Terror Threat

Von Smallhausen said:
There would have been more had extremist attacks had they not been intercepted.

We can thank the US intel community for that.
Click to expand...

That's no kind of argument. I'm sure there would have been a hell of a lot more IRA attacks which were prevented by British intelligence.

So we're currently on the highest state of alert in this system. What's going to happen if terrorist attacks actually start happening? Are they going add more levels, higher than the maximum to indicated the increased danger?

Suppose terrorists started attacking in this country as regularly as they do in Israel or Nepal. Those countries have genuine justification for being on a high level of terror alert: By selecting the maximum category, we're claiming we're at the same level of risk as those countries...... it's absolute rubbish.
 
It is just a scale, as we are not attacked with any frequency in this country, any intelligence to suggest that there is an immediate threat should surely be treated at the higher end of the scale?
 
jimbob27 said:
That's no kind of argument. I'm sure there would have been a hell of a lot more IRA attacks which were prevented by British intelligence.

So we're currently on the highest state of alert in this system. What's going to happen if terrorist attacks actually start happening? Are they going add more levels, higher than the maximum to indicated the increased danger?

Suppose terrorists started attacking in this country as regularly as they do in Israel or Nepal. Those countries have genuine justification for being on a high level of terror alert: By selecting the maximum category, we're claiming we're at the same level of risk as those countries...... it's absolute rubbish.
Click to expand...

For all you know we could be under constant attacks being thwarted through work of intelligence agencies which by their definition arn't going to get much recognition.

James Bond dosen't want to be on the front of The Times. :p
 
kenmare said:
For all you know we could be under constant attacks being thwarted through work of intelligence agencies which by their definition arn't going to get much recognition.

James Bond dosen't want to be on the front of The Times. :p
Click to expand...

Well that's only true if you belive that James Bond is 100% more effective than Mossad. Those guys don't screw around (James Bond does:p).
 
Of course it's stupid.

Since 2006 when it was put in, the alert level has changed bteween three things. Severe, critical and substantial. They vary in meaning from an attack is a strong possibility to an attack is expected immediately.

What a load of meaningless scaremongering nonsense.

Are they too scared to put it below the equivalent of "OMG!" just in case an attack happens and they were wrong?

How -EXACTLY- am I supposed to behave differently between an attack being a strong possibility and an attack being highly likely?

If I was to be sensible and not leave the house because an attack was highly likely, I'd be stuck in the house for three years.

Their scale is utterly indefensible.
 
Luckily from me I only commute from Sidcup to Greenwich :D

But seriously, these stories seem to pop up every month, without much really happening.

Lets hope this continues :)

edit: PAHAHAHA Pixel that actually made me lol :) not sure if I should be but still...
 
Why do they always want to blow up planes and buses and cars and things? What is the obsession with transport, especially blowing up transport?

Why not let a pack of rabies infected pit bulls loose in Oxford street or something? Surely that would cause more terror?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom