UKC

"The UK terror threat has been increased to its highest level as police continue the hunt for the person behind the Tube bombing in south-west London.

The prime minister said the threat was now critical, meaning an attack is expected imminently, after a device was detonated at Parsons Green station.

Police said some 1,000 armed officers would be seen across the country after military assistance was requested.
So-called Islamic State has said it was behind the attack, which injured 29. Mrs May said the military would be providing support to police and would replace officers on guard duty at national infrastructure sites that are not accessible to the public.

Police Scotland said it would be increasing the number of armed officers on patrol, particularly at key locations and crowded places.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41288525

Luckily a failed attempt.

In reply to Big Ger:

Thanks to the ineptitude of some dickhead wannabe, that could have been a complete nightmare.

In reply to Lusk:

Agreed, may all their plans end this way.

In reply to Big Ger:

Where is it you think 'we' are going?
jk

In reply to Big Ger:
Unfortunately possibly thousands of the wrong kind of muslims in the UK would have been happier if the bomb had exploded as planned.

In reply to Big Ger:

I sometimes wonder if the press coverage is half the problem. If we ignore them, might they go away? Obviously with the same level of police surveillance and counter terrorism intelligence etc as there is now, but no big newspaper stories linking them to Daesh etc. Stops them getting their 'glory'.

In reply to jkarran:


It's a common expression, often used to express exasperation at a bad turn of events.

Have you not come across it before?

(I can play stupid too, but obvs not as well as you can.)

GT.

In reply to girlymonkey:


If you believe that, I have a bridge you may be interested in buying.

In reply to girlymonkey:

I sometimes wonder if the press coverage is half the problem. If we ignore them, might they go away?

The only way that could possibly happen is if the relevant authorities didn't disclose what had happened, or they actively prohibited the reporting of what had happened.
I'm not sure if that is something I want to see in the UK.

In reply to Big Ger:

The problem is the press demanding information, when there will be good reasons that the police aren't releasing names or images of suspects. And trump breaching data security is shocking, if low level workers had released classified information they'd find themselves out of a job and in court.

In reply to FactorXXX:

They could disclose a lot less. Currently if there are suicides etc on railway lines they usually say that it is closed for an incident, for example. No names or causes ever mentioned.

In reply to girlymonkey:
An explosion on a train, potentially killing several people, cannot not be treated as news. The security and safety of people has to come first.


Think on; a terrorist sets off a bomb, it only kills one person, so doesn't get reported.

Would the terrorist then;

give up terrorism due to not getting on the news.

or

try for a bigger impact with their next atrocity.

In reply to girlymonkey:


I think you make a sensible point. Deny them the oxygen of publicity. It's a pity that they are named, unless it's for the purpose of identifying them for arrest and trial. After that I don't give a shit what their name is. The same goes for deceased bombers, as you say, you can't glorify the nameless.

Also press speculation about how the security services and police find clues which help them to trace and arrest suspects isn't helpful. Where these losers are careless we want them to go on being careless by failing to cover all their tracks.

Well done to the security services in making such an early arrest in this case.

In reply to Trangia:


As a number of recent attacks have been committed by people who are intent on killing as many as possible without caring if they themselves are killed in the process, do you really think getting their name in the press is a motivating factor?

In reply to Big Ger:
Of course it is. As girlymonkey says, they want their posthumous twisted glory/martyrdom in the eyes of the other potential twisted "soldiers" of Daesh

In reply to Big Ger:

But the recent ones haven't been trying to kill themselves.

In reply to Big Ger:

Some of this parish like to downplay the threat of islamic terrorism to people in the UK. I fear they are in for a rude awakening. The rate of violent attacks is on the rise, and there's nothing public to suggest that it has peaked.

We have had worse - from the IRA and islamists - in the past, but we used to have more police and an armed forces whose equipment level hadn't dropped below the bare minimum in places.

In reply to wintertree:


It's not just Islamic terrorism I'll downplay, it's any sort of terrorism. Looking at the numbers it just ain't something I'm scared of.

In reply to I like climbing:

There, fixed that for you, partially at least.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I was on the tube at exactly the same time as tbe bomb went off, albeit a good distance away. I can assure you it can be closer than you think.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I don't understand. How does that make it more dangerous?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I think it's fair to say the war on terror is a lot closer to home if you live in the cities, especially London, than if you live in a remote rural part of the UK like the Lake District or North Wales.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


It doesn't matter if you're scared of it - I'm not. I'm scared of the long term effects on our society and our laws if the current trend continues.

In reply to Gone for good:

I just prefer to look at risks rationally.

In reply to wintertree:

Isn't it just one of those bad things in the world, that you put up with (unless it's your job to do something about it).

I'm not a fan of draconian laws, but that's a product of irrational perception of the risk, not the risk itself.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


You're quite right, but it's not much help when you drop your daughter off at a festival and hear a loud bang.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Until recently Islamic terrorists and suicide bombers were definitely not a think in the UK. The IRA didn't use suicide as a tactic, and their aim wasn't the destruction of our society.

If we just "put up with it" do you think it'll go away?

Just when we'd got bins back at train stations...

Edit: Going back to my first post I think it likely that eventually one of these people will succeed and we will have an atrocity where the deaths number in the thousands. They can't keep messing up indefinitely.

In reply to wintertree:


No I think it will carry on. We need intel, security, blah blah, as we have now.

In reply to Big Ger:





I'm with you on this, maybe not the reporting but the constant revisiting and days of "non" reporting i.e. repeating the same bits of news over and over again, it's catnip to the terrorists and does nothing to help victims or the general public.

In reply to Ian W:

There, fixed that for you, partially at least

No you haven't. My comment reflects the fact that there are a number of terrorists, would be terrorists and supporters of terrorism who live in this country and call themselves Muslims. They are against this country and want to harm people living here. There were consistent reports of the numbers of people who left this country to join ISIS and there are apparently thousands of people on terrorist watch lists. My comment is not to demonise all Muslims but I personally think some so called moderate Muslims could do more to help identify other Muslims who may be undergoing radicalisation. I think there will be other acts of terrorism in the future in the UK and I stand by my comment and would never underestimate the threat we currently face.

In reply to I like climbing:



They call themselves muslins because they are muslims. They are bad muslims just as there are bad christians.

In reply to icnoble:

Indeed. But the reason I used this wording is because many moderate Muslims deny that the terrorists are Muslims when they clearly are Muslims.

In reply to I like climbing:

That is what I assumed. Through work I have known many muslim colleagues and have had many conversations overs the years on our respective religions, I am a catholic. But without exception every muslim colleague I have had conversations with regarding terror attacks the answer has been the same, "they are not muslims".

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I think it is strange that the comment


Got an equal number of likes and dislikes. Do people *prefer* to look at risks *irrationally*? How weird the world is.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



Some people might feel that a rational look at risk recognises the inherently random nature of terrorist attacks, the growing trend in the UK and Europe and reaches a very different rational view to you.

I met an American tour guide once in 1997 on my trip up the World Trade Centre - he was telling us proudly how the bombing of one of the towers had failed because the terrorists messed up their bomb making. I think of him often when I hear people rushing to the fore to say how unconcerned they are and how small the risk really is.

The number of car accidents last year is a good predictor for the number next year. The same is not true for terrorist attacks.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
>I think it is strange that the comment
>Got an equal number of likes and dislikes. Do people *prefer* to look at risks *irrationally*? How weird the world is.

The 'statistical argument', if I can call it that is, I think, unassailable. The likelihood that you will be killed or maimed in a terrorist attack is very low indeed. Low enough that you needn't waste time worrying about it.

I can't speak for the dislikers of your post, but I can hazard a guess as to their motivations. Perhaps one factor is that the statistical argument is an inherently selfish one - "I'm alright, Jack" - and does nothing to serve those who are killed and wounded by terrorism, not to mention the consequences for their families. It's also worth mentioning that Islamic terrorism is very much on the rise across Europe, so that very low probability of being affected isn't quite as low as it used to be.

Perhaps another factor is that the statistical argument is too narrow. It addresses physical safety in the here and now, but says nothing about damaging societal change which is partially brought about by a fear of terrorism; more specifically a fear of offending Islam.

In reply to icnoble:


But if that were really true, how come that such a large fraction of terror attacks come from people who are ... err ... Muslim?

In reply to wintertree:

Compared to the violence associated with Irish republican and loyalist terrorism, this is a golden age of safety we are in

Nearly 3500 deaths in the U.K. from terrorism related to NI in the 20 years from 1969 to 1988

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles#Casualties

93 deaths in the U.K. as a result of Islamic terrorism in total

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britai...

This article also has a table showing the number of deaths and injured in the UK each year since 1970, which backs up my assertion- this is the safest time we have known in my lifetime.

Interestingly, there has been in increase in the number of incidents in the last 4 years, but the casualty totals remain low in historic terms. I appreciate that each one is a tragedy, with a whole series of lives marred by it; but so were those in previous years, but at much higher numbers.

