London 'Terror Attacks'
-
Waiting for gas cannisters to cook off isn't exactly the most reliable detonator. The Glasgow incident would likely have caused casualties had they not crashed into the concrete bollards instead of the doors though. You don't find the sheer amount of deadly intent worrying? All those asshats needed were the detonators and high explosive trigger charges that the IRA had a ready supply of (primarily 'stolen' from the Coal board) and you would have seen mass casualities.
is the reaction of government really proportional to the risk to the public that is demonstrated by these failures to kill?
What reaction?
Ryan Roberts wrote:
You don't find the sheer ammount of deadly intent worrying?
I see a frequency of attacks that is massively less than it was when the IRA were in their heyday and a frequency of successful attacks down in the single digits of percent.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
What reaction?
Armed police at all tube stations. Stop and search rates through the roof. The Prevention of Terrorism Act. The drive to increase the time suspects can be held without charge. Note that this was in reference to the governmental reaction to all the incidents over the last 10 years or so, rather than these specific incidents.
-
Hey you, wake up! The "terror" is a show. The government tries to scare people to make them accept the surveillance of public places, phones and so on. Europe turns into a loose group of police states and the only argument for this change is "terror terror terror". I cannot see any terror, but I can see our rights go to hell. If one day an unemployed actor admits that he/she played "terrorist no. x" I won't wonder at all...
____________________________________ There is no proof for this sentence.
I cannot see any terror Then you are willfuly blind. If one day an unemployed actor admits that he/she played "terrorist no. x" I won't wonder at all Wow, you a truther too?
-
During the IRA campaign, the location of the explosive device was published together with a code-word that signified a real attack. The IRA also used Semtex and other recognised explosive mixes and a simple detonation device that did not require the bomber to be in the vicinity of the device. By publicizing the existence of such a device, innocent persons were not usually harmed - just inconvenienced. The modern Islamic human suicide bombers who does not announce his/her/their presence and intentions is worrying insofar that there exists no code-word, no publicizing of when/where, and the attack or threats of attack is designed in the best traditions of genuine terror, and to cause large scale death and injuries to unsuspecting innocent individuals as shown to great effect in Baghdad and surrounding areas. To suggest that the government is not behaving appropriately is wrong. It is the duty of government to protect its citizens and the infrastructure, so acting in the way it does is deemed necessary, even if government do make some minor errors along the way. Please don't get complacent. Just because these attacks failed doesn't mean they are incompetent. Better to think that those citizens who use those parts of the UK regularly should consider themselves fortunate that the attack, on this occasion, failed. It might be a different story next time.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The modern Islamic human suicide bombers who does not announce his/her/their presence and intentions is worrying insofar that there exists no code-word, no publicizing of when/where, and the attack or threats of attack is designed in the best traditions of genuine terror, and to cause large scale death and injuries to unsuspecting innocent individuals
But no actual working bomb.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
To suggest that the government is not behaving appropriately is wrong.
No, it's valid criticism of policies that are doing nothing to prevent terrorism and everything to tread on individual citizens.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Please don't get complacent.
I'm not going to get complacent. I'm just not going to let the government and the media cause far more terror in the populace than these 'bombers' ever will.
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
You don't find the sheer ammount of deadly intent worrying?
I see a frequency of attacks that is massively less than it was when the IRA were in their heyday and a frequency of successful attacks down in the single digits of percent.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
What reaction?
Armed police at all tube stations. Stop and search rates through the roof. The Prevention of Terrorism Act. The drive to increase the time suspects can be held without charge. Note that this was in reference to the governmental reaction to all the incidents over the last 10 years or so, rather than these specific incidents.
Craster wrote:
attacks that is massively less than it was when the IRA were in their heyday
Not on the mainland it isn't. There were 6 attacks between 1989 and 1986, killing a total of 20 people - 11 of those soldiers. There was also far less (at least publicised) interception of plots as the cells in the UK were very small but well supplied and professional. Much different to the problem we have now with far greater numbers of enthusiatic amateurs who want to borrow uncle Jamal's Mercedes and kill some slags.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The modern Islamic human suicide bombers who does not announce his/her/their presence and intentions is worrying insofar that there exists no code-word, no publicizing of when/where, and the attack or threats of attack is designed in the best traditions of genuine terror, and to cause large scale death and injuries to unsuspecting innocent individuals
But no actual working bomb.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
To suggest that the government is not behaving appropriately is wrong.
