[Kizzy]

You highlighted the issue they're a potential terrorist target so obv not.
They know where and prob when a strike is most likely but a warning would cause mass panic, it's not unusual to suspect it may be the capital.

[Ross.]

Omg

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

How awful that a suspected terrorist attack might mess up someone's weekend. Why does everyone think an attack would take place in London? It's as likely to take place in any other big city, at any airport or port, at any highly industrialised area, at nuclear plants or fuel reserves... the list is a long one.

Because terrorist attacks are likely to try for as much damage as possible with one strike, and nowhere else in the UK even comes close to the population density of London. Also, while there is activity in every major city, the majority of terrorist "whisperings" come out of London. Again, because it has such a massive proportion of the population. For example, the London urban area has almost double the population of the whole of Scotland (9.8 million vs roughly 5.3 million).

So whilst that is far from making it CERTAIN that an attack would be in London, it is by far the most likely target.

[Toy Soldier]

Basically the same reason that Manhattan Island is a "popular" target.

[JoshBB]

How likely is it that they would hit southeast essex?

[arista]

Originally Posted by StupidHoe

Great and I am going to London for a week soon

You will be fine


Special Police
are all over the place
protecting you.

[arista]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

How likely is it that they would hit southeast essex?

if you see loads of Armed Police , suddenly ,near you
its time to go to another zone



Life In The Fast Lane

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Because terrorist attacks are likely to try for as much damage as possible with one strike, and nowhere else in the UK even comes close to the population density of London. Also, while there is activity in every major city, the majority of terrorist "whisperings" come out of London. Again, because it has such a massive proportion of the population. For example, the London urban area has almost double the population of the whole of Scotland (9.8 million vs roughly 5.3 million).

So whilst that is far from making it CERTAIN that an attack would be in London, it is by far the most likely target.

Yes, I know all that TS. I come from London, I know that the population of London is more than double the size of the Scottish and Welsh populations combined. When the IRA bombed Warrington it was a shocking awakener. The Warrington bombing didn't cause more damage than London bombs, but it it caused more terror because suddenly, everyone was a target. And terror is what it's all about. It's complacent to imagine that any terrorist action will be restricted to London, even thought it's a likely target.

[Anaesthesia]

Climate of Fear, a well-known and often used mechanism by those in power to force still more controls upon the populace.

I'm not downplaying ISIS at all. Just saying that governments often abuse these threats in order to gain a higher level of control. Soon you'll WANT every communication to be monitored, and that's a sad state of affairs to me, and a good move from the totalitarians...and they are not all jihadis.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Anaesthesia

Climate of Fear, a well-known and often used mechanism by those in power to force still more controls upon the populace.

I'm not downplaying ISIS at all. Just saying that governments often abuse these threats in order to gain a higher level of control. Soon you'll WANT every communication to be monitored, and that's a sad state of affairs to me, and a good move from the totalitarians...and they are not all jihadis.

The amount of information that passes through our security services on a weekly basis is mind-boggling. I am confident that if there was not a threat, we would not be warned. I would much rather be aware of the current intelligence than to go around in ignorant bliss.

I would be interested to see evidence of the purported abuse of warnings to gain higher control in respect of terrorist threats on home soil.

[Anaesthesia]

Originally Posted by Livia

The amount of information that passes through our security services on a weekly basis is mind-boggling. I am confident that if there was not a threat, we would not be warned. I would much rather be aware of the current intelligence than to go around in ignorant bliss.

I would be interested to see evidence of the purported abuse of warnings to gain higher control in respect of terrorist threats on home soil.

I'm not downplaying a threat, at all. And I agree about awareness, but to the extent that I'm even nervous to go shopping in the town I live in doesn't sit well with me. Because the threat is so general it creates a fear mindset in everyone, no matter where you live, no matter how likely your town is to be a target, and that is surely not a good thing?

We seem to be living under constant threat and not a lot of joy, and I am not entirely convinced that the extent of the threat justifies the fear people experience in their everyday lives.

And slowly but surely, it seems that more general control mechanisms are being put in place off the back of these threats to make people want to believe someone out there is protecting them. And I am equally convinced these mechanisms outweigh the threat itself. And I am not convinced the government pushes these through for concern for the nation's safety over the power it can gain for itself to monitor what EVERYONE is doing.