This can only be a reflection of the difference in competence and capability of the terrorist groups arising out of the Troubles, who had access to high explosives, military grade firearms and the skills and willingness to use them. Yes, they gave warnings, some of the time; they still killed an order of magnitude more victims than Islamic terror has.

I totally accept that Islamic terror has the willingness to kill at that sort of level; and that it's the fantastic work of our security services and police that is preventing that. I also accept that returning fighters from Syria and Iraq have the potential to change the current low capabilities of Islamic terrorists. But to lose sight of the historical perspective risks inflating the perception of the threat to higher levels than it is, and distorting the way we live our lives and order our society.

We've been down that road in the past- internment, shoot to kill, collusion with loyalist paramilitaries- and it did no good. Our security response seems to me to be effective and measured at the present time; complete insulation from political violence never has and never will be possible, and in a violent world, we do a pretty good job of keeping ourselves safe.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Nearly 3500 deaths in the U.K. from terrorism related to NI in the 20 years from 1969 to 1988

Of which, only 125 were in Mainland UK.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

But the vast majority of those were in Northern Ireland, only 125 (according to your link) of those deaths were in England. Which is a rate pretty comparable to Islamic terrorism today.

Edit: I got beaten to it!

In reply to FactorXXX:

1/ that's still over a quarter more than the total of all Islamic terror so far

2/ why exclude deaths in ulster? It's part of the uk, the dead were British citizens, and their lives matter every bit as much

If we're going to get in to the geographical restriction game, because the attacks happen somewhere we don't live, and therefore are less relevant, then all but one lethal Islamic terrorist attack in the U.K. has been in London. I don't live in London, so let's take all the London deaths out of the total for Islamic terror.

If that seems like unfair distortion of the figures, then it's exactly the same as excluding the deaths in N Ireland

And- Lest we forget, the IRA also came within a whisker of murdering the entire cabinet.

In reply to Big Ger:

That was my old morning commute tube - although usually I was there (passing Parson's) at about 8:40-9:00am, but sometimes earlier.

I'm wondering what use having those extra armed officers will be. Surely all it takes is someone on the tube with a large bag to hide something destructive? Are they going to check everyone who has a large bag, even if it's a gym bag, or a bag full of equipment for the weekend climbing (such as me), or a bag of painting supplies? I don't think it'd be extremely hard to blend in on a tube. There are many places where tubes travel beneath overpasses - that's another weak point. Extra policing sounds like a wishful-thinking band aid solution to me.

I think the only way to actually make things safer is to stop the recruitment of disaffected young men, by just not having disaffected young men, lying around ripe for persuasive ideology in the first place.

In reply to Big Ger:
It's worth adding to the discussion that the UK's capability for identifying bomb makers and for dealing with improvised explosive devices is considerably improved from when the IRA was at its most active, the MoD has done a huge amount of work on its CIED capability in the last 15 or so years. This might prove an interesting read for those who are curious about what happens after an attack:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37048421

Terrorists aren't stupid, and they certainly didn't lack creativity with the variety of designs which they employed during the Iraq/ Afghanistan conflicts:
https://www.wired.com/2011/06/iraqs-invisible-war/
The above article does provide a very American perspective but they do tend to be rather more public about this kind of thing than the UK.

Am I worried I'll be caught in an attack? No, I rarely visit major cities and only fly a couple of times a year, the government wouldn't give two figs if there was an attack in a small city like Derby so I can't see it ever being targeted by a terrorist attack.
Am I concerned about the damage which these attacks seem to be doing to British society? Yes

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Because we're discussing how things feel in the mainland UK. Everyone accepts that The Troubles were a really big issue for Ulster.

In reply to Thrudge:

I agree with your entire post. I had further comment here.


The bigger societal change is the racism fuelled by Islamic terrorism and the consequences of that.

How much did September 11 and the London bombings fuel anti-Islamic sentiment in the UK? Enough to make the few percent difference needed to trigger Brexit? Enough to further isolate young 3rd generation immigrants in our urban areas, raising recruitment to the loosely allied ISIS banner?

Quite apart from the farcical self-neutering of our press around Islam, and the gradual (necessary) creep of state surveillance there is real, lasting damage done to society by these attacks in terms of fanning the flames of bigotry and hate.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

The Brighton bomb wasn't in Ulster. Neither were the bombs in Guildford or Birmingham.

