a twist and starts getting all exited and making outlandish statements and calling for all kinds of extreme measures to deal with something that is not really a threat.

It is absurd.

Iy is also used to push political agenda and I do not like it when the government does this, it is immoral.

Trying to murder a political leader or anyone else is immoral.

Discussing that event is not.

He didn’t say discussing the event was immoral...

He said the political agenda is.


& if this was a mass shooting thread you’d say the same about gun grabbers. Right?

a reply to: Hazardous1408

I think you are right about the young being influenced.

But what is it about radical islam that influences the young to carry out these attacks?

Young people of all sorts make rash or terrible choices; but it seems like radical islam is disproportionately leading them to terroristic acts acts.

Is this a problem with my perception?

In any attack, clearly I feel the most heartbreak for the victim.

But let me tell you something that boiled my blood in one of these incidents.

Remember the young man that detonated a small bomb in new york a couple of years ago?

No one was hurt, but it was captured on camera, and the guy was arrested.

His father, who was a Muslim, ran a chicken resteraunt.

By all accounts he was a great americvan who not only ran a successful shop with his family, but was a very nice man.

He made the heartbreaking decision to call the authorities and tell them he was worried that his son was radicalized.

Imagine the strength that would take. To me, this man is a hero.

yet the authorities did nothing.

I bring this up because I cant imagine some of these parents of second generation immigrants who fled a country to make a go of it in a place like the UK or US, did everything right, and then see their children turn in to the very things they were fleeing.

Of course with the NY man to add insult to injury, bigots suggested boycotting his business, despite the factor that he was a stronger man than I ever will be and did everything right.

I could give to hoots about race or religion or gender etc.

That man is an American hero to me, and I feel terrible shame for the treatment he received.

All the more reason to find out why radical islam is so appealing to some 2nd generation immigrants.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Trueman

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: nonspecific

I'm reading again what Grambler said and still don't understand why you had such a reaction, it's like you were mad because the Islamist suicide plot wasn't successful.

I' will not go into it too much as it will just get removed and I will likley get banned for speaking my mind but I tend to find that all these threads just end up as free for alls where instead of talking about the subject in question it's just lots of one liner comments about "sorting them all out" or "kicking them all out" or whatever, pointless other than to allow people to have a quick racist rant under the guise of caring.

Theresa May is pretty much dispised by all as a leader in the UK even her own party know she has made an arse of things so why anyone thinks an attack on her would be a victory is baffling to me even.

The threat of real terror from the IRA years ago means security around her is so high that so an improvised (ie; crappy internet instructions) bomb thrown was never likley to be sucessfull anyway.

I think this is not about the thread, I think you probably had a bad day. I wish I could toss you a nice cold beer.

Not had a bad day buddy but thanks for the concern

I just get irritated about the attention these incidents get.

A couple of deluded kids get radicalised and come up with a terrible plan to commit terrorism and get caught.

Then the authorities release a statement and everyone gets there knickers in a twist and starts getting all exited and making outlandish statements and calling for all kinds of extreme measures to deal with something that is not really a threat.

It is absurd.

Iy is also used to push political agenda and I do not like it when the government does this, it is immoral.

Trying to murder a political leader or anyone else is immoral.

Discussing that event is not.

He didn’t say discussing the event was immoral...

He said the political agenda is.


& if this was a mass shooting thread you’d say the same about gun grabbers. Right?

I have participated in many mass shooting threads, most of which started out similar to mine here that just said there is a shooting and people hope or are glad no one is hurt.

I have never even came close to responding that that OP was racist or immoral.

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
Oh look Trump was right again. Radical muslims are a threat to the world f#ck your feelings.

Like I said in another thread, Trump is the Equivalent of the Simpsons in predicting the future.

Can't wait for these next few tweets......

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: face23785
Was this because of the UK's "wars of aggression" in the Middle East?

Oh wait, that's the excuse for attacks in the US.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I would point out that going after the people behind the wars like Theresa May, instead of innocent members of the public, is probably one of the times that argument may be legitimate, even if still unjustifiable.

Yeah except for the fact that the UK got the hell out of the Middle East and left them alone until after Islamic terrorism became a threat to her and her allies.

a reply to: Grambler

That’s a very sad but uplifting story.

Families have been ignored here as well, if I remember rightly in at least 2 of the more recent attacks.
I find it incomprehensible to be honest.

And it does nothing to dissuade my beliefs that certain factions of the British Government want these things to happen when convenient for them.


As to why the young are prone...
I really haven’t a clue.

