Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Daggers

General News

By Daggers, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted

a possible knock on effect of Israel’s pager attack would be the easer identification of Hezbollah targets via insecure digital comms 

 

is it a Co incidence that within 72 hours the no 2 in Hezbollah (ibrahim Aqil, - also wanted by USA re marine killings in early eighties) has been targetted in Beirut ?

 

looks like quite a bit of damage which will undoubtedly have taken a number of civilian casualties. I don’t think Israel cares much if there is a high profile target identified and located. international humantiarian law does allow for civilian casualties if there is a clear military objective and it has to be proportionate.  Who judges that ???

ajthefox

ajthefox

Posted
Posted

I firmly support rehabilitation in general but for someone well into his 50s who likes looking at pictures of children being raped what does rehabilitation even mean?

 

Maybe this was a relatively new thing for Edwards but I can't help but think that this 'desire' of his is not new. More broadly, what can you do to rehabilitate people who are so inclined ?

 

 

grobyfox1990

grobyfox1990

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

I firmly support rehabilitation in general but for someone well into his 50s who likes looking at pictures of children being raped what does rehabilitation even mean?

 

Maybe this was a relatively new thing for Edwards but I can't help but think that this 'desire' of his is not new. More broadly, what can you do to rehabilitate people who are so inclined ?

 

 

Huw Edwards? I am sure he would have had plenty of chances to 'rehabilitate' given this cannot have been a surprise to the BBC, whatever they say in public. Third, fourth, fifth warnings were surely given, all ignored.

Only option is imprisonment IMO. Rehabilitation is a great idea in theory but not a universal solution. Punishment and deterrents also need to exist. Carrot n stick etc

Trav Le Bleu

Trav Le Bleu

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

a possible knock on effect of Israel’s pager attack would be the easer identification of Hezbollah targets via insecure digital comms 

 

is it a Co incidence that within 72 hours the no 2 in Hezbollah (ibrahim Aqil, - also wanted by USA re marine killings in early eighties) has been targetted in Beirut ?

 

looks like quite a bit of damage which will undoubtedly have taken a number of civilian casualties. I don’t think Israel cares much if there is a high profile target identified and located. international humantiarian law does allow for civilian casualties if there is a clear military objective and it has to be proportionate.  Who judges that ???

A possible knock on effect of Israel's pager attack is people not being allowed to take phones on planes.

 

You're welcome.

st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

A possible knock on effect of Israel's pager attack is people not being allowed to take phones on planes.

 

You're welcome.

really ?

 

you think that no one ever thought of doing this before?

it’s been going on for decades. 

thats why you have to put your phones/laptops etc through scanning machines 

 

 

  • Like 1
oxford blue

oxford blue

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

A possible knock on effect of Israel's pager attack is people not being allowed to take phones on planes

I don't follow your argument. Pagers replaced mobiles because communication with these does not emit a digital signal - which enabled location to be tracked. An individual in a specific location could be connected to the pane so could bee attacked.

 

This is completely different to implanting a detonation device to pagers which could be activated through a message.

 

Perhaps you are suggesting all phones should be banned because they can be tracked and subsequently bombed with causalities to all around :unsure:

Trav Le Bleu

Trav Le Bleu

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

really ?

 

you think that no one ever thought of doing this before?

it’s been going on for decades. 

thats why you have to put your phones/laptops etc through scanning machines 

 

 

You know what does amaze me.

 

It's always planes and I have no idea why. Never liners or ferries, which would cause much more spectacle (in that there'd probably be live footage of it gradually going down) and unfortunately, loss of life.

 

The security checks boarding a ferry are negligible (never been on a cruise liner, probably never will). Also, if you did it in the right place, you could shut down a port or even a shipping lane for weeks.

 

I hope no terrorists read this.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

You know what does amaze me.

 

It's always planes and I have no idea why. Never liners or ferries, which would cause much more spectacle (in that there'd probably be live footage of it gradually going down) and unfortunately, loss of life.

 

The security checks boarding a ferry are negligible (never been on a cruise liner, probably never will). Also, if you did it in the right place, you could shut down a port or even a shipping lane for weeks.

 

I hope no terrorists read this.

Size and effort required.

 

Given the size difference between planes and a decent sized cruise ship, as well as the degree of damage required to cause a life threatening incident, the latter would require significantly more material and effort.

  • Like 1
grobyfox1990

grobyfox1990

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

You know what does amaze me.

 

It's always planes and I have no idea why. Never liners or ferries, which would cause much more spectacle (in that there'd probably be live footage of it gradually going down) and unfortunately, loss of life.

 

The security checks boarding a ferry are negligible (never been on a cruise liner, probably never will). Also, if you did it in the right place, you could shut down a port or even a shipping lane for weeks.

 

I hope no terrorists read this.

Good shout that, I go on the boat to France all the time and there are no checks getting on or off. Most of the boat is drunk as well.

