Originally Posted by Kwik (Post 11942449)

Have you actually looked these up for yourself? You do realise the crowd depicted in the media was a picture taken early, later pictures clearly show a bigger crowd.

Voter fraud. I'm not sure what you are eluding to with that but I assume you mean the amount of americans registered to vote that are either dead or not living in the US?.

Bowling green wasn't actually trump it was his aid. The mistake she made was using the word "massacre". Bowling green eludes to 2 Iraqi lads in the US who built bombs to blow up US army soldiers, it was I suppose a prevented massacre. That incident lead to Obama banning Iraqi immigration for 6 months, before Obama then compiled the list of "mainly" muslim countries that Trump signed off on for 90 days. Look it up.
http://www.bgdailynews.com/news/bowl...f658e631f.html

Trump didn't say "terror attack in Sweden". Again like DPB you've read a headline and been duped. Look the video up. His words were "what happened last night in Sweden" apparently regarding a documentary on Swedish immigrant riots shown the night before on fox news.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0QcrR5dTOo

Comey is a interesting one. Look up all the democrats that were calling for Comey to be fired, then lambasted Trump for firing him.


I'm not sure what you mean about the other 2 but please provide links, I'm sure they'll be other headlines that were "fake".

I think you need to open your eyes a little. Trump is ripe for fake news. He shoots from the hip. He certainly doesn't seem to have a slick speech writer and most of what he says seems to come from his head. I'm not saying I agree with everything he says but at least he's real and has passion. I'm sure he has made mistakes, but he is a very good example of media depiction and manipulation.

Originally Posted by Martin2005 (Post 11942454)

He's president of the US is shouldn't have the luxury of shooting ftom the hip.


What he's actually doing is creating false narratives. Still at least he's got you to apologise for him


Here's some more Trump lies 'exposed'


https://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeor...Xr#.bwb72ngGwY

Originally Posted by Kwik (Post 11942463)

Buzzfeed lol. Look without going into too much depth you are using one sided media to attempt to prove a point when a simple search will tell a completely different version of events.
You eluded to 'Swedish terror attack' and a video, not an article quite clearly shows that isn't the case.
You should apply that scepticism to EVERY article you read because you are being manipulated. Pretty much what I was eluding to with fake news.

ITV have had a very scripted theme in the last few days. Deliberately show a mix of different race people around Manchester, exclude anyone angry or calling for change, highlight those showing signs of unity and love and only show interviews that were 'positive'.

Originally Posted by Kwik (Post 11942463)

Buzzfeed lol. Look without going into too much depth you are using one sided media to attempt to prove a point when a simple search will tell a completely different version of events.
You eluded to 'Swedish terror attack' and a video, not an article quite clearly shows that isn't the case.
You should apply that scepticism to EVERY article you read because you are being manipulated. Pretty much what I was eluding to with fake news.

ITV have had a very scripted theme in the last few days. Deliberately show a mix of different race people around Manchester, exclude anyone angry or calling for change, highlight those showing signs of unity and love and only show interviews that were 'positive'.

Originally Posted by Kwik (Post 11942463)

Buzzfeed lol. Look without going into too much depth you are using one sided media to attempt to prove a point when a simple search will tell a completely different version of events.
You eluded to 'Swedish terror attack' and a video, not an article quite clearly shows that isn't the case.
You should apply that scepticism to EVERY article you read because you are being manipulated. Pretty much what I was eluding to with fake news.

ITV have had a very scripted theme in the last few days. Deliberately show a mix of different race people around Manchester, exclude anyone angry or calling for change, highlight those showing signs of unity and love and only show interviews that were 'positive'.

Originally Posted by Kwik (Post 11942467)

Looks like people are thinking similarly to me...
https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-imprison-or-deport-the-3000-on-the-terrorist-watchlist/sponsors/new?source_location=after_sign

Originally Posted by Kwik (Post 11942438)

You'll need to elaborate I'm afraid. I see no reason why someone would need to use the internet. If they are in a profession that would require being able to make an IED (Christ knows what industry that is bomb disposal, counter terrorism, training of the previously mentioned, just to name a few.) then they would be able to get that information through their superiors. quite simply because the Internet is huge wealth of information which is easily accessible. I doubt there's any organisation in the world that can match the collective knowledge of the Internet in a way which is even half as accessible.
Education, well I do hope it isn't taught at school. Again though if they are being taught chemistry at a level that requires them to know how to make a bomb then they'd be able to get that information from their teacher/lecturer, not on their home pc using google. Never heard of further leaning? The whole point in education past GCSE level is that it encourages students to read around the subjects taught in lectures.

