scumble on 10/8/2006 at 13:53
Stop bickering you fools.
And I object to being called a middle class cunt as well.
Paz on 10/8/2006 at 13:53
(Actually Bob said it better, but I'll leave this here anyway)
I have some sympathy with our dear old fuzz. Any lead they follow which turns out to be incorrect will be (often rightly) condemned as incompetence and anything they miss which leads to a successful terrorist action is also grand ineptitude.
This is fair criticism, to an extent - and I don't want our services getting off the hook when they balls up. In both instances errors (sometimes catastrophic errors) have taken place. But I don't know where you can go from there - either the police should just give up (perhaps leading to more of the second kind of error) or become extremely over-zealous and create many more of the first kind of calamity.
I'm dubious about the timing of this latest "threat" and to what degree the reality matches the reporting, but it's hardly outside the realms of possibility. Yes, I wish they'd be a lot more careful with their language, but if they think bad shit is going down I want them to check it out. In principle, this isn't any different from when they used to temporarily close railway stations after receiving IRA phone-threats. It's annoying as fuck, but people would be quite rightly outraged if the line "eh, it's probably nothing" was taken.
And yes, the perverse way in which stuff like this manages to boost massively wrong-headed approaches to state security and foreign policy is very, very annoying.
scumble on 10/8/2006 at 14:02
The wider question is one of what is really driving the threat - it most likely wouldn't be there if the government weren't involved in dodgy military adventures at the same time.
So it isn't really the fault of the Police that they have to deal with this problem, so I'd also be more sympathetic with what they're trying to do, as long as they don't get big heads and start throwing their weight around.
Hopefully this was a coherent response
Paz on 10/8/2006 at 14:29
"What is really driving the threat" is a question far beyond my scope. I think it's fair to say that Britain's foreign expeditions were pretty much akin to putting up a flag with "hi, we'd like to be a target please" written on it - but I also think it would be highly reductionist to say "no Iraq jaunt = no terrorism threat". My own thought would be more along the lines "Iraq jaunt = HIGHER terrorism threat".
Regardless, that would have been a shockingly awful way to devise policy in the first place. There were scores of pragmatic reasons not to invade which had nothing to with whether it would encourage/discourage attacks in the UK. This is just an unfortunate "bonus".
The even wiiiider problem is that I can't vote for anyone who is likely to:
a) win
b) turn this ship around
scumble on 10/8/2006 at 15:08
Quote Posted by Paz
My own thought would be more along the lines "Iraq jaunt = HIGHER terrorism threat".
Exactly, that's probably what I meant to say. Britain has just as long (if not longer) history of messing about in the Middle East going back to the beginning of the 20th century, if not further, and the damage wouldn't be undone overnight.
Quote:
Regardless, that would have been a shockingly awful way to devise policy in the first place. There were scores of pragmatic reasons not to invade which had nothing to with whether it would encourage/discourage attacks in the UK.
The moral objections are even more important in my view. The death of innocent civilians should never considered a trade-off on the vaguely conceived "greater good" - pragmatic objections are usually linked to failure of aggressive violence to produce positive results as far as I can see. People just don't say to themselves "All my family is dead but I'm glad I can vote!".
Quote:
The even wiiiider problem is that I can't vote for anyone who is likely to:
a) win
b) turn this ship around
I think it's likely the ship will sink first, I just don't know what will replace it. One can hope though...
SD on 10/8/2006 at 15:30
Quote Posted by Vigil
How much are you willing to bet? Name a sum.
(
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1488823#post1488823) I already did.
Quote Posted by OnionBob
I don't understand for one moment what it is you're trying to say you'd rather see.
I'd rather not see people running around like headless chickens because our government has invented/escalated another threat for political ends. "Mass murder on an unimaginable scale"? Do me a favour.
Quote:
but that doesn't mean for one second that there is no possibility that something might, just might, be planned.
Who says it doesn't? I mean, I doubt it very much, but it
could be real, I guess it has to be real one day (it happened to the Boy Who Cried Wolf, after all). However I've not once claimed otherwise and I don't know why you assume that's what I'm saying. That's no excuse for this horrendous over-reaction by anyone and everyone though.