Smuggling Lidl laundry powder across the border is about as far as I go though 

st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Good shout that, I go on the boat to France all the time and there are no checks getting on or off. Most of the boat is drunk as well.

Smuggling Lidl laundry powder across the border is about as far as I go though 

Better keep checking who is following you …..

Trav Le Bleu

Trav Le Bleu

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Size and effort required.

 

Given the size difference between planes and a decent sized cruise ship, as well as the degree of damage required to cause a life threatening incident, the latter would require significantly more material and effort.

Nah. Ok... Maybe a liner, but a ferry? That fact is you drive on with no checks. A car sized bomb could do a lot of damage.

 

Certainly more that that stupid Train hijacking drama on BBC at the moment.

Trav Le Bleu

Trav Le Bleu

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Good shout that, I go on the boat to France all the time and there are no checks getting on or off. Most of the boat is drunk as well.

Smuggling Lidl laundry powder across the border is about as far as I go though 

YOU MONSTER!

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Nah. Ok... Maybe a liner, but a ferry? That fact is you drive on with no checks. A car sized bomb could do a lot of damage.

 

Certainly more that that stupid Train hijacking drama on BBC at the moment.

Perhaps, though again I would suggest (and be reasonably sure of) such a device on a reasonable sized ferry wouldn't in fact sink it, not directly or unless it was placed very close to vital systems, anyway.

 

Security really is much more lax going onto ocean vessels, but I'm still inclined to think that causing a massive incident with one takes more effort for your average nutjob than a plane.

Trav Le Bleu

Trav Le Bleu

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Perhaps, though again I would suggest (and be reasonably sure of) such a device on a reasonable sized ferry wouldn't in fact sink it, not directly or unless it was placed very close to vital systems, anyway.

 

Security really is much more lax going onto ocean vessels, but I'm still inclined to think that causing a massive incident with one takes more effort for your average nutjob than a plane.

Oh, a nutjob couldn't do it, I'm thinking more state sponsored.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Oh, a nutjob couldn't do it, I'm thinking more state sponsored.

Yeah, that's fair enough.

 

That being said, when was the last plane (or any large scale public transport) incident conclusively traced back to a state actor? MH17 (and even that Russia blamed on "separatists")?

MPH

MPH

Posted
Posted

So Kamala tells Oprah Winfrey in an interview that “ if someone breaks into my house, they’re getting shot”.

she then says she probably shouldn’t have said that.

 

I feel like she’s too intelligent to make a gaff like that. Appealing to Trump voters, maybe?   It probably won’t go down well with her far left voters but who is their voting alternative? Probably feels like  she has them in the bag..

urban.spaceman

urban.spaceman

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

You know what does amaze me.

 

It's always planes and I have no idea why. Never liners or ferries, which would cause much more spectacle (in that there'd probably be live footage of it gradually going down) and unfortunately, loss of life.

 

The security checks boarding a ferry are negligible (never been on a cruise liner, probably never will). Also, if you did it in the right place, you could shut down a port or even a shipping lane for weeks.

 

I hope no terrorists read this.

Ditto. Screenwriters are avidly making notes though.

urban.spaceman

urban.spaceman

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, MPH said:

So Kamala tells Oprah Winfrey in an interview that “ if someone breaks into my house, they’re getting shot”.

she then says she probably shouldn’t have said that.

 

I feel like she’s too intelligent to make a gaff like that. Appealing to Trump voters, maybe?   It probably won’t go down well with her far left voters but who is their voting alternative? Probably feels like  she has them in the bag..

Probably the most common line every Republican uses is that the Dems want to take away your guns. I do wonder if this is a calculated line from Harris to move into the Repubicvnts territory? Park your tanks on their lawn and don't give them the oxygen they need for their talking points.

 

Starmer did this pretty well in the election (the last 4 years basically) and Labour sent their team over to meet with the Harris team recently.

  • Like 4
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Probably the most common line every Republican uses is that the Dems want to take away your guns. I do wonder if this is a calculated line from Harris to move into the Repubicvnts territory? Park your tanks on their lawn and don't give them the oxygen they need for their talking points.

 

Starmer did this pretty well in the election (the last 4 years basically) and Labour sent their team over to meet with the Harris team recently.

Yeah, this. It's clearly removing a talking point that could be an obstacle at low cost.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

Farage in Brum talking about how costly net zero will be.

 

What kind of term, do you think, can describe someone clearly so unburden by any kind of care for the biosphere and future generations?

 

How obvious is the idea that if the UK (and most everywhere else) pays now, or it pays much, much more, in blood, later.

Zear0

Zear0

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Surprised the President of the USA didn't mention this case..

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13874529/carly-gregg-verdict-guilty-killing-mom-trial-mississippi-court.html

 

https://www.themirror.com/news/us-news/chilling-moment-mississippi-teen-giggles-705563

 

Not sure there's enough hours in the day for Biden to discuss every domestic murder in the US tbh.

  • Like 1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...