In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by GonePostal:

The original statement whether monitoring had any capacity to stop terrorism not the absolute capacity to stop terrorism.

Here is the original statement not as you describe

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Monitoring to stop terrorism must be a good thing?

Oh, dear. You are in trouble when you start forgetting what you have been castigating others for earlier in the topic:

"Nice attempt at moving the goalposts btw wink"

I asked for the source for the bold statement from @Nemeth782 "Only if it had any capacity to stop terrorism. As it doesn't, it's monitoring for the sake of monitoring". Since you don't have the wherewithal to back up your QED statement about that, I assume you now want to argue about something else.

Let's keep this topic going a bit longer to see how many times you can fall foul of your own attempts to troll others.

Edited by GonePostal (Tue 21-Nov-17 17:20:54)

Obviously I was not clear enough.

You said

In reply to a post by GonePostal:

The original statement whether monitoring had any capacity to stop terrorism not the absolute capacity to stop terrorism.

But here is the original statement

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Monitoring to stop terrorism must be a good thing?

Which is not what you claimed was the original statement.

If you want to keep changing the subject because you can't get your case to stand up in regard to the original statement, then I 'm happy to leave you to it.

I've enjoyed the last couple of hour and aggravating someone who loves to do it to other people but I've got some more valuable things to do with my life now.

PS I'll be glad to buy you a pint if we ever bump into each other because I'm sure we both think the same way about a lot of things!

In reply to a post by GonePostal:

If you want to keep changing the subject because you can't get your case to stand up in regard to the original statement

You've lost me right there

PS I'll be glad to buy you a pint if we ever bump into each other because I'm sure we both think the same way about a lot of things!

You're probably right. Obviously I'd buy you one back too. Cheers

Stop maybe not but certainly net monitoring has without any question reduced its extent. Try pulling your head out of the sand for once.

Didn�t you say the question couldn�t be answered ?

None of us will have full details however I'm more than happy to accept the generalised comments and statements made by those who do know such as Jeremy Fleming (GCHQ) and Andrew Parker (MI-5).

Clearly it suits your agenda to believe otherwise. There have been other occasions over the years in these forums where you have been shown to be wrong in your assumptions, let this be another.

Perhaps they�re on a different agenda that you�re unaware of.

Why are you disgusted?

Why not?