The terrorist threat to Britain is minuscule. It certainly does not warrant this level of panic. What we really ought to be concerned about are the repurcussions that are visited on us because of these "terror threats". It's 2006 going on 1984.
Rug Burn Junky on 10/8/2006 at 15:44
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
it
could be real, [...] I've not once claimed otherwise and I don't know why you assume that's what I'm saying.
Do you even understand what you write?
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
A crisp English ten pound note says this threat is as real as the UNDERGROUND RICIN PLOT, the DIRTY BOMB PLOT, and the FOREST GATE CHEMICAL WEAPONS FACTORY.
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
So, how many of these "foiled terror attacks" in the recent past have been genuine?
Ricin plot - no
Menezes - no
Forest Gate chemical weapons factory - no
News Of The World Dirty bomb - no
"I bet that this plot is as real as plot X, Y, and Z."
"Plots X, Y, and Z were not real."
"Why are you guys accusing me of saying that I don't think this could be a real plot?"
Jesus christ, you're fucking retarded.
OnionBob on 10/8/2006 at 15:54
Nobody is maliciously making these threats up. This isn't the X-Files. No government, and certainly not ours, is organised enough to completely orchestrate such a paranoid conspiracy without at least one person sounding out and saying "oh yeah guys by the way it was fake, all those coppers and stuff, they're all in on it, and we would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those pesky internet kids and their strontium dog too"
Quote:
Who says it doesn't? I mean, I doubt it very much, but it
could be real, I guess it has to be real one day (it happened to the Boy Who Cried Wolf, after all). However I've not once claimed otherwise and I don't know why you assume that's what I'm saying. That's no excuse for this horrendous over-reaction by anyone and everyone though.
Oh please. "I'VE NOT ONCE CLAIMED OTHERWISE YOU'RE MISQUOTING ME I AM BEING STRAW MANNED". The implication is clear enough to anyone with a reading age higher than six. I don't think you even know what you're saying half of the time. You even did it in your last post. "...the government has
invented/escalated another threat blah blah... the terrorist threat to Britiain is minuscule [sic]..." The terrorist threat to britain hasn't been miniscule since the IRA started leaving presents in the odd pub now and again. The fact that the media and the government are these days much more adept at using attacks for political and commercial gain does not mean that they don't or can't happen, and that there aren't a plethora of nutters out there who are believing that hype and deciding to get out of their invariably dull and underachieving lives and grab themselves a slice of the action.
Quote:
The terrorist threat to Britain is minuscule. It certainly does not warrant this level of panic. What we really ought to be concerned about are the repurcussions that are visited on us because of these "terror threats". It's 2006 going on 1984.
I don't think anyone's really panicking, to be honest. Most of the publicity, even, is about how long the fucking queues are at the airports. I'm in London right now, and despite the implication of "THERE MIGHT BE A BACKUP ATTACK" there wasn't really much thought given before I got on the tube as normal today, and it certainly wasn't any quieter so I don't think people gave that much of a shit on a practical level. I think people are, like they have been since the July bombings and so forth, fairly level-headed about it. Well, most people. Some people have so many eye-rollingly naive Orwell references cascading feverishly out of their gullets that they're foaming at the mouth.
Starrfall on 10/8/2006 at 16:06
I think part of the trouble is that any time you get anything that can be called a "suspected terrorist plot" it seems that 90% of the time it's just a bunch of angry young people saying "wouldn't it be great if we bombed X", 7% of the time they might have attempted to make a few explosives but never really got anywhere and didn't really have a plan for what to do if they DID make a sucessful bomb, 2% of the time they have a plan but botch it so that maybe 2 people get hurt, and 1% of the time they're deadly serious, well organized, and if sucessful could inflict a lot of damage.
And you really, really, really want to catch that last 1%.
PigLick on 10/8/2006 at 16:23
Some people have so many eye-rollingly naive Orwell references cascading feverishly out of their gullets that they're foaming at the mouth.