The numbers don't lie. The only way you can try to bring the lethality of Irish republican terrorism and Islamic terrorism in the uk into even the same order of magnitude is by a device where you can say, 'most of it happened over there, so it's not relevant '

Well, most Islamic terrorism has happened 'over there' too, from my perspective in West Yorkshire, over there being London. London feels every bit as distant here as Ulster does.

unless you actually buy that it's a valid line of argument to arbitrarily divide the uk into bits where deaths from terrorism count, and bits where they don't, it's clear that republican terrorism was a vastly more serious proposition than Islamic terrorism has been to this point.

Of course, if the facts change, etc

In reply to wintertree:

Yes, I think you are right with these points

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


I live up north. I feel closer to New York than to Ulster. I've been to the USA something like 20 times and spent about 9 months of my life there. I plan to go back, lots. I've never been to Northern Ireland, don't plan to go. Don't know much about Ulster.

About 3,000 people were killed in the USA by Islamic terrorism 16 years and a few days ago. You have mentioned at least twice other posters defining borders to make the numbers suit their argument. I question the validity of you doing this at the level of the UK when the threat is no longer focoused on the UK.

We've not had deaths on the scale of that event but this is the land of small number statistics (on aggressors) and random chance. Repeatedly making that case that few people have died within the UK lends no credence what so ever to a predictive statement about future risk.

Since the year 2000, approximately 20,000 people have been killed globally by Islamic terrorists, and over 45,000 injured. The IRA was a local threat with local solutions (that is they were within the ability of our nation to realise and achieve). Islamic terrorism is a global threat that is impinging on our nation and as such is almost wholly outwith our ability to solve. Globally the scale of the threat is rising - considerably over the past decade.

The pool of threats to the UK is now almost incomparably larger than it was with the IRA. They are less well organised (for now), less well equipped (for now) and are not trying to force a diplomatic/political outcome (for all time). It's a bit of a mystery to me how so many of these goons are so crap (the "four lions effect"), but I wouldn't count on that lasting.

In reply to wintertree:
I fully accept the future is unknown- hence my 'if the facts change' point. And I agree if Islamic terrorists achieve the degree of organisation and equipment that the IRA had, the consequences would be severe. The return of battle hardened fighters from Syria is a real worry and we've yet to see how that's going to play out.


I think the reason so much Islamic terrorism is 4lions level in execution is in part the effectiveness of our counterterrorism measures. There has been no repeat of 9-11, no train bombing on the scale of Madrid or London, no truck incident on the scale of nice. Each tactic , once used, seems to be mitigated against. They don't seem to be able, to date, to access the sort of military grade weapons the IRA had, and are reduced to trying (and often failing) to prepare home made explosives, and using knives and vehicles. These can be deadly, but not as deadly as a group with ak47s in a major shopping centre would be, or a shoulder launched missile fired at a passenger aircraft on take off or landing.

Most of those deaths have been outside western countries, and the threat though serious is diffuse across whole continents inhabited by hundreds of millions . It is being contained in the west by good intelligence and policing, as far as I can see; and it's certainly no greater here, even on a mainland uk level, than what we've faced before- for now, at any rate.

And looking at risk on a national level does make sense; anti terrorism responses are at this level, and the effectiveness of these will vary. Access to weapons will vary too, and there will be different local factors in the Muslim populations in different places.

The danger of the threat distorting our society in ways that actually make the threat worse, that you outlined, are the biggest concern I think. And I also agree that it's not something we can solve by local decisions, but is something we are going to have to live with for a generation.

In reply to Trangia:

I really cannot believe that any sane person believes; "if we ignore terrorists they will go away and not try to kill us," as if the publicity they generate is their raison d'être.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


So, what you are saying is; "I couldn't give a toss about people being killed by terrorists, as it's highly unlikely to happen to me."

In reply to wintertree:



Sort of like 9/11 you mean?

In reply to Big Ger:
I think it would be useful to factor in the evidence that many of the perpetrators appear to be individuals who have mental health issues; achieving notoriety and publicity both seem to be motivational factors.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Examples?

I'm not denying what you say, but to equate "mental health issues" and "gaining notoriety" with motivational factors seems a bit slim. Most people with mental health issues actively avoid notoriety, indeed most avoid society.

In reply to Big Ger:

I think being prepared to kill yourself probably constitutes a pretty robust commitment to avoiding society.

It might well be an 'added bonus' that as well meeting 72 virgins blah blah blah the fact that you go out in what in a tiny minority of circles is regarded as a blaze of glory is an extra inducement.

In reply to Big Ger:


I'm familiar with the phrase but it was a straight question. I simply wondered what you were thinking, how you saw this playing out given there was (and still is really) precious little known at the time of your OP.

Were you for example referring to days of hysterical newspaper headlines over empty stories? The inevitable push for something to be done? The scaremongering by politicians with agendas to be served? Were you foreseeing a follow on wave of more successful attacks across Britain or Australia for that matter? A backlash against Lidl? A general wave if irrational public asshattery and bigotry? Were you predicting an uptick in neo-nazi violence or perhaps even wondering about their possible involvement in this incident given they've been making news of late? Perhaps you were just referring to the continuation of the trend for near complete incompetence on the part of the UK's would be terrorists and how its un/fortunately proving to be a major factor in limiting casualties?

Anyway, thanks for not answering the question.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

What I thought was interesting was how quickly this story fell from the shock headlines to second/third fiddle to more Brexit gloom/Trump tweets/GBBO. No one dead? Meh...are we witnessing ISIS terror news fatigue?

Also , I am very interested to find out more about the alleged news that the police had already spoken to the alleged bomber on numerous occasions leading up to this event. We keep talking about how wonderful our intelligence services are (and I think/hope they do a great job) but this is very concerning. My personal thoughts are that the claimed numbers of 20,000 ISIS sympathisers and 3000 active concerns in the UK currently are likely stretching the police too thinly. If so, hopefully something is done about it in regards to police capacity before we do have a 9/11 or Nice event to contend with.

In reply to wintertree:

I disagree, for two reasons.

Firstly, I think it is inaccurate to conflate a dislike of Islam with racism. This is a religious matter, not a racial one.

Secondly, whilst obviously racism exists in Europe, it does not appear to be a significantly bigger issue than it was prior to the growth in Islamic terrorism. The big societal change I was referring to was the creeping Islamisation of Europe. The media and most politicians pay exaggerated respect to Islam - a courtesy they do not afford to any other religion - and there are other indicators of change when it comes to matters of the law and how it is applied. A blind eye is often turned to FGM, that ugliest and cruelest of religious activities. The NSPCC say, "There are an estimated 137,000 women and girls affected by FGM in England and Wales". Institutions as powerful as the police, the press, and the social services turned a blind eye to rape gangs in Rotherham and elsewhere, fearing the taint of accusations of racism. Even when it was eventually reported, the gang members - who were overwhelmingly Muslim - were reported as being 'Asian'. I doubt that the UK's Sikh, Hindu, and Buddhist citizens felt flattered by this description.


What's wrong with anti-Islamic sentiment? I doubt many people would feel indignant about anti-Nazi sentiment, or anti-racist sentiment. By and large, such sentiments are a credit to those who hold them. Given the horror of Islamic scripture, the extremes to which Isis behave, and the intolerant beliefs and conduct of millions of Muslims worldwide, it is similarly a credit to those who find Islam at best unpalatable.


I know what you mean about the press, and I wish I could find it farcical - that would at least allow me to smile about it. My reaction is closer to being appalled at their self-neutering, although I'm obliged to acknowledge that they're as fond of saving their own skins as I am.

BTW, when it comes to identifying those fanning the flames of bigotry and hate, an excellent place look is the inside of mosques and madrassas.

In reply to icnoble:


Does this caller to LBC strike you as a good or bad Muslim?

youtube.com/watch?v=sIZGGxFIf40&

The nature of Islam, in my opinion, makes dustinctions between good and bad a bit muddier than simply suicide bomber/non suicide bomber, especially when discussing the relationship between Muslims and a secular liberal state.

In reply to Thrudge:


This is a point I've made several times on discussion of Islam - I strongly believe people should be free to discuss and question any religion without allegations of racism. It is disengeniois to call people racist for having a dislike of religion.

Conversely, I do think that instances of Islamic terrorism contribute towards racist organisations and racist sentiment amongst many people. You don't have to look far on the internet to see this.


I disagree - this has been a big rise of isolationist politics that associates with racism across Europe.


I tend to agree here. Although the Catholic Church isn't exactly being held to account over the mass graves of children abused and killed/neglected to death in their care in the UK and Ireland.


Sometimes, sometimes not. A close relative worked in a prison on the IMB for many years. Their tales of radicalisation inside the prison were highly concerning - people would ally to the Islamic group for protection from violence - and one of the biggest opponents to this was the prison Iman who was from a local mosque.

In reply to David Martin:

Maajid Nawaz in the Youtube clip. An admirable man indeed. I particularly like his clarity of thought and expression, which isn't peculiar to this clip - he does it habitually.

In reply to jkarran:

I answered the question, the phrase "here we go again," was used in it's commonly understood, (not by you , obvs,) form. The fact that you have tried to twist it into something else is not my problem.


ETA;

GT.