Britain Raises Terrorism Threat Level, Meaning New Attack May Be Imminent - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Hezzy;52268817][URL]https://www.mi5.gov.uk/threat-levels[/URL] No; LOW means an attack is unlikely. MODERATE means an attack is possible, but not likely SUBSTANTIAL means an attack is a strong possibility SEVERE means an attack is highly likely CRITICAL means an attack is expected imminently The Home Secretary has stated that the bomber was likely not acting on his own, so there's potentially people out there with the capability and motivation to conduct more attacks. Have a read of the link above, it gives a little bit more of an insight into how / why threat levels are raised.[/QUOTE] from our experience of when and where terror attacks have occurred and how they happened, it seems like threat levels are utterly useless and can't predict anything for shit

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52268612]Soldiers working with police? Soldiers with police isn't good at all. They're trained to kill, they're trained for combat. Police/armed police are trained to deal with civilians.[/QUOTE] dude you watch too much Saving Private Ryan.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52268940]from our experience of when and where terror attacks have occurred and how they happened, it seems like threat levels are utterly useless and can't predict anything for shit[/QUOTE] That's a bit of a silly comment considering that the government doesn't share the details of how and when they've prevented terrorist attacks. The threat levels are based upon information they have, this information can often be interpreted in a number of ways so it obviously won't be 100% accurate.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52268612]Soldiers working with police? Soldiers with police isn't good at all. They're trained to kill, they're trained for combat. Police/armed police are trained to deal with civilians.[/QUOTE] The military and the police don't have the same tasks in such a situation, that's how it is here.

So weird to see armed cops around Glasgow

[quote]At the mosque, Mohammed Saeed El-Saeiti, the imam at the Didsbury mosque yesterday branded Abedi an dangerous extremist. “Salman showed me the face of hate after my speech on Isis,” said the imam. “He used to show me the face of hate and I could tell this person does not like me. It’s not a surprise to me.” Salman visited the mosque on a number of occasions to pray, but the imam insisted “he was not my friend, he is not close. I could understand that he was not happy with me because I did combat Isis in that Friday sermon sometimes”. The imam added: “When he passed by me, we Muslims greet each other and you know he is not happy with me if he doesn’t greet you.”[/quote] In my personal opinion, if someone shows any support for a terrorist organisation, you should report them and they should be detained unless there is a reasonable conclusion that they have no support. I support free speech but I was under the impression the attacks were occurring from unknown individuals, but these people are integrated community members.

[QUOTE=Lollipoopdeck;52269065]So weird to see armed cops around Glasgow[/QUOTE] Hopefully they'll avoid buying any sandwiches in TESCO

Fuck terrorists. Comicon is this weekend.

Personally having soldiers around makes me feel less secure just because of the environment of unease it represents. Like those soldiers or armed guards are there for a reason and the fact that there's a reason would make me feel uneasy. Granted there IS a reason but it's the whole "out if sight, out of mind" type thing, and vice versa.

[QUOTE=Hezzy;52268972]That's a bit of a silly comment considering that the government doesn't share the details of how and when they've prevented terrorist attacks. The threat levels are based upon information they have, this information can often be interpreted in a number of ways so it obviously won't be 100% accurate.[/QUOTE] it's not silly at all, I think the idea of "threat levels" do not correlate to reality at all and are based upon sparse information which is not very likely to be accurate you say that the government bases their assumptions off what they know, but I have yet to see any indication at all that they base anything off what they /don't/ know some information can be actually worse than no information

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52269173]it's not silly at all, I think the idea of "threat levels" do not correlate to reality at all and are based upon sparse information which is not very likely to be accurate you say that the government bases their assumptions off what they know, but I have yet to see any indication at all that they base anything off what they /don't/ know some information can be actually worse than no information[/QUOTE] Not sure what your point is - the government sets the threat level based on its assessment of the threat of the day fed to it from many intelligence sources. It is entirely understandable they don't make public the information they know or how they know it. As for people feeling uneasy about soldiers in the streets - It isn't ideal, it's a situation which I'd hoped we'd never have to see. Having said that, imagine this from the opposite perspective. Imagine if we'd left the threat level as it was and taken no precautionary measures after the first attack. Imagine then that there was another attack - which could possibly have been prevented by better security measures. I should imagine a number of people here would be saying that an obvious response to attack 1 would have been heightened security measures. Let the people who know what they're doing do their jobs. The Army are well trained professionals, not a bunch of mugs with machine guns and itchy trigger fingers.