There are probably a myriad of mitigating factors.
Disenfranchisement and/or mental illness (although I’d separate mental susceptibility & immaturity from outright psychopathy) would be my two main predictions.

It’s anyone's guess really.
The scary thing is, if there are nefarious factions within, these things will never truly be addressed.

I love the people comparing this to mass shootings too. In mass shootings idiots try to blame the guns. At least in these attacks (or foiled attacks in this case) we're blaming the actual people and their motivations.

Just about every single president and prime minister around the world has had dozens upon dozens of death threats and/or attempted plots to assassinate them. Literally.

So why is this one so special that it gets plastered all over the MSM and its very own thread on ATS ?

a reply to: Grambler

I have never even came close to responding that that OP was racist or immoral.

I don’t doubt that for a minute.

You might want to reread what I quoted and said, because it wasn’t related to that.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: face23785
Was this because of the UK's "wars of aggression" in the Middle East?

Oh wait, that's the excuse for attacks in the US.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I would point out that going after the people behind the wars like Theresa May, instead of innocent members of the public, is probably one of the times that argument may be legitimate, even if still unjustifiable.

Yeah except for the fact that the UK got the hell out of the Middle East and left them alone until after Islamic terrorism became a threat to her and her allies.

We went to Iraq based on fake news.
We went to Afghanistan based on Bush & Blair’s relationship.
We played our part destroying Libya.
& then decided that we’d do the same in Syria.

We = Government of course.

I don’t ever remember any of those 4 countries, or any terror group from those 4 countries attacking Britain.

originally posted by: face23785
I love the people comparing this to mass shootings too. In mass shootings idiots try to blame the guns. At least in these attacks (or foiled attacks in this case) we're blaming the actual people and their motivations.

Your reading comprehension is shot to pieces.

No one (meaning I, because only I mentioned mass shootings) compared mass shootings to terror attacks.

I said to Grambler, that nonspecific called political agendas immoral.
I suggested that Grambler and many others would say the same of the political agenda of gun grabbing.


I’m saddened that I had to type all of that out because it was pretty damn clear the first time.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: Grambler

I have never even came close to responding that that OP was racist or immoral.

I don’t doubt that for a minute.

You might want to reread what I quoted and said, because it wasn’t related to that.

Oh I know.

Was just hitting home the idea that discussing this situation does not make one immoral or racist, and I feel it is a worthwhile discussion.

originally posted by: SailorJerry
a reply to: denybedoomed

I dont thnk it should matter at all who the person was (I get it heads of state are important) but the fact that it was stopped should be whats being celebrated here, all the other partisan BS is just deflection.



"Just curious, they said "removed to prevent thread drift"

What constitutes thread drift?

Sounds juicy. "


what youre doing right now, and goading the poster to repeat what he said, effectively earning another post removal

Im always amazed at how little common sense seems to be available.

I got the info i was curious about. Thanks, mate.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
Just about every single president and prime minister around the world has had dozens upon dozens of death threats and/or attempted plots to assassinate them. Literally.

So why is this one so special that it gets plastered all over the MSM and its very own thread on ATS ?

The past few years here in the UK they have been trying to use the threat of terror to get more police with guns on the streets without any real reason other than they want to.

A "story" like this reminds people to be afraid and justifies armebd policemen whilst folks are out buying toys for the kids and those big selection tubs of mini chocolate bars that are popular this time of year.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: face23785
Was this because of the UK's "wars of aggression" in the Middle East?

Oh wait, that's the excuse for attacks in the US.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I would point out that going after the people behind the wars like Theresa May, instead of innocent members of the public, is probably one of the times that argument may be legitimate, even if still unjustifiable.

Yeah except for the fact that the UK got the hell out of the Middle East and left them alone until after Islamic terrorism became a threat to her and her allies.

We went to Iraq based on fake news.
We went to Afghanistan based on Bush & Blair’s relationship.
We played our part destroying Libya.
& then decided that we’d do the same in Syria.

We = Government of course.

I don’t ever remember any of those 4 countries, or any terror group from those 4 countries attacking Britain.

So we're in agreement. Everything you named was after Islamic terrorism came calling. Thanks.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: face23785
I love the people comparing this to mass shootings too. In mass shootings idiots try to blame the guns. At least in these attacks (or foiled attacks in this case) we're blaming the actual people and their motivations.

Your reading comprehension is shot to pieces.

No one (meaning I, because only I mentioned mass shootings) compared mass shootings to terror attacks.

