He did because he has said we should accept the risks which is another way of saying it's condoned, otherwise saying it's acceptable. He tried to play down the role of security services too.
Judging by most peoples reactions this would appear to be only in your logic, it would appear most of us understand what he is saying and I would guess in most peoples view its not what you are suggesting he is saying
He just did by saying we accept risk, ie normalise and condone, or accept it. We never accept it or tolerate it. That's why so many people are rejecting terrorism today.
It starts from this position, that it's normal, then radicalisation then actually doing it. Appalling
I give up //static.avforums.com/styles/avf/smilies/facepalm.gif
No it's the reaction of unthoughtful, illogical, apologist speak that you get by some people on forums and probably people who have scary undertones to their thinking. You won't hear anyone on the tv talking this way today. If they did they would get shot down, and rightly so!
You are off your tree.
If I cross the road, I accept there is a risk I may be hit by a car.I may minimise the risk by looking both ways.I can reduce it further by using a controlled crossing point.But the risk isn't eliminated entirely, and I have to accept there will always be a chance I could be hit.
But that in no way means I condone car drivers going through crossings without looking.
But by your logic, it does.
Great post - if he doesn't see the connection here then we are stuffed 
Thoughts, debates, ideas and arguments . Might as well enjoy them whilst we can .