No, it's valid criticism of policies that are doing nothing to prevent terrorism and everything to tread on individual citizens.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Please don't get complacent.
I'm not going to get complacent. I'm just not going to let the government and the media cause far more terror in the populace than these 'bombers' ever will.
Dummy bomb, non-working bomb, or real active bomb. Does it matter? What is the different? The basis of terror is just that - TERROR Prevention of terror is dependent upon so many variables. Unless you have intimate knowledge of these variables, then you are blind to some extent. Thus, intelligence cannot always deliver actual details consequently you sometimes have to tread on individuals rights in order to establish the fuller picture that you possibly can. It is far better for government to inform the people of such threats than to keep us "in-the-dark".
-
Hey you, wake up! The "terror" is a show. The government tries to scare people to make them accept the surveillance of public places, phones and so on. Europe turns into a loose group of police states and the only argument for this change is "terror terror terror". I cannot see any terror, but I can see our rights go to hell. If one day an unemployed actor admits that he/she played "terrorist no. x" I won't wonder at all...
____________________________________ There is no proof for this sentence.
Corinna John wrote:
, but I can see our rights go to hell.
Oh yeah, you're really being oppressed. Poor, poor oppressed you. Just look at how repressive your life has become. You have food to eat, a roof over your head, medical care, heating in the winter, a car to drive, the ability and freedom to criticise your government and it's policies, the ability to speak your mind without fear of retribution, the ability to come and go as you please, you enjoy relative peace and security...oh wait... Gee, I'm sorry, which rights did you lose, exactly? And yeah, the Madrid, London and 9/11 bombings were quite the shows. Did you have popcorn while you watched them? What's it like enjoying nice popcorn and while people die in a subway tunnel explosion? Bet you had a nice evening on those days, right? -- modified at 8:24 Monday 2nd July, 2007 Awesome! I got a '1 vote'! Somebody apparently feels that their government is actually oppressing them! So, vote 1 and tell me what rights you've lost! And by simultaneously voting '1', you've also implied that you thought the Madrid, London and 9/11 attacks WERE indeed good things. Nice person you are!
-
Craster wrote:
attacks that is massively less than it was when the IRA were in their heyday
Not on the mainland it isn't. There were 6 attacks between 1989 and 1986, killing a total of 20 people - 11 of those soldiers. There was also far less (at least publicised) interception of plots as the cells in the UK were very small but well supplied and professional. Much different to the problem we have now with far greater numbers of enthusiatic amateurs who want to borrow uncle Jamal's Mercedes and kill some slags.
-
So in the past few days, there have been 3 attempted 'terror strikes' in the UK. Two failed carbombs and one distinctly ineffectual flaming car driven at Glasgow airport. Note that the UK Government refers to these as 'foiled attacks' rather than 'failed attacks'. The vowel change is apparently significant, even though security services intervention had nothing to do with the fact that the devices didn't explode. The two carbombs were abject failures, namely down to their inability to fulfill their raison d'etre as a bomb, that being to explode. One of the cars wasn't even anywhere near its intended target - it was parked illegally, so had been towed to an impound. The car on fire left just one person injured - the driver of the vehicle who, on attempting to fuel the blaze with a can of petrol, managed to set his own trousers on fire. The whole thing wouldn't have looked out of place with Benny Hill music playing in the background. In the 80s, the IRA were carrying out a reign of terror marked by carbombs set off with devastating regularity. In the 00s, it seems we are under seige from a battalion of completely retarded incompetents. How many complete failures to make working explosive devices have we had now? If the IRA could do it every single time, how hard can it be, exactly? Without wishing any offence to those who have had friends or family injured or killed in terrorist attacks, is the reaction of government really proportional to the risk to the public that is demonstrated by these failures to kill? Terrorism? I'm not terrified, I'm frankly embarrassed.
Craster wrote:
is the reaction of government really proportional to the risk to the public that is demonstrated by these failures to k
Yes. The irish started with wfertilizer/sugar bimbs. They had to be massive, and they were. And brutally simple. Given semtex they were very dangerous. Never underestimate an enemy, never fail to take their intent seriously. To do so IS a failure of government.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Craster wrote:
is the reaction of government really proportional to the risk to the public that is demonstrated by these failures to k
Yes. The irish started with wfertilizer/sugar bimbs. They had to be massive, and they were. And brutally simple. Given semtex they were very dangerous. Never underestimate an enemy, never fail to take their intent seriously. To do so IS a failure of government.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
sugar bimbs
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, sugar bimbs.......... :rolleyes:
-
Dummy bomb, non-working bomb, or real active bomb. Does it matter? What is the different? The basis of terror is just that - TERROR Prevention of terror is dependent upon so many variables. Unless you have intimate knowledge of these variables, then you are blind to some extent. Thus, intelligence cannot always deliver actual details consequently you sometimes have to tread on individuals rights in order to establish the fuller picture that you possibly can. It is far better for government to inform the people of such threats than to keep us "in-the-dark".
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Dummy bomb, non-working bomb, or real active bomb. Does it matter? What is the different? The basis of terror is just that - TERROR
Exactly. Therefore, the correct way to render such an attack impotent is to point and laugh at the incompetance. Hysterical reporting and filling the streets with armed police play right into the hands of those aiming to cause terror.
-
Craster wrote:
If the IRA could do it every single time, how hard can it be, exactly?
What do you mean by that? If even the Irish can do it, anyone can?
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Dummy bomb, non-working bomb, or real active bomb. Does it matter? What is the different? The basis of terror is just that - TERROR
Exactly. Therefore, the correct way to render such an attack impotent is to point and laugh at the incompetance. Hysterical reporting and filling the streets with armed police play right into the hands of those aiming to cause terror.
Craster wrote:
Exactly. Therefore, the correct way to render such an attack impotent is to point and laugh at the incompetance. Hysterical reporting and filling the streets with armed police play right into the hands of those aiming to cause terror.
Yeah, the 9/11, Madrid and London bombings were fucking hilarious, huh? What a riot.
-
Craster wrote:
is the reaction of government really proportional to the risk to the public that is demonstrated by these failures to k
Yes. The irish started with wfertilizer/sugar bimbs. They had to be massive, and they were. And brutally simple. Given semtex they were very dangerous. Never underestimate an enemy, never fail to take their intent seriously. To do so IS a failure of government.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
So in the past few days, there have been 3 attempted 'terror strikes' in the UK. Two failed carbombs and one distinctly ineffectual flaming car driven at Glasgow airport. Note that the UK Government refers to these as 'foiled attacks' rather than 'failed attacks'. The vowel change is apparently significant, even though security services intervention had nothing to do with the fact that the devices didn't explode. The two carbombs were abject failures, namely down to their inability to fulfill their raison d'etre as a bomb, that being to explode. One of the cars wasn't even anywhere near its intended target - it was parked illegally, so had been towed to an impound. The car on fire left just one person injured - the driver of the vehicle who, on attempting to fuel the blaze with a can of petrol, managed to set his own trousers on fire. The whole thing wouldn't have looked out of place with Benny Hill music playing in the background. In the 80s, the IRA were carrying out a reign of terror marked by carbombs set off with devastating regularity. In the 00s, it seems we are under seige from a battalion of completely retarded incompetents. How many complete failures to make working explosive devices have we had now? If the IRA could do it every single time, how hard can it be, exactly? Without wishing any offence to those who have had friends or family injured or killed in terrorist attacks, is the reaction of government really proportional to the risk to the public that is demonstrated by these failures to kill? Terrorism? I'm not terrified, I'm frankly embarrassed.
Yeah. And can you believe that a dozen people tried to hijack airplanes with box cutters? Can you believe how stupid that is? Box cutters? What kind of idiot thinks they would be able to pull that off? We shouldn't even bother trying to prevent terrorism because those terrorists are so incapable.
-
Craster wrote:
Exactly. Therefore, the correct way to render such an attack impotent is to point and laugh at the incompetance. Hysterical reporting and filling the streets with armed police play right into the hands of those aiming to cause terror.
Yeah, the 9/11, Madrid and London bombings were fucking hilarious, huh? What a riot.
As I stated in my original message, I was not referring to successful terrorist attacks. Those have happened, and were terrible. However, to respond to the failed attacks of amateurs in the same way is in itself a form of terrorism perpetrated by our own media and government.