[QUOTE=Matriax;52269234]Not sure what your point is - the government sets the threat level based on its assessment of the threat of the day fed to it from many intelligence sources. It is entirely understandable they don't make public the information they know or how they know it. As for people feeling uneasy about soldiers in the streets - It isn't ideal, it's a situation which I'd hoped we'd never have to see. Having said that, imagine this from the opposite perspective. Imagine if we'd left the threat level as it was and taken no precautionary measures after the first attack. Imagine then that there was another attack - which could possibly have been prevented by better security measures. I should imagine a number of people here would be saying that an obvious response to attack 1 would have been heightened security measures. Let the people who know what they're doing do their jobs. The Army are well trained professionals, not a bunch of mugs with machine guns and itchy trigger fingers.[/QUOTE] except terrorist attacks are not very predictable - they are quite random and unforeseen (hence why they are so big) raising the threat level and putting all of these soldiers on the streets immediately after is a stupid thing to do - it's in response to an event that already happened. unless they were out constantly (that is, the threat level remains critical and we have soldiers on patrol everywhere) then it's not going to do much terrorists know that shits heated up, so they're not going to plan an attack that the state can obviously do something about. they'll wait until they find a weak moment where they can strike unexpectedly. if we kept the threat level the same and the number of police the same, then (excluding the manhunt for the guys associates) we won't be in any extra danger than we were before. we are still as much at risk of a terror attack now as we were weeks ago. they also make their assessments on the basis of what they know - and not what they don't know. this isn't going to help much

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52269256]except terrorist attacks are not very predictable - they are quite random and unforeseen (hence why they are so big) raising the threat level and putting all of these soldiers on the streets immediately after is a stupid thing to do - it's in response to an event that already happened. unless they were out constantly (that is, the threat level remains critical and we have soldiers on patrol everywhere) then it's not going to do much terrorists know that shits heated up, so they're not going to plan an attack that the state can obviously do something about. they'll wait until they find a weak moment where they can strike unexpectedly. if we kept the threat level the same and the number of police the same, then (excluding the manhunt for the guys associates) we won't be in any extra danger than we were before. we are still as much at risk of a terror attack now as we were weeks ago. they also make their assessments on the basis of what they know - and not what they don't know. this isn't going to help much[/QUOTE] The reason why the army was deployed though was because it's thought that the bomber still has accomplices/conspirators on the run, and the fear is that knowing they're being hunted they could decide to go out in a blaze of "glory" - hence extra protection being afforded Plus there was no warning about the attack happening, hence the army wasn't on the streets before The troops will be gone when the known threat is resolved

[QUOTE=SEKCobra;52268473]I can't agree with that sentiment, military forces are usually not well equipped for fighting in highly populated areas with single combatants hiding in a crowd. The real plus is having a lot more armed personnel on the ground which is significant in the UK.[/QUOTE] I disagree. The army has a lot of experience in this sort of thing from Northern Ireland. I also don't see it as a bad thing. Obviously, security has been increased and that means more manpower is required. It makes sense to bolster the police with the army rather than to stretch the police force to breaking point.

[QUOTE=NassimO PotatO;52268912]You mean before the state of emergency ? If so yes, the Gendarmerie did some patrols on the critical locations like airports or train stations since 2001. Since November '15 the govt started the "Sentinelle" operation : 10 412 soldiers from all branches (land, air, sea and the Gendarmerie) do patrols on the criticals spots + places higly visited like museums for example, and even near the places of worship.[/QUOTE] When I was in a town just outside lyon I was extremely suprised to see a few soldiers with rifles patrolling the deserted town centre

