London threat level "severe"

[rockouthippie]

Britain's terrorist threat level was raised tonight from “substantial” to “severe” - meaning that counter-terrorism agencies believe an attack is “highly likely”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6999294.ece

Hope not.

[baafie]

And what exactly is informing the public about this going to achieve? There's nothing they can do about it. Oh yes... keeping them scared, that's what!

[Too-DAMN-Much]

Originally Posted by baafie

And what exactly is informing the public about this going to achieve? There's nothing they can do about it. Oh yes... keeping them scared, that's what!

did you seriously just complain about government transparency? whacko.

[baafie]

It would be transparency if they explained what caused them to increase the 'threat level'.

[thinktink]

Originally Posted by baafie

And what exactly is informing the public about this going to achieve? There's nothing they can do about it. Oh yes... keeping them scared, that's what!

Keeping them scared? As opposed to what, letting them die?

[thinktink]

What I think you're talking about are the benefactors of those heightened security warnings...



...which would invariably include the people who have not been murdered by terrorist activity...



...,which incidentally, is unlike those poor souls who threw themselves off the Twin Towers just to keep from being burned alive...



*cough*



How wonderful it must to blindly trust the impeachable secret and anonymous sources to which the liberal media outlets rely upon on a daily basis just like Mr. Dan Blather did...



...while at the same demanding how everyone else should be expected to tell the truth and be "transparent" even to the point of state secrets...



*ah.. ..ah.. ..aaaaaaaaaaah-bullshit-choo*

[baafie]

Originally Posted by thinktink

Keeping them scared? As opposed to what, letting them die?

How is telling people about the 'threat level' going to keep them from dying?

[rockouthippie]

It is intelligent to evaluate all events not at face value.

It is intelligent to view things realistically. It is Alex Jones to evaluate all events "not at face value".

They should be charged with shamelessly profiting from the events they set into motion.

If you can prove the events they set into motion were because they wanted those profits. That is not proven. You'd have to prove "bad faith". Nobody has. Profits? We call this capitalism.

You never examine the other side of the coin. If Al Gore had been elected instead of George Bush, it's really likely the WTC would still have been hit with planes. It's almost certain we would still be in a war. Military contractors would have profited. In no case, even if we took a completely pacifist stance, would it have made any difference to the economic downturn.

In my view, such parties are guilty of nothing more or less than war crimes and crimes against humanity, and, yes, for crimes against all those people that awful day who had to make the hideous choice of jumping 1200 feet or of dying in smoke and flames, as well as for all the first responders who died that day or who, because they breathed in toxic materials, died some time later or who are alive but who are suffering from debilitating effects.......and for crimes against all of us who have endured these senseless, seemingly interminable and destructive wars, the loss of civil liberties and and who have endured missed opportunities for a better quality of life because of all the money wasted and spent on military things when so many civilian wants and needs go unmet...

Nice ramble, but it's not that simple. First, the issues involved have to be examined individually. That is unless you can prove a conspiracy.

who have endured missed opportunities for a better quality of life because of all the money wasted and spent on military things when so many civilian wants and needs go unmet...

That is non sequitur. Just because we didn't spend money on a war, doesn't mean we would have spent it on "civilian wants and needs". What would make you think that? It never happened before.

You always paint the path we took as the problem, but you never consider the path we might have taken. Sometimes all roads lead to the same place.

It's like the presidential election. Do you really think that electing Obama led us down a path that led anywhere but where we were inevitably going?

So you get your wish and we get rid of all our government cronies? Then what? It's rather like being a rabbit and having a Beagle tell you he's gonna save you from a fox. So we get rid of the Fox and find out the Beagle is even faster.

[AVlution]

It's quite worrying really. But then again I'm sure nothing will happen. I have to agree, it seems pointless to increase the threat level because it's not helping anyone, just making people panic.

[Too-DAMN-Much]

would you rather simply cease to exist suddenly, you're relatives - assuming any survive - never finding out your fate?

or would you rather be informed that your end may be possibly coming and have a singular chance, no matter how miniscule to do something, anything about it?

[baafie]

Originally Posted by Too-DAMN-Much

would you rather simply cease to exist suddenly, you're relatives - assuming any survive - never finding out your fate?

What does knowing about the increased "threat level" have to do with your relatives knowing about your fate?

Originally Posted by Too-DAMN-Much

or would you rather be informed that your end may be possibly coming and have a singular chance, no matter how miniscule to do something, anything about it?

A meteor may hit your roof and kill you on impact tomorrow. Are you going to build a shelter strong enough to withstand such an impact and live inside it for the rest of your life?

I didn't think so.

[Too-DAMN-Much]

did you even read my post? because it's obvious you didn't understand it...
i guess my phrasing wasn't very good on the first part though, i'll admit that.

would you rather simply die suddenly and never know you were even possibly in danger?

or rather have as much warning as possible, so in case something could be done, you had the opportunity?

as for the meteor hitting the roof bit, i don't see how that has any bearing on what i've asked here either way, in any case, yes i'd at least like to have the knowledge that shelter is a good idea, obviously although i have to say just leaving would probably work better.

the simple fact i'm getting at here is that if the public is kept totally in the dark and never knows when there is, or even could be in danger it has absolutely no capability to react, granted how much good this knowledge may or may not do is debatable.

[rockouthippie]

I think you'd have to explain increased police activity while trying to mitigate a threat.

[Too-DAMN-Much]

apparently the armed forces and/or police forgot how to shoot/arrest threats?

not sure what you're getting at if that's not the case.