I cannot provide evidence, I can merely provide an observational viewpoint and I think, a reasoned summing up.

[AnnieK]

I think it's a little naive to assume it would be London. If anywhere security is going to be at its tightest it's in big cities... yes there may be higher populations there but also higher levels of law enforcement etc....If one were to happen it wouldn't surprise me at all if it's somewhere completely unexpected....as Livia said.

[arista]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

I think it's a little naive to assume it would be London. If anywhere security is going to be at its tightest it's in big cities... yes there may be higher populations there but also higher levels of law enforcement etc....If one were to happen it wouldn't surprise me at all if it's somewhere completely unexpected....as Livia said.

Yes easy to do in Manchester or a city like that
as so many think it will be London.


Also the Police Armed
are trying to track some people
I hope the catch them before they attack any area.


Life In The City

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Anaesthesia

I'm not downplaying a threat, at all. And I agree about awareness, but to the extent that I'm even nervous to go shopping in the town I live in doesn't sit well with me. Because the threat is so general it creates a fear mindset in everyone, no matter where you live, no matter how likely your town is to be a target, and that is surely not a good thing?

We seem to be living under constant threat and not a lot of joy, and I am not entirely convinced that the extent of the threat justifies the fear people experience in their everyday lives.

And slowly but surely, it seems that more general control mechanisms are being put in place off the back of these threats to make people want to believe someone out there is protecting them. And I am equally convinced these mechanisms outweigh the threat itself. And I am not convinced the government pushes these through for concern for the nation's safety over the power it can gain for itself to monitor what EVERYONE is doing.

I cannot provide evidence, I can merely provide an observational viewpoint and I think, a reasoned summing up.

It's good people understand the severity of the threat, but it's better to be in charge of all the facts, surely. Do I think about it getting on the Tube? Yes, I do. Does it stop me getting on the Tube? No, not at all... me and hundreds of thousands of others. And someone out there is protecting us... or at least trying their best while being metaphorically blindfolded and hogtied.

As for the government wanting to monitor everyone... are your emails that interesting? I know mine aren't.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

could be a softening up prior to more uk involvement

WMD anyone?

Or a distraction.Russia are apparently piling troops into Ukraine.......

[Anaesthesia]

Originally Posted by Livia

It's good people understand the severity of the threat, but it's better to be in charge of all the facts, surely. Do I think about it getting on the Tube? Yes, I do. Does it stop me getting on the Tube? No, not at all... me and hundreds of thousands of others. And someone out there is protecting us... or at least trying their best while being metaphorically blindfolded and hogtied.

As for the government wanting to monitor everyone... are your emails that interesting? I know mine aren't.

I am finding it increasingly difficult to balance threats and propaganda (please don't tell me western governments don't do it) , and while I do believe there is a threat, I am dubious about the whole terror level thing simply because of its amorphousness (is that even a word?) We are being scared as much by our own press releases as we are by the actual threat. We cannot really quantify that actual threat.

No, my emails are not interesting, nor my texts or tweets, but I am aware there are trigger words (I recall a man being arrested at his workplace for texting the lyrics to "suspect device" to a friend) and I was even nervous about putting the word "bomb" in a recent text.

If we are to have increased awareness, should we by association be afraid to use certain words because of the implications?

This is what I mean about climate of fear. It subdues freedom of speech, right to privacy, and the list goes on. Somehow, somewhere, we need to come up with a balance. Then people may start to trust.

[Anaesthesia]

I meant to say, "threats, FACTS and propaganda", but I've tried three times to edit nw and TIBB won't let me

[arista]

Originally Posted by Anaesthesia

I meant to say, "threats, FACTS and propaganda", but I've tried three times to edit nw and TIBB won't let me

Yes TIBB Bugs again

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Locke.

Southport will be first on the hitlist

Originally Posted by arista

'Greatest Terror Threat' next to Mary Berry, how apt.

[Anaesthesia]

Well that's ok then :P

[Jamesy]

South Wales will be the big target this week with the NATO summit going on.

In the grand scheme of things this is just a precaution though. Ireland has been on "severe" terrorism alert since 2010, for example.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Anaesthesia

I meant to say, "threats, FACTS and propaganda", but I've tried three times to edit nw and TIBB won't let me

Yeah, feel your pain LOL.