[QUOTE=David29;52269466]I disagree. The army has a lot of experience in this sort of thing from Northern Ireland. I also don't see it as a bad thing. Obviously, security has been increased and that means more manpower is required. It makes sense to bolster the police with the army rather than to stretch the police force to breaking point.[/QUOTE] I certainly think there's nothing wrong with brining soldiers in to reassure the populous and get more armed responders onto the field.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52269173]it's not silly at all, I think the idea of "threat levels" do not correlate to reality at all and are based upon sparse information which is not very likely to be accurate you say that the government bases their assumptions off what they know, but I have yet to see any indication at all that they base anything off what they /don't/ know some information can be actually worse than no information[/QUOTE] You're entitled to think what you want but I must warn you that you are very wrong. If you had bothered to read the link I put in one of my earlier posts, you'd know that the threat level is set by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre. They don't just throw something at a dartboard and base it off that, which is what you are suggesting. I'm not sure if you've considered this, but perhaps they don't release information pertaining to the threats because it is part of an ongoing, sensitive, security operation? [quote]In reaching a judgement on the appropriate threat level in any given circumstance several factors need to be taken into account. These include: [B]Available intelligence. [/B] It is rare that specific threat information is available and can be relied upon. More often, judgements about the threat will be based on a wide range of information, which is often fragmentary, including the level and nature of current terrorist activity, comparison with events in other countries and previous attacks. Intelligence is only ever likely to reveal part of the picture. [B]Terrorist capability. [/B] An examination of what is known about the capabilities of the terrorists in question and the method they may use based on previous attacks or from intelligence. This would also analyse the potential scale of the attack. [B]Terrorist intentions. [/B] Using intelligence and publicly available information to examine the overall aims of the terrorists and the ways they may achieve them including what sort of targets they would consider attacking. [B]Timescale. [/B] The threat level expresses the likelihood of an attack in the near term. We know from past incidents that some attacks take years to plan, while others are put together more quickly. In the absence of specific intelligence, a judgement will need to be made about how close an attack might be to fruition. Threat levels do not have any set expiry date, but are regularly subject to review in order to ensure that they remain current.[/quote] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;52269256]except terrorist attacks are not very predictable - they are quite random and unforeseen (hence why they are so big) raising the threat level and putting all of these soldiers on the streets immediately after is a stupid thing to do - it's in response to an event that already happened. unless they were out constantly (that is, the threat level remains critical and we have soldiers on patrol everywhere) then it's not going to do much terrorists know that shits heated up, so they're not going to plan an attack that the state can obviously do something about. they'll wait until they find a weak moment where they can strike unexpectedly. if we kept the threat level the same and the number of police the same, then (excluding the manhunt for the guys associates) we won't be in any extra danger than we were before. we are still as much at risk of a terror attack now as we were weeks ago. they also make their assessments on the basis of what they know - and not what they don't know. this isn't going to help much[/QUOTE] Seems like you really know what you're talking about! Maybe since you know more about the situation than the entirety of our security, military and police services, you should volunteer your assistance? I'm sure they'll be overjoyed to hear from you.

I personally think that if these measures are deemed necessary by our Govt (regardless of their political leanings) that we should put our personal feelings aside. If these measures save 1 life then they are worth it. What fucking pisses me off is people quoting statistics about how insignificant terrorist numbers are, imagine being the parent of an innocent child who has recently died needlessly, I'm sure it's not insignificant to them.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52269256]except terrorist attacks are not very predictable - they are quite random and unforeseen (hence why they are so big) raising the threat level and putting all of these soldiers on the streets immediately after is a stupid thing to do - it's in response to an event that already happened. unless they were out constantly (that is, the threat level remains critical and we have soldiers on patrol everywhere) then it's not going to do much terrorists know that shits heated up, so they're not going to plan an attack that the state can obviously do something about. they'll wait until they find a weak moment where they can strike unexpectedly. if we kept the threat level the same and the number of police the same, then (excluding the manhunt for the guys associates) we won't be in any extra danger than we were before. we are still as much at risk of a terror attack now as we were weeks ago. they also make their assessments on the basis of what they know - and not what they don't know. this isn't going to help much[/QUOTE] Here we go. Line 1 - You don't know how predictable these attacks are, you are not in possession of all the facts and neither am I. That's just a deadfaced "I reckon" and don't pretend it isn't. As Hezzy linked, there are multiple factors that go into the determination of the threat level. Just because YOU think it's random and unforseen, doesn't mean it is. Line 2 - I already addressed that, read the 2nd part of my original post. Line 3 - I'd love to borrow that crystal ball of yours. Maybe true, but I'll reiterate Line 2. Line 4 - Another "I reckon". Line 5 - Without wishing to be rude - how the fuck do you know what these multiple intelligence agencies feed into the government and make their decisions off. You didn't just make that up did you?

nice of mummy theresa to intimidate the british population into supporting the tories come june, induce a state of fear and give the image that the current government is the only protector of the entire country [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] i'm saying that this could have a dual purpose, obviously i know this is a typical response to a terrorist attack

[QUOTE=Hezzy;52269568]You're entitled to think what you want but I must warn you that you are very wrong. If you had bothered to read the link I put in one of my earlier posts, you'd know that the threat level is set by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre. They don't just throw something at a dartboard and base it off that, which is what you are suggesting. I'm not sure if you've considered this, but perhaps they don't release information pertaining to the threats because it is part of an ongoing, sensitive, security operation?[/quote] they haven't done a very good job of it then. my point isn't that they should make threat levels public, my point is that they're useless and do more harm than good - they are based on half-accurate scraps of information which at best comes too late or doesn't help enough, or at worst actually makes things worse if you follow through on it [quote]Seems like you really know what you're talking about! Maybe since you know more about the situation than the entirety of our security, military and police services, you should volunteer your assistance? I'm sure they'll be overjoyed to hear from you.[/QUOTE] it's not that i know more, it's that i'm not as overconfident about what i know as they are. these terrorist measures don't work, and if anything matters are worsening because of them rather than improving. i do not feel any safer in the slightest and it's not going to stop the attacks. these security measures ultimately aren't going to stop the creation and spread of new terrorists. it's not going to stop the activities of terror cells (unless we invest into a massively expensive and freedom-limitating surveillance state). here's something, instead of focusing on bullshit "security measures", why don't we actually look at the real source of the problem (Like Saudi Arabia) and how it bankrolls and exports nutcases and horrible ideologies such as Salafism and Wahabbism? as of right now, i have little confidence in the British state to tackle these terrorists and to keep us safe whatsoever [QUOTE=Matriax;52269788]You don't know how predictable these attacks are, you are not in possession of all the facts and neither am I. That's just a deadfaced "I reckon" and don't pretend it isn't. As Hezzy linked, there are multiple factors that go into the determination of the threat level. Just because YOU think it's random and unforseen, doesn't mean it is.[/quote] they are largely unpredictable (hence they take everyone by surprise) - most of the "experts" are little better equipped than the general population are to deal with it. capische?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52269861]they haven't done a very good job of it then. my point isn't that they should make threat levels public, my point is that they're useless and do more harm than good - they are based on half-accurate scraps of information which at best comes too late or doesn't help enough, or at worst actually makes things worse if you follow through on it it's not that i know more, it's that i'm not as overconfident about what i know as they are. these terrorist measures don't work, and if anything matters are worsening because of them rather than improving. i do not feel any safer in the slightest and it's not going to stop the attacks. these security measures ultimately aren't going to stop the creation and spread of new terrorists. it's not going to stop the activities of terror cells (unless we invest into a massively expensive and freedom-limitating surveillance state). here's something, instead of focusing on bullshit "security measures", why don't we actually look at the real source of the problem (Like Saudi Arabia) and how it bankrolls and exports nutcases and horrible ideologies such as Salafism and Wahabbism? as of right now, i have little confidence in the British state to tackle these terrorists and to keep us whatsoever they are largely unpredictable (hence they take everyone by surprise) - most of the "experts" are little better equipped than the general population are to deal with it. capische?[/QUOTE] this is some of the most backwards logic i've ever seen, if anti terror measures don't work why don't they just get rid of them all and let your country get blown to shit because there's nothing stopping anyone from doing so

[QUOTE=TrulliLulli;52269885]this is some of the most backwards logic i've ever seen, if anti terrorist measures don't work why don't they just get rid of them all[/quote] well there's quite a lot of unnecessary ones that do nothing but infringe on our rights and make things worse [quote]and let your country get blown to shit because there's nothing stopping anyone from doing so[/QUOTE] i don't see the connecting logic I'll repeat again [b]These measures are not making us safer, if anything they are doing the opposite.[/b]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52269905]well there's quite a lot of unnecessary ones that do nothing but infringe on our rights and make things worse i don't see the connecting logic I'll repeat again [b]These measures are not making us safer, if anything they are doing the opposite.[/b][/QUOTE] and how is having soldiers helping the police force making you less safe

i dont think it makes you less safe but it does little to make you more secure, the army or even extra armed police wont stop the tactics currently being used by terrorist (vehicles, suicide bombs)