Curiosity, that's the most worrying. What would motivate a person to be curious on how to blow things up?. The same motivation that makes people do anything out of curiosity. Some people like to understand how things work (they're called engineers)





I did actually say a naked child. Not a child being abused. Every parent in the land has the usual bath, paddling pool, running around with their bum out pictures of their kids, perfectly innocent. However someone searching for said pictures of someone else's children is obviously very sinister.

It worries me how readily available the information is to make a bomb. You obviously googled something like "how to make a bomb" and found the BBC link. Would you have googled it if for example that carried a 1 year prison sentence?.
Or a better question would be could the world continue without this information being so readily available?. Nope, it was on the current articles list on the BBC news site.

Originally Posted by Kwik (Post 11942463)

Buzzfeed lol. Look without going into too much depth you are using one sided media to attempt to prove a point when a simple search will tell a completely different version of events.
You eluded to 'Swedish terror attack' and a video, not an article quite clearly shows that isn't the case.
You should apply that scepticism to EVERY article you read because you are being manipulated. Pretty much what I was eluding to with fake news.

ITV have had a very scripted theme in the last few days. Deliberately show a mix of different race people around Manchester, exclude anyone angry or calling for change, highlight those showing signs of unity and love and only show interviews that were 'positive'.

Originally Posted by Martin2005 (Post 11942471)

The Swedish article you keep banging on about, 'quite clearly' DOES NOT prove anything, it's a speculative explanation of Trump's interview. It is someone else interpretation of what he might of meant. This fundamentally doesn't change the facts of what he said, and the reason the media will jump on it. He has form here, all the crap on inauguration, voter fraud, CIA, murder rates, which are demonstrably untrue, means that he's providing an open goal to the media.

Originally Posted by Kwik (Post 11942660)

You brought up 'what happened last night in Sweden' Martin so I'm not sure why you say I keep going on about it.
Are you actually unaware of your own hypocrisy? 'A speculative explanation, someone else's interpretation, doesn't change what he said'.

He said 'what happened last night in sweden'. That's it, that's the facts of what he said. You and other zombies like dpb believe 'someone else's interpretation' but not the facts.

So to go back to the point of fake news pmsl. Whilst there are people like yourself that will ignore the facts IE actual words, on a video I even provided for you!!!!??? Then the media will peddle it. And I'd imagine every single piece of information you've read on him without digging a little is more than likely just as manipulated.

I despair for this country.

Originally Posted by Martin2005 (Post 11942662)

Like I said, most of this isn't in dispute, he opens his mouth, words come out...The end.

Go and look at the video of that speech, then come back and tell me all about how I'm the one who's ignoring facts

Originally Posted by dpb (Post 11942499)

You get your news from itv , jeez,up there with fox news :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by neil-h (Post 11942488)

bomb disposal, counter terrorism, training of the previously mentioned, just to name a few.)

Originally Posted by neil-h (Post 11942488)

quite simply because the Internet is huge wealth of information which is easily accessible. I doubt there's any organisation in the world that can match the collective knowledge of the Internet in a way which is even half as accessible.

Originally Posted by neil-h (Post 11942488)

Never heard of further leaning? The whole point in education past GCSE level is that it encourages students to read around the subjects taught in lectures.

Originally Posted by neil-h (Post 11942488)

The same motivation that makes people do anything out of curiosity. Some people like to understand how things work (they're called engineers)

Originally Posted by Kwik (Post 11942668)

Ive watched it several times. You are ignoring the ACTUAL words that come out of the fellas mouth and have been misled.
It took dpb several watches before he admitted he was wrong.
I reiterate that I don't 'support' trump but he is ripe for the media to peddle things to people like you Martin. People who even when they see FACTS in video form still don't want to believe it.