Your opinion is an interesting one... not one I share, but interesting even so.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

I think it's a little naive to assume it would be London. If anywhere security is going to be at its tightest it's in big cities... yes there may be higher populations there but also higher levels of law enforcement etc....If one were to happen it wouldn't surprise me at all if it's somewhere completely unexpected....as Livia said.

No it isn't naive at all The IRA and international terrorist organisations are very different entities, with the IRA you had coded warnings, dialogue and patterns of behaviour. With this we have nothing, apart from the knowledge that London has been a target before with devastating consequences.
As said it's the most likely target, though nobody has said an attack in other parts of the country was impossible.

[anne666]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You highlighted the issue they're a potential terrorist target so obv not.
They know where and prob when a strike is most likely but a warning would cause mass panic, it's not unusual to suspect it may be the capital.

I think attack on Nuclear anything in this country or nuclear attack from ISIS is highly unlikely. They are out to gain control and the wealth of their targets as well as killing as many people as possible, Muslims included. I read somewhere the other day a statement from ISIS saying British Muslims are considered apostates. I think it all depends on the mood of the beheader or leader of the day, who they slaughter.

Originally Posted by Jamesy

South Wales will be the big target this week with the NATO summit going on.

In the grand scheme of things this is just a precaution though. Ireland has been on "severe" terrorism alert since 2010, for example.

Yes I think the NATO summit has a lot to do with this increase.

Originally Posted by Kizzy

No it isn't naive at all The IRA and international terrorist organisations are very different entities, with the IRA you had coded warnings, dialogue and patterns of behaviour. With this we have nothing, apart from the knowledge that London has been a target before with devastating consequences.
As said it's the most likely target, though nobody has said an attack in other parts of the country was impossible.

I also try to have faith in our secret services who's work shouldn't be underestimated. This is from the Daily Fail, Al Qaeda pretending to have influence over ISIS , telling them what to do. ISIS don't give a fig about who they slaughter. At least Al Qaeda tried to avoid Muslim deaths and any were considered as collateral damage.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...y-prayers.html

Blow up Sandhurst and supermarkets (but only on a Friday): Al Qaeda instruction manual tells British jihadists to target famous store while Muslims are safely at prayers
Publication by Al Qaeda's media arm encourages new wave of terror attacks
Suggests British military and shopping institutions are among top targets
Also orders attacks in Times Square, casinos and military colleges in U.S.
Magazine is titled Palestine: Betrayal of the Guilty Conscience Al-Malahem
Latest edition contains nine-page spread on best way to make car bombs
English-language magazine also has a timeline of notable acts of terrorism, concluding wit a blank entry marked '201?'

Desperate to still be heard.

I believe that when ours and the US oil supplies are threatened or there is a terrorist attack in either country, ISIS will be taken on. Bear in mind an election is also due. Until then, as humanitarianism is not an agenda in the main with any Government of any country, what business is it of ours? Succumbing to fear and allowing our daily lives to be affected is exactly what all terrorists want.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by anne666

I think attack on Nuclear anything in this country or nuclear attack from ISIS is highly unlikely. They are out to gain control and the wealth of their targets as well as killing as many people as possible, Muslims included. I read somewhere the other day a statement from ISIS saying British Muslims are considered apostates. I think it all depends on the mood of the beheader or leader of the day, who they slaughter.




Yes I think the NATO summit has a lot to do with this increase.




I also try to have faith in our secret services who's work shouldn't be underestimated. This is from the Daily Fail, Al Qaeda pretending to have influence over ISIS , telling them what to do. ISIS don't give a fig about who they slaughter. At least Al Qaeda tried to avoid Muslim deaths and any were considered as collateral damage.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...y-prayers.html




Desperate to still be heard.

I believe that when ours and the US oil supplies are threatened or there is a terrorist attack in either country, ISIS will be taken on. Bear in mind an election is also due. Until then, as humanitarianism is not an agenda in the main with any Government of any country, what business is it of ours? Succumbing to fear and allowing our daily lives to be affected is exactly what all terrorists want.

I wasn't the first to suggest nuclear facilities were a possible target but I still agree they could be due to the devastation to Europe as a result, then explained as the martyrdom of British muslims.
Nobody has underestimated the intelligence work, it could be that radicalisation is seemingly more widespread and unpredictable in the west than imagined?