Putting soldiers on the streets will only make homes seem like warzones. I don't live in Manchester and I'm already sick of hearing about this horrible shit, imagine being there and having the terror attack replayed in discussion by everyone 24/7, and then you have armed forces patrolling the streets like some sort of dystopia. All this ensuring you never forget that several children were killed due to a conflict that doesn't concern you or them in the slightest. Something you have no control over and never will.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52269905]well there's quite a lot of unnecessary ones that do nothing but infringe on our rights and make things worse i don't see the connecting logic I'll repeat again [b]These measures are not making us safer, if anything they are doing the opposite.[/b][/QUOTE] in what way are these measures making it worse, most muslims have condemned this atrocity so my guess is that most would see these measures as a necessary evil.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52269861] these security measures ultimately aren't going to stop the creation and spread of new terrorists. it's not going to stop the activities of terror cells (unless we invest into a massively expensive and freedom-limitating surveillance state). [/QUOTE] You're not getting the point of raising the threat level - it is to deal with [I]the current situation[/I] specifically. By raising the threat level and deploying soldiers on guard duty, you are freeing up firearm-trained police officers to carry out raids and do investigative work (soldiers can't legally do either of those things so you use them to free up those that can). There could possibly be a bomb-maker loose in the UK so the authorities need to find them and wrap up any other members of the cell as quickly as they can. Once the cell is wrapped up (or they can prove that it is just the 1 guy), the threat level will go back down and the soldiers will go back to their barracks. If you look at the previous 2 times the threat level was raised to critical - it was just after a major attack, the authorities needed to make sure there weren't any other associates, and they lowed the level back down after a few days once the immediate threat had passed. TL;DR - raising the threat level to critical is a temporary thing to speed up the investigative process. [QUOTE=Menien Goneld;52270350]Putting soldiers on the streets will only make homes seem like warzones. I don't live in Manchester and I'm already sick of hearing about this horrible shit, imagine being there and having the terror attack replayed in discussion by everyone 24/7, and then you have armed forces patrolling the streets like some sort of dystopia. All this ensuring you never forget that several children were killed due to a conflict that doesn't concern you or them in the slightest. Something you have no control over and never will.[/QUOTE] As I explain above, the 'soldiers on the streets' thing is a temporary move - things will be back to 'normal' in a few days.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52269905]well there's quite a lot of unnecessary ones that do nothing but infringe on our rights and make things worse i don't see the connecting logic I'll repeat again [b]These measures are not making us safer, if anything they are doing the opposite.[/b][/QUOTE] I'm not sure what you are measuring your claims against. Is there any hard proof to say these security measures don't work?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52269861]they are largely unpredictable (hence they take everyone by surprise) - most of the "experts" are little better equipped than the general population are to deal with it. capische?[/QUOTE] Oh right, really? Should I bow you your knowledge? How much expertise do you have in this field then, as a member of the general population? Do you have access to a global communications network of intelligence gathering sources? Do you have legions of people working day, day out detecting patterns of life, identifying threats, cross examining sources of information? Do you have field teams dedicated to infiltrating undercover networks capable of building bombs? Do you have access to a network of supply information, working out what buyer can build potentially harmful devices? As a member of the general population, do you have any of that? Or do you have as I have already pointed out, absolutely nothing beyond your barefaced "I reckon"? Now, I'm not an intelligence specialist, I have no expertise in this area. However, I'd say I seem to know a tad more than you do. You make a lot of claims about measures not working, and how these measures won't do anything. My message is that, and I'm annoyed I have to say it again:- [B]You have no factual basis to make that claim, and you seem to have no fucking idea what you're talking about. You have no made ONE valid point against ANYTHING that either Hezzy or I have said in rebuttal to you. If you're not going to do that, stop spreading fear mongering bullshit.[/B] Until you're willing to address what has been pointed out to you time and time again, you're wasting everyone's time.