Reply to post: What does DISRUPT mean?

What does DISRUPT mean?

If you'd stopped 7 terrorist plots there would be arrest records we could look at, and analyze. But you used this magic word "disrupt" to avoid presumably being questioned on these. Did you do a drone murder of someone you decided might commit a terrorist act? Is that what's hiding behind that word?

Are we talking about actual real things? If so the list? You know, verifiable claims backed by evidence tested in a court of law... the *real* British way.

Or did you do some sort of 'big data' analysis on what they said and killed them (and the people around them) on the basis of a keyword score?

Details. Where's the detail?

As it is, you sound like an Italian Mafia boss using euphemism to describe a contract killing.

> “stopping the message of hate from spreading”.

Do the digging a lot of those twitter accounts seem to be agent provocateur accounts, made to drag UK into a war in the middle east, that props up the Assad regime.

Do ISIS have "weapons of mass destruction" now?

You assume that you read these and come to the correct judgement, while others read these and come to the wrong "radicalized" judgement. What makes your analysis the only right analysis?? Given your lack of common sense, it seems unlikely to be the right judgement.

In opening up the UK to 5 eyes surveillance, you exposed the democracy to outside control. We don't get to vote in those countries and they don't get to vote here. What exactly is gained by exposing everyone to surveillance by 4 other countries in which we have no democratic influence with a 'free exchange' of our secrets? Every politician, judge, lawyer, civil servant, campaigner, journalist, man on the street, exposed to foreign surveillance. Why?

Also who would be Home Secretary if you hadn't done mass surveillance in the UK? How many better candidates were leaked against/ talked down by foreign diplomats, to put someone as pro-mass surveillance of UK, as Theresa May, in that role?

And when exactly did Parliament authorize that mass surveillance you called "Mastering the Internet", because their voting record shown they REJECTED Snoopers Charter, the law that was the enabler for it. So what exactly are you doing now?

What is the likelihood of a terrorist seizing control of Britain? Taking control of Parliament. Nil? Yet here you are already ignoring Parliament and its pesky laws?

A terrorist uses violence or the threat of violence to cause political change. And you are doing what exactly? Talking up terrorists as a big threat using dodgy fake propaganda to instill fear to cause political change!