-
So in the past few days, there have been 3 attempted 'terror strikes' in the UK. Two failed carbombs and one distinctly ineffectual flaming car driven at Glasgow airport. Note that the UK Government refers to these as 'foiled attacks' rather than 'failed attacks'. The vowel change is apparently significant, even though security services intervention had nothing to do with the fact that the devices didn't explode. The two carbombs were abject failures, namely down to their inability to fulfill their raison d'etre as a bomb, that being to explode. One of the cars wasn't even anywhere near its intended target - it was parked illegally, so had been towed to an impound. The car on fire left just one person injured - the driver of the vehicle who, on attempting to fuel the blaze with a can of petrol, managed to set his own trousers on fire. The whole thing wouldn't have looked out of place with Benny Hill music playing in the background. In the 80s, the IRA were carrying out a reign of terror marked by carbombs set off with devastating regularity. In the 00s, it seems we are under seige from a battalion of completely retarded incompetents. How many complete failures to make working explosive devices have we had now? If the IRA could do it every single time, how hard can it be, exactly? Without wishing any offence to those who have had friends or family injured or killed in terrorist attacks, is the reaction of government really proportional to the risk to the public that is demonstrated by these failures to kill? Terrorism? I'm not terrified, I'm frankly embarrassed.
So you would prefer that they had been successful? You have som unexplained need to be proud of your terrorists? As far as I can tell from the reports, the cars failed to explode because they were discovered before they were due... And as for Glascow, well it looks like it did a fair piece of work on the airport terminal... And you should be embarrassed, but for your post, not your good luck.
-
Corinna John wrote:
, but I can see our rights go to hell.
Oh yeah, you're really being oppressed. Poor, poor oppressed you. Just look at how repressive your life has become. You have food to eat, a roof over your head, medical care, heating in the winter, a car to drive, the ability and freedom to criticise your government and it's policies, the ability to speak your mind without fear of retribution, the ability to come and go as you please, you enjoy relative peace and security...oh wait... Gee, I'm sorry, which rights did you lose, exactly? And yeah, the Madrid, London and 9/11 bombings were quite the shows. Did you have popcorn while you watched them? What's it like enjoying nice popcorn and while people die in a subway tunnel explosion? Bet you had a nice evening on those days, right? -- modified at 8:24 Monday 2nd July, 2007 Awesome! I got a '1 vote'! Somebody apparently feels that their government is actually oppressing them! So, vote 1 and tell me what rights you've lost! And by simultaneously voting '1', you've also implied that you thought the Madrid, London and 9/11 attacks WERE indeed good things. Nice person you are!
73Zeppelin wrote:
Awesome! I got a '1 vote'! Somebody apparently feels that their government is actually oppressing them! So, vote 1 and tell me what rights you've lost!
I'm still king of the 1-votes. Bow before your master.
-
So you would prefer that they had been successful? You have som unexplained need to be proud of your terrorists? As far as I can tell from the reports, the cars failed to explode because they were discovered before they were due... And as for Glascow, well it looks like it did a fair piece of work on the airport terminal... And you should be embarrassed, but for your post, not your good luck.
Rob Graham wrote:
So you would prefer that they had been successful?
No. I would prefer that the scale of response was in some way related to the scale of the threat. We are spending vast sums of money on prevention of terror attacks that are repeatedly failing to materialise. Compare the amount of deaths and injury due to terrorism with the amount of deaths and injury due to dangerous driving, or gang warfare. Then compare the amount of time and money that is being spent on attempting to resolve these issues.
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Not on the mainland it isn't.
The UK includes Northern Ireland, and to exclude attacks in NI made by a paramilitary group based in NI is a ridiculous skewing of the numbers.
No it isn't. At its height the conflict in NI was a counter insurgency campaign involving a three way fight between loyalists, the Ira and our army, a totally different situation to the mainland. It will hopefully be a fair few years before Bradford is comparable to Belfast in the 70's.
-
As I stated in my original message, I was not referring to successful terrorist attacks. Those have happened, and were terrible. However, to respond to the failed attacks of amateurs in the same way is in itself a form of terrorism perpetrated by our own media and government.
Craster wrote:
As I stated in my original message, I was not referring to successful terrorist attacks. Those have happened, and were terrible.
Yeah, because certainly unsuccessful attacks didn't have the potential to be successful attacks. Yeah, I'm really laughing here about crazed fundamentalists trying to take innocent life and destroy our way of life at whatever chance they can. Ha. Ha. Ha. That's soooo funny.
Craster wrote:
However, to respond to the failed attacks of amateurs in the same way is in itself a form of terrorism perpetrated by our own media and government.
Oh yeah, our Western governments are the evil of all evil. Why, just look at how oppressed we are in the West compared to other nations. I simply have no rights at all. It's terrible living like this. I think I'll move to Ethiopia, or perhaps North Korea. They've got it made in those places.