I said to Grambler, that nonspecific called political agendas immoral.
I suggested that Grambler and many others would say the same of the political agenda of gun grabbing.


I’m saddened that I had to type all of that out because it was pretty damn clear the first time.

I'm aware of what you said. Re-read what I said.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: face23785
Was this because of the UK's "wars of aggression" in the Middle East?

Oh wait, that's the excuse for attacks in the US.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I would point out that going after the people behind the wars like Theresa May, instead of innocent members of the public, is probably one of the times that argument may be legitimate, even if still unjustifiable.

Yeah except for the fact that the UK got the hell out of the Middle East and left them alone until after Islamic terrorism became a threat to her and her allies.

We went to Iraq based on fake news.
We went to Afghanistan based on Bush & Blair’s relationship.
We played our part destroying Libya.
& then decided that we’d do the same in Syria.

We = Government of course.

I don’t ever remember any of those 4 countries, or any terror group from those 4 countries attacking Britain.

So we're in agreement. Everything you named was after Islamic terrorism came calling. Thanks.

No we aren’t in agreement.
7/7 was the first terrorist attack on British soil.
Long after we’d been bombing masses of civilians based on a f*cking war criminals lie.

How did your war with Saudi Arabia go?
Ya know, the 9/11 perps?
Ya know 9/11, the thing that started the “War on Terror”?

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: face23785
Was this because of the UK's "wars of aggression" in the Middle East?

Oh wait, that's the excuse for attacks in the US.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I would point out that going after the people behind the wars like Theresa May, instead of innocent members of the public, is probably one of the times that argument may be legitimate, even if still unjustifiable.

Yeah except for the fact that the UK got the hell out of the Middle East and left them alone until after Islamic terrorism became a threat to her and her allies.

We went to Iraq based on fake news.
We went to Afghanistan based on Bush & Blair’s relationship.
We played our part destroying Libya.
& then decided that we’d do the same in Syria.

We = Government of course.

I don’t ever remember any of those 4 countries, or any terror group from those 4 countries attacking Britain.

So we're in agreement. Everything you named was after Islamic terrorism came calling. Thanks.

No we aren’t in agreement.
7/7 was the first terrorist attack on British soil.
Long after we’d been bombing masses of civilians based on a f*cking war criminals lie.

How did your war with Saudi Arabia go?
Ya know, the 9/11 perps?
Ya know 9/11, the thing that started the “War on Terror”?

Yes we are in agreement. I said the UK left the Middle East to themselves until after Islamic terrorism became a threat to her and her allies. Since you're so fond of 9/11, do you think that was a pretty good indication that terrorism was a problem? The nationality of the hijackers is a distraction and you know it, that's just the only point you can make because you know your position is weaker than hell. Saudi Arabia didn't train them and finance them and help them plan the attack and they weren't acting on behalf of Saudi Arabia. That's a pretty good reason for not attacking Saudi Arabia. We attacked the people who financed, trained and planned the attack, and for whom the attack was conducted, who were in Afghanistan. But you want to pretend the only thing that matters is the nationality of the attackers. Do you even know the nationality of the 7/7 attackers? Were they from Iraq, or Afghanistan? Nope, they were 3 natural born British citizens and one immigrated to the UK from Jamaica. I must have missed the UK invasion of Jamaica. That just proves that radical Muslims will conduct attacks on infidels regardless of their nationality. Way to debunk yourself.

a reply to: face23785

I said the UK left the Middle East to themselves until after Islamic terrorism became a threat to her and her allies.

Balfour.

Saudi Arabia didn't train them and finance them and help them plan the attack.

You forgot to add “in my opinion”.
Unless you’ve read the entire redacted report?

That just proves that radical Muslims will conduct attacks on infidels regardless of their nationality.

Right.
But your original point was “did they blame wars of aggression”...

To which I responded that it’s a more legitimate claim when they were targeting a war monger, as opposed to others who might use that argument after attacking innocent people.

Way to debunk yourself.

Considering I never made a claim to the contrary I don’t see how that is possible.

originally posted by: Grambler

A terror plot to assassinate Prime Minister Theresa May has been foiled, Sky sources have confirmed.

Sky's Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt said: "It's the latest in a number of terror plots that police and MI5 believe they've foiled this year.

Islamist suicide plot to assassinate Prime Minister Theresa May foiled

I am glad this was foiled.

Truly frightening if this plot was indeed in the works.

I don't get why anyone who hates Britain would want to assassinate Darth May, the best way to screw up the country is leave her bumbling along the way she is...