In reply to FactorXXX:
> It took four decades for the various factions to kill about 3500 people, the 911 attacks killed almost that many people in a mere few minutes and caused about $10 billion damage in property, etc. I think the latter is rather more efficient...
9/11 was carried out by saudi nationals on another continent, not 'home grown' terrorists on british soil. the closest equivalent was 7/7- and there is no doubt that was a devastating attack and showed the potential seriousness of the threat. but that was nearly 10 years ago now, and there has been nothing like it since
> Not sure why you think killing members of the security forces is important. The intended target is now anyone who happens to be in the vicinity and not deliberately selected.
not so- the lee rigby murder shows that members of the british security forces are being specifically targetted by uk resident jihadis. that is the story that has dominated the news agenda. the ulster death toll shows that islamic terrorism has a long way to go before it can be seen as a threat to serving police or soldiers of a similar magnitude
> What the security services fear is another 911 type attack. I very much doubt that they are overly concerned about isolated and relatively ad hoc organised attacks.
yet it is just that sort of attack that dominates the news. the security services may not be that concerned about them (i think they are) but the government certainly gives the impression of being so.
> Just because it's felt that this isn't likely at present due to practicalities of funding/organising, etc., doesn't mean that is ultimately what these particular terrorists would hope to conduct. What makes it worse, is that they are willing to die doing it, which makes it far harder to prevent once any such attack is under way.
and this is the point i'm making. it is almost impossible to stop small scale ad hoc attacks such as on lee rigby. when the weapons of choice are vehicles and bladed weapons, and the conspiracy is between only 2 people, i dont see how this sort of thing can be stopped. yet in the nearly 10 years since 7/7, not only has there been nothing of a similar scale and complexity to it, but the attempted attacks that have come to attention have mostly been either impressively inept or the products of fantastists that never looked likely to get off the drawing board.
the only conclusion i can draw, given how hard a 7/7 type attack would be to stop, never mind a lee rigby type one, is that there really arent a pool of highly competent, motivated and active terrorists out there trying to harm us. this contrasts with the troubles, when there was a highly effective, well trained force with sophisticated weapons and explosives willing to use them to strike anywhere, including at the heart of the government and royal family.
> However, neither do I resent/oppose the security services carrying out more stringent investigations to prevent any attacks.
...and this is the nub. at the height of the troubles, the death toll ran at over 200 for 6 years. thats a 7/7 every 3 months from now till 2020. they also came within a whisker of killing the cabinet. we are just not in that sort of situation, and as a result i do resent and oppose the government telling us this is worse than anything we've ever experiences, and expecting communications companies to act as a branch of GCHQ.
best wishes
gregor
Post edited at 20:51