UK terror threat level raised to 'severe'

The terror threat to the UK has been raised from substantial to severe, Home Secretary Theresa May has announced.

This means that a terrorist attack is "highly likely", although Mrs May stressed that there is no information to suggest an attack is imminent.

She said: "The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) is responsible for setting the national threat level. That informs the decisions of security professionals across the public and private sectors about the appropriate level of security in place across the United Kingdom.

"JTAC's judgements about that threat level are made on the basis of the very latest intelligence and are independent of ministers.

"JTAC has today raised the threat level to the UK from international terrorism from SUBSTANTIAL to SEVERE. That means that a terrorist attack is highly likely, but there is no intelligence to suggest that an attack is imminent."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28986271

Wonder what this is all about?. Severe but not imminent. In other words - don't panic - YET

Irn Bru wrote:The terror threat to the UK has been raised from substantial to severe, Home Secretary Theresa May has announced.

This means that a terrorist attack is "highly likely", although Mrs May stressed that there is no information to suggest an attack is imminent.

She said: "The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) is responsible for setting the national threat level. That informs the decisions of security professionals across the public and private sectors about the appropriate level of security in place across the United Kingdom.

"JTAC's judgements about that threat level are made on the basis of the very latest intelligence and are independent of ministers.

"JTAC has today raised the threat level to the UK from international terrorism from SUBSTANTIAL to SEVERE. That means that a terrorist attack is highly likely, but there is no intelligence to suggest that an attack is imminent."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28986271

Wonder what this is all about?. Severe  but not imminent. In other words - don't panic - YET

I wont Corporal Jones.

They must have substantial info to go public. Beware of people carrying rucksacks.

Is this because I farted on the London Eye?

I saw this news item this morning. I don't know where they get this. Well, the idea of a faux-quantifiable 'be-afraid-be-very-afraid' meter came from the Bush administration.

But what exactly is a threat level, and how is it calibrated? I think it's all political. It's calculated for it's effect, not out of any cause.

The British government today raised the threat level for international terrorism to “severe,” indicating a terrorist attack is “highly likely” but, based on intelligence, not necessarily “imminent.”

U.K. Home Secretary Theresa May released a statement Friday saying the increased threat is “related to events in Syria and Iraq where terrorist groups are planning attacks against the West, and that some of those attacks are likely to involve fighters who have travelled from the U.K.”

British Prime Minister David Cameron said it was the first time in three years the threat has been raised to such a level in the U.K.

“What we’re facing in Iraq now with ISIL is a greater and deeper threat to our security than we have known before,” Cameron said in an address to the nation, noting that the terrorist group, also known as ISIS for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, has recruited hundreds of British citizens to its ranks.

Western security officials have been concerned for months that ISIS recruits with Western passports could travel to Syria and Iraq and then return home with deadly skills to wreak havoc.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/britain-raises-terror-threat-level-severe/story?id=25174939

Stay classy, Cameron! My advice to people living in Britain -- don't be afraid of people going to Syria and coming home to attack you. They don't need to go to Syria ...

If you really want to fear something, fear disease, cars and trucks, poison and yourself (suicide) -- those four things kill way more British people than anything else.

Death is a natural part of life and thus you should never fear what may happen to you Ben, and would never fear the choices you make, because to fear cars and trucks would mean I would be afraid to drive or walk along the street. Why should I fear suicide, when my life is positive and when things to go wrong I learn from this to then move forward again. Again to say fear something else is thus saying here is something else to fear about to take your mind off this threat and does not resolve an issue. Nobody should show any fear to them as this is what they want and nobody should bow down to threats.. What is needed is unity throughout the nation and defiance to those seeking to divide the nation and threaten us. Getting people to place their minds elsewhere will not help in any shape or form, Ben, what is needed is for all people of this nation working together to combat any problem thrown our way, which will mean not ostracizing the Muslim community but in fact joining together as one to both fight against this threat, which we all are facing now.

Isn't all this a prelude to the UK becoming more involved in military action against IS?  Trying to scare us out of our wits so there's no backlash against the government?

Frazzled wrote:Isn't all this a prelude to the UK becoming more involved in military action against IS?  Trying to scare us out of our wits so there's no backlash against the government?

How many terrorist attacks or attempted terrorist attacks have there been to the uk?
I can tell you the attempted ones are quite a few, is that being scared or the reality being because are intelligence service is so good, many lives have been saved?
Does it take successful attacks to make you sit up?

Didge wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Isn't all this a prelude to the UK becoming more involved in military action against IS?  Trying to scare us out of our wits so there's no backlash against the government?

How many terrorist attacks or attempted terrorist attacks have there been to the uk?
I can tell you the attempted ones are quite a few, is that being scared or the reality being because are intelligence service is so good, many lives have been saved?
Does it take successful attacks to make you sit up?

Maybe, but what are we supposed to do with an announcement like this? Look for men running around with bombs? Build a shelter out of breeze blocks? Move away from big cities, sports arenas, shopping centres? I think anyone with a modicum of sense has been aware of this for some time.

Frazzled wrote:

Didge wrote:


How many terrorist attacks or attempted terrorist attacks have there been to the uk?
I can tell you the attempted ones are quite a few, is that being scared or the reality being because are intelligence service is so good, many lives have been saved?
Does it take successful attacks to make you sit up?

Maybe, but what are we supposed to do with an announcement like this?  Look for men running around with bombs?  Build a shelter out of breeze blocks?  Move away from big cities, sports arenas, shopping centres?  I think anyone with a modicum of sense has been aware of this for some time.

No, be vigilant would be the most common sense answer, just as was the case of which we have been doing for years from the terror attacks from the IRA. Again your view is one of fear, which is not something I would back but to carry on with our lives, and being united as a people against any threat. It means also getting as much support from the Muslim community which already happens where they inform the intelligence services of suspected extremists Muslims, thus they will be key to helping deal with this problem.

Didge wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Maybe, but what are we supposed to do with an announcement like this?  Look for men running around with bombs?  Build a shelter out of breeze blocks?  Move away from big cities, sports arenas, shopping centres?  I think anyone with a modicum of sense has been aware of this for some time.

No, be vigilant would be the most common sense answer, just as was the case of which we have been doing for years from the terror attacks from the IRA. Again your view is one of fear, which is not something I would back but to carry on with our lives, and being united as a people against any threat. It means also getting as much support from the Muslim community which already happens where they inform the intelligence services of suspected extremists Muslims, thus they will be key to helping deal with this problem.

How do I be vigilant? What am I supposed to be looking out for?

Frazzled wrote:

Didge wrote:


No, be vigilant would be the most common sense answer, just as was the case of which we have been doing for years from the terror attacks from the IRA. Again your view is one of fear, which is not something I would back but to carry on with our lives, and being united as a people against any threat. It means also getting as much support from the Muslim community which already happens where they inform the intelligence services of suspected extremists Muslims, thus they will be key to helping deal with this problem.

How do I be vigilant?  What am I supposed to be looking out for?

Not sure how to tell you to suck eggs really, when this is very obvious, but here this might help you if you are unaware:

https://www.securitas.com/Global/United%20States/Vigilance%20Key%20Aug%2005.pdf

I suppose, living in a rural area, that the threat here is quite low, so
I'm not really fearful, at least not for myself or my immediate family but of course I do fear for anyone who is involved in a terrorist attack.

I am still of the opinion that whilst the danger of attack is raised, the announcement is preparing us to expect military action in Iraq or Syria.

Frazzled wrote:I suppose, living in a rural area, that the threat here is quite low, so
I'm not really fearful, at least not for myself or my immediate family but of course I do fear for anyone who is involved in a terrorist attack.

I am still of the opinion that whilst the danger of attack is raised, the announcement is preparing us to expect military action in Iraq or Syria.  

Probably
what is public opinion over there regarding re-invading?

Over here we are all for it I'm left wing (and pretty hard left at that) and even I'm 100% put our planes in the sky and if we're allowed boots on the ground ::rambo::

We got them into this mess so we should help get them out of it ::=|Q::
I don't think the USA should put boots on the ground with the exception of some limited special forces. But they should make an effort to make sure any equipment they 'left' there that has fallen into ISIS hands is Blown Up... SO Tactical Bombing raids for sure (but it would be good if they made a BIGGER effort not to kill civilians his time )

I wasn't for the initial invasion of Iraq, it was based on lies, but I think it is essential to get involved this time. We are at risk, but I think it should be with multilateral agreement.

Re invade with hard military action, if "boots on the ground" are needed so be it, with volunteers only [ to appease the weak kneed here] and hit them with every thing we've got and take no prisoners. Don't anyone here say," we can't do that, it's agains't the Geneva Convention" fcuk the Geneva Convention with this scum.

This is all part of manufacturing consent. And you're all (most of you) are falling for it.

You do realise the terror threat has been raised to the 2nd highest, without any actual intelligence of an attack.

The only affect on us being 'vigilant' is that we heighten our own sense of emotions by constantly thinking about a non-existent imminent threat.

For all those who are falling for this: HA HA! You sheep.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

The British government today raised the threat level for international terrorism to “severe,” indicating a terrorist attack is “highly likely” but, based on intelligence, not necessarily “imminent.”

U.K. Home Secretary Theresa May released a statement Friday saying the increased threat is “related to events in Syria and Iraq where terrorist groups are planning attacks against the West, and that some of those attacks are likely to involve fighters who have travelled from the U.K.”

British Prime Minister David Cameron said it was the first time in three years the threat has been raised to such a level in the U.K.

“What we’re facing in Iraq now with ISIL is a greater and deeper threat to our security than we have known before,” Cameron said in an address to the nation, noting that the terrorist group, also known as ISIS for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, has recruited hundreds of British citizens to its ranks.

Western security officials have been concerned for months that ISIS recruits with Western passports could travel to Syria and Iraq and then return home with deadly skills to wreak havoc.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/britain-raises-terror-threat-level-severe/story?id=25174939

Stay classy, Cameron! My advice to people living in Britain -- don't be afraid of people going to Syria and coming home to attack you. They don't need to go to Syria ...

If you really want to fear something, fear disease, cars and trucks, poison and yourself (suicide) -- those four things kill way more British people than anything else.

Exactly. This is all about manipulating the masses.

Nice one Ben.

If I was a woman, I would avail my uterus to bare your children.

Frazzled wrote:Isn't all this a prelude to the UK becoming more involved in military action against IS?  Trying to scare us out of our wits so there's no backlash against the government?

Hallelujah! We have some common sense in this forum.

Sorry bru you really are naive at times, you not heard about the threat MI5 headquarters from Terrorists?
Sandhurst?
Okay bruv, how many attempted attacks have we had in the UK, are you claiming that means we do not face a threat from terrorism?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/britain-raises-terror-threat-level-severe/story?id=25174939

Stay classy, Cameron! My advice to people living in Britain -- don't be afraid of people going to Syria and coming home to attack you. They don't need to go to Syria ...

If you really want to fear something, fear disease, cars and trucks, poison and yourself (suicide) -- those four things kill way more British people than anything else.

Exactly. This is all about manipulating the masses.

Nice one Ben.

If I was a woman, I would avail my uterus to bare your children.

Actually his post was very poor, stating to use fear elsewhere when we should not fear what he claimed, and I do not think we should fear Islamic extremism, where again it is very naive to not think we are dealing with threats, where again we need unity in this country, who and to help you understand Zack my brother, here you go:

Al-Qaida publication suggests hitlist for terrorists, including MI5 headquarters
UK targets include Sandhurst, security services and busy shops and in US, tourist sites, oil tankers and Las Vegas casinos

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/29/al-qaida-publication-hitlist-sandhurst-security-terrorist-mi5

Sorry but to claim intelligence of attacks is also completely wrong to claim any would even publicize what exact threats are imminent, being as this would alert to those attempting an attack Zack.
Seriously, are you suggesting are intelligence service would let the cat out of the bag?
That would be absurd mate

Also to claims about some conspiracy to manipulate the public is also to me a load of bull, sorry Zack, nobody needs manipulating to understanding a growing threat which of course we should be tackling those drawn to this extremism, which will be the most effective way to spell the doom of IS and other Islamists as well as taking out those committing extremism with force, because many people are suffering. That means and of which we know people who have no meanings to their lives, ie some Muslims who in many cases are not religious literate are being drawn to IS through propaganda and providing them with a meaning to life. This is where the voice of the Muslim community is utterly failing this problem. Yes it does not help with xenophobia, but a louder better approach should be coming from the Muslim leaders to provide sense and purpose to those disillusioned drawn to extremism. That means they are failing where IS and others are succeeding, so in other words religion can play a key part here also to show the views being expressed by the extremist are wrong, but this voice is falling on deaf ears and thus a new tactic has to be approached and more done by Muslims themselves to tackle this problem

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/britain-raises-terror-threat-level-severe/story?id=25174939

Stay classy, Cameron! My advice to people living in Britain -- don't be afraid of people going to Syria and coming home to attack you. They don't need to go to Syria ...

If you really want to fear something, fear disease, cars and trucks, poison and yourself (suicide) -- those four things kill way more British people than anything else.

Exactly. This is all about manipulating the masses.

Nice one Ben.

If I was a woman, I would avail my uterus to bare your children.

Actually his post was very poor, stating to use fear elsewhere when we should not fear what he claimed, and I do not think we should fear Islamic extremism, where again it is very naive to not think we are dealing with threats, where again we need unity in this country, who and to help you understand Zack my brother, here you go:

Al-Qaida publication suggests hitlist for terrorists, including MI5 headquarters
UK targets include Sandhurst, security services and busy shops and in US, tourist sites, oil tankers and Las Vegas casinos

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/29/al-qaida-publication-hitlist-sandhurst-security-terrorist-mi5

Well, what I was driving at is that living in fear overall is pretty pointless, but that if you're going to choose to live in fear of something, you ought to at least choose something with a higher chance of killing you than a terrorist has. Those four causes of death I listed kill hundreds of thousands of British every year; ISIS can't hope to compete with heart disease and auto accidents ...

Ben if your point was about living in fear, the worst thing you can do is to deflect that fear to fear something else, that does not combat any fear and dealing with it,does it mate?

Sorry Irn, didn't see that you'd already posted this! I merged them since both threads had replies ...

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Exactly. This is all about manipulating the masses.

Nice one Ben.

If I was a woman, I would avail my uterus to bare your children.

Actually his post was very poor, stating to use fear elsewhere when we should not fear what he claimed, and I do not think we should fear Islamic extremism, where again it is very naive to not think we are dealing with threats, where again we need unity in this country, who and to help you understand Zack my brother, here you go:

Al-Qaida publication suggests hitlist for terrorists, including MI5 headquarters
UK targets include Sandhurst, security services and busy shops and in US, tourist sites, oil tankers and Las Vegas casinos

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/29/al-qaida-publication-hitlist-sandhurst-security-terrorist-mi5

But that's Al Qeada, right?

I thought the threat level was heightened because of isis.

Didge wrote:Sorry but to claim intelligence of attacks is also completely wrong to claim any would even publicize what exact threats are imminent, being as this would alert to those attempting an attack Zack.
Seriously, are you suggesting are intelligence service would let the cat out of the bag?
That would be absurd mate

That's not the issue. That particular threat level 'normally' means there is some imtelligence of an attack.

But not in this case, the Home office have admitted.

That's why this is suspicious.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Actually his post was very poor, stating to use fear elsewhere when we should not fear what he claimed, and I do not think we should fear Islamic extremism, where again it is very naive to not think we are dealing with threats, where again we need unity in this country, who and to help you understand Zack my brother, here you go:

Al-Qaida publication suggests hitlist for terrorists, including MI5 headquarters
UK targets include Sandhurst, security services and busy shops and in US, tourist sites, oil tankers and Las Vegas casinos

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/29/al-qaida-publication-hitlist-sandhurst-security-terrorist-mi5

But that's Al Qeada, right?

I thought the threat level was heightened because of isis.

By both and IS are an affiliate of Al Qaeda, come on mate, you know that

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:Sorry but to claim intelligence of attacks is also completely wrong to claim any would even publicize what exact threats are imminent, being as this would alert to those attempting an attack Zack.
Seriously, are you suggesting are intelligence service would let the cat out of the bag?
That would be absurd mate

That's not the issue. That particular threat level 'normally' means there is some imtelligence of an attack.

But not in this case, the Home office have admitted.

That's why this is suspicious.

Really that is news to me, normally they would not raise without a significant threat, which is clearly of the AlQaeda threat, being as we receive many from islamic extremist, thus you are really being a conspirator theorist mate

Didge wrote:Also to claims about some conspiracy to manipulate the public is also to me a load of bull, sorry Zack, nobody needs manipulating to understanding a growing threat which of course we should be tackling those drawn to this extremism, which will be the most effective way to spell the doom of IS and other Islamists as well as taking out those committing extremism with force, because many people are suffering. That means and of which we know people who have no meanings to their lives, ie some Muslims who in many cases are not religious literate are being drawn to IS through propaganda and providing them with a meaning to life. This is where the voice of the Muslim community is utterly failing this problem. Yes it does not help with xenophobia, but a louder better approach should be coming from the Muslim leaders to provide sense and purpose to those disillusioned drawn to extremism. That means they are failing where IS and others are succeeding, so in other words religion can play a key part here also to show the views being expressed by the extremist are wrong, but this voice is falling on deaf ears and thus a new tactic has to be approached and more done by Muslims themselves to tackle this problem

Oh please. Manipulating the public is a fact of life. I'm surprised at you, really.

As for Muslim leaders doing something. Great idea, except there are no Muslim leaders.

Organisations like MCB don't lead anyone.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

But that's Al Qeada, right?

I thought the threat level was heightened because of isis.

By both and IS are an affiliate of Al Qaeda, come on mate, you know that

What I do know and is even accepted by American think tanks like the AEI, is that Al Qeada (Al Zawahiri, in particular) 'disowned' ISIS - for being too aggressive and extreme.

Look it up bruv.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:Also to claims about some conspiracy to manipulate the public is also to me a load of bull, sorry Zack, nobody needs manipulating to understanding a growing threat which of course we should be tackling those drawn to this extremism, which will be the most effective way to spell the doom of IS and other Islamists as well as taking out those committing extremism with force, because many people are suffering. That means and of which we know people who have no meanings to their lives, ie some Muslims who in many cases are not religious literate are being drawn to IS through propaganda and providing them with a meaning to life. This is where the voice of the Muslim community is utterly failing this problem. Yes it does not help with xenophobia, but a louder better approach should be coming from the Muslim leaders to provide sense and purpose to those disillusioned drawn to extremism. That means they are failing where IS and others are succeeding, so in other words religion can play a key part here also to show the views being expressed by the extremist are wrong, but this voice is falling on deaf ears and thus a new tactic has to be approached and more done by Muslims themselves to tackle this problem

Oh please. Manipulating the public is a fact of life. I'm surprised at you, really.

As for Muslim leaders doing something. Great idea, except there are no Muslim leaders.

Organisations like MCB don't lead anyone.

Your evidence for manipulation, not hot air buddy?
Sorry that is your view bruv, if you buy into it which i never do, I study history and thus see though bullshit

Really, no Imans, no parents, no brothers or sisters, they can all do this, which is why because they are not there is a huge problem, nobody is taking the situation to hand and thus maybe you or someone else has to, no good saying great idea and ignoring it

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


By both and IS are an affiliate of Al Qaeda, come on mate, you know that

What I do