[rockouthippie]

What I was pointing out is that cops are gonna be looking for trouble more than usual. I think announcements like this are to enlist civilian cooperation and patience. You'd probably notice increased police presence.

I think it's reasonable and transparent to warn people.

[baafie]

Originally Posted by Too-DAMN-Much

did you even read my post? because it's obvious you didn't understand it...
i guess my phrasing wasn't very good on the first part though, i'll admit that.

That is why I asked for an explanation.

Originally Posted by Too-DAMN-Much

would you rather simply die suddenly and never know you were even possibly in danger?

or rather have as much warning as possible, so in case something could be done, you had the opportunity?

Well, I see no point in having knowledge of a potential threat. Potentially, anything could happen when I cross the street. But knowing that something could happen doesn't help me. There is nothing I could possibly do if the guy walking next to me sets off a bomb and I am killed or wounded. Even if I knew that there was a 'risk' of a terrorist threat.

Originally Posted by Too-DAMN-Much

as for the meteor hitting the roof bit, i don't see how that has any bearing on what i've asked here either way

Suppose the government announces tomorrow that in 2011 the meteor threat level is 'high'. How does this help you? By the way, it is almost impossible to build a meteor-proof house.

Originally Posted by Too-DAMN-Much

the simple fact i'm getting at here is that if the public is kept totally in the dark and never knows when there is, or even could be in danger it has absolutely no capability to react, granted how much good this knowledge may or may not do is debatable.

Well, that is exactly what I'm debating here. I say there is no good that can come from having this knowledge.

[Too-DAMN-Much]

Originally Posted by baafie

Well, that is exactly what I'm debating here. I say there is no good that can come from having this knowledge.

and i say i'd prefer to know when and if a war is raging outside my house so i can do something besides lay down and die.

anywho, most of the worthwhile points have been made and opinions aren't going to change.

[baafie]

Originally Posted by Too-DAMN-Much

and i say i'd prefer to know when and if a war is raging outside my house so i can do something besides lay down and die.

So what can you do, exactly?

[rockouthippie]

If nothing else, you could just keep your eyes open and report anything suspicious.

[Too-DAMN-Much]

Originally Posted by baafie

So what can you do, exactly?

be an informed citizen? instead of fearful captive of a regime that does not care about it's people?

[baafie]

Originally Posted by rockouthippie

If nothing else, you could just keep your eyes open and report anything suspicious.

How many terrorist attacks do you know of that were prevented by people reporting anything suspicious?

Originally Posted by Too-DAMN-Much

be an informed citizen? instead of fearful captive of a regime that does not care about it's people?

Being something is not doing something.

[AVlution]

I would imagine quite a few, the problem is when asked to 'report anything suspicious', suddenly everything becomes suspicious.

[ujay]

Terrorism is not a new thing to Londoners, we've been living with it for decades.

Only it's nature has changed, since 9/11 America has been forced to stop it's support for the IRA, and the target moved to Islam.
If anything the current approach is less obvious than it was, though perhaps this is due more to improved technology/surveillance. For example, the 'Ring of Steel' is gone but no doubt it has been replaced by thousands of cameras, the congestion charge apparatus alone can track every vehicle that enters Central London.

On the whole there is a tendency to ignore it and get on with your life, I doubt if many could even tell you what the threat level is, let alone what it means.

UJ

[AVlution]

Ignoring it (to an extent) and getting on with your life is pretty much all you can do, so probably sound advice.

[rockouthippie]

America has been forced to stop it's support for the IRA

America never had support for the IRA. We were sometimes it's gun store, but that activity was always criminal. Some AR-18 Armalite rifles showed up in IRA hands, but the bulk of these were second hand through Corsican illegal arms dealers. Most IRA weapons came from Libya and were WWII vintage. Some came from the Stasi. A few came from the KGB.

I think the IRA had about as much "support" as money they had to buy weapons. A few Irish Americans supported NORIAD and it seems probable that some of that money funded terrorism. When that became evident, that support dried up too. NORAID was always adamant that the money collected was for humanitarian purposes. That was largely true.

I keep reading how the US supported the IRA, but nobody ever documents it. As near as I can tell, including the diversion of US weapons by Corsican arms dealers, the United States might have been the source of a couple million dollars and a few hundred Armalite rifles for the IRA. More than that were intercepted by UK and American law enforcement. Most of the IRA weapons were of UK manufacture.

I hardly call that institutional support. By the late 70's, NORAID was raising eyebrows. By the 80's the FBI was actively cracking down on illegal arms sales in general.

When the provisional IRA disarmed in 2005, the weaponry destroyed was:

1,000 rifles
3 tonnes of Semtex
20–30 heavy machine guns
7 surface-to-air missiles
7 flame throwers
1,200 detonators
20 rocket-propelled grenade launchers
100 hand guns
100+ grenades.

This isn't a particularly a formidable arsenal considering it took more than 20 years to acquire. Most of this was Libyan weaponry, purchased from and given by (about 5 million USD worth) Muammar al-Gaddafi. His impetus was revenge on the UK government for supporting the US bombing of Tripoli.

[AVlution]

An arsenal that is capable of causing some trouble though. The IRA still has a massive presence in Northern Ireland, if you've ever been to Belfast, you'll know. Certain areas still carry massive wall art with military themes, the scars are still there.

[AVlution]

Check this out , shows how many militant-style murals still exist in Belfast. They've actually become something of an attraction, with bus rides etc taking people around the bigger more famous ones.