Originally Posted by Martin2005 (Post 11942677)

What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Kwik (Post 11942675)

No. For a start any expert should not be referring to google. I can't believe you are actually trying to make out a bomb disposal expert would use google before putting theirs and other lives in danger. Any information they could find would have been taught to them previously. I'm sure they have internal methods of sharing information of new ways IED's are built.
Were bombs disarmed before the age of the internet? Yes, so no need for it to be shared.
:lol: That's actually hysterical. Experts shouldn't be referring to Google, get a grip. There's a huge amount of academic information on the net, you'd be there for an eternity trying to sift through it in paper form.


Collective knowledge that could be inaccurate.
So you right off a data source because some of the information may be wrong.


And that is what textbooks and lecturers are for. Again "further learning", including high level chemistry and any other industry or subjects that may involve dangerous substances were taught before the age of the internet.
See my first comment, times change


Then they can enrol in college.
Why? Or have you never googled something to get a better understanding but not felt the need to take it further.

Sorry there is no solid reason whatsoever for bomb making instructions to be on the internet. Any site with it on should have an amnesty to remove it and after that anyone displaying or sharing it should be prosecuted.
It won't prevent all manors of terrorism but it will narrow down the field.
We've covered this already, you just seem to be quite keen to promote thought policing.

As for removing bomb making instructions from the net contributing to reducing terrorism. Don't be silly, everything you said about knowledge transfer also applies to the likes of ISIS. Besides, making a bomb really isn't that complicated. As I said, anyone with half an ounce of engineering/chemistry knowledge could manage

Originally Posted by Kwik (Post 11942678)

The fact he quite clearly didn't 'make up' a terrorist attack in Sweden.

Originally Posted by neil-h (Post 11942700)

...

Originally Posted by dpb (Post 11942709)

That is what he meant to imply.

Don't start this ****e again

Originally Posted by Kwik (Post 11942766)

Neil take a step back. We're talking about making bombs.
In most situations what you say would be applicable. In the case of john smith sitting in his shed and making a bomb common sense says we should be preventing it.

I'm sure it would be possible to find instruction videos on how to drive. Do you think as the information is there we should do away with driving lessons and tests and the requirement to have a licence?.

Or or are you instead saying we should live in a society where you require a license to drive a car but can freely build bombs whenever you feel like it?.

This is why we have problems like terrorism. People actually protect people's 'rights' to build bombs in their spare time rather than do what common says to do. As I said, this one simple and logical step wouldn't prevent all terrorism but it's a small step in the right direction.

Originally Posted by neil-h (Post 11942812)

See what you've done there is manipulated the situation to prove your point. You've moved from learning how to make a bomb to actually doing it. Buying/owning/manufacturing explosives is licensed in the U.K. and doing so without a licence is illegal. No one has even so much as suggested that people have a right to build bombs yet you've done some nice little mental gymnastics to get there anyway.

What you're suggesting is a slippery slope into the joyful world of thought policing. Stopping people learning things because they may actually apply that knowledge isn't the kind of world we should be wanting, especially given these kinds of events aren't actually that frequent.

Originally Posted by madscoob (Post 11942813)

strange that i didn't know you needed a licence to buy fertilizer and simple household cleaning chemicals :cuckoo:

Originally Posted by neil-h (Post 11942817)

That's because fertiliser and bleach aren't explosives in their own right. Please at least try and think before posting. :thumb:

Originally Posted by madscoob (Post 11942819)

i did and thats the point neil ,research on the internet,using a proxy, the group of sand dogers all buy smallish qty's of needed products (so as not to arrouse plod etc) then meet up combine goods select one idiot and boom, surely even the most leftwing os us can see thats what happens, its not rocket science is it, if this isn't the case how come another 8 or is it now 9 have been arrested ?

Originally Posted by neil-h (Post 11942821)

So what exactly do you propose? Ban bleach?

Originally Posted by madscoob (Post 11942824)

1 more point
Buying/owning/manufacturing explosives is licensed in the U.K. and doing so without a licence is illegal. this is not strictly true anyone over the age of 18 can buy fireworks, they contain black powder :thumb: