Oh your dead funny aren't you
Britain's Defences
- Thread starter [TW]Sponge
- Start date
Oh your dead funny aren't you
Why bother, you can't make much difference with something that suffers from inherrant failings.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,763
In all my time of service I've never seen unethical behavior or been led to believe that it would be ok behave in such a way. The Army certainly has made mistakes and crossed the line (well beyond the line) at times but these are the exceptions. Most of the time the services behave perfectly but those few mistakes really let us down.
I understand your comments may have been directed more at the Int agencies than soldiers but we are part of the security services.
Not the US.
Plenty rapiers to do the job, no they are not the same as the 82 version!
We only have to defend the base till reinforcements arrive. Bloody horrible flight though!
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,281
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Correct observation is correct.
We still have nukes, so if someone ****es us off enough we will blow up the world
Without sliding into genocide?
I mean where do you stop with that one?
But my point still stands.
Just how does the scale of a terrorist attack relate to the capability of an intelligence services really? Are you just arguing for the sake of it? Do I really need to justify why the UK and US have the best int services to you? It would be a waste of my time wouldn't it? Because you're just going to argue your opinion either way
Just how does the scale of a terrorist attack relate to the capability of an intelligence services really? Are you just arguing for the sake of it? Do I really need to justify why the UK and US have the best int services to you? It would be a waste of my time wouldn't it? Because you're just going to argue your opinion either way
Well of course I am going to argue my opinion, that shouldn't stop you arguing yours.
The bigger the attack, the more preperation made and quite possible some communication given the international/sponsored/organised nature of these attacks, or other sorts of 'alarm's. Given the details that are often found out after the events, you sometimes wonder why the systems in place didn't catch them beforehand. People on black lists etc etc
All our security counter measures seem to come into place after an attempt of that kind. Never before it.
I'm not sure on world comparison on intelligence I'd need to go and try find figures. I don't doubt US/UK spending is pretty high up that that field. Or that everyone works hard for safety and there have been several cells discovered, but with the succesful & failed attempts that have managed to slip through...
Evaluation of evidence and human intel seem to be persistant problems. We are lucky that the london failed car/gas bomb and Glasgow bombers weren't more apt at their task.
I think you're looking at it in a completely bizarre and biased way. Fact of the matter is regardless how good a nations Int service is, if someone wants to plan such an attack then they are clearly capable to do it, regardless of which country being targetted. The fact our intel has failed us sometimes isn't really reflective of how incapable it is, of course it will fail sometimes. You're choosing to overlook the fact that the US and UK are now more prolific targets for big terrorist attacks so threats are bound to slip through the net once in a while.
I think our services do a better job at counter Int than any other nation. If you expect a 100% success rate in such an area then I think you need a reality check.
On a sidenote, seeing as you mention it, human int will always be inherently unreliable and from questionable sources.
I think our services do a better job at counter Int than any other nation. If you expect a 100% success rate in such an area then I think you need a reality check.
On a sidenote, seeing as you mention it, human int will always be inherently unreliable and from questionable sources.
Last edited:
I'd recommend reading The Shadow Factory by James Bamford, has some interesting bits about 9/11 and how/why things got missed.
Been a while since I read it but seem to remember that some of it was partly due ot the NSAs hands being tied as to who they were allowed to monitor by law.
As said it's been a while since reading it so could have remembered wrong, but it was a good book
Been a while since I read it but seem to remember that some of it was partly due ot the NSAs hands being tied as to who they were allowed to monitor by law.
As said it's been a while since reading it so could have remembered wrong, but it was a good book
Agree'd
7/7, 21/7 and JCdM, WMD in Iraq disagree
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
well we are please fully star out swearing, the state took all our weapons, they even took our swords. If some arabs invaded with machetes and automatic weapons all we would have is planks of wood and kitchen knives. What about if the EU decided that they wanted to take over GB and claim it as another state of the eu. Like a hitler v2.0. Always possible, all we have is a bunch useless marines, most of them are fighting for oil assets in the middle east. We have zero defences on british soil, unless you count 1 million+ cctv cameras as a form of defence.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
what exactly do they do ?
except lie and stage terror attacks to justify their existence.
Oh dear.
A single country within Europe (going from your hitler example) just sails an army across the channel and lands on British soil? There are so many things you have overlooked it is not worth me trying to type them all.
Now you mention it though, those camera's could potentially be very useful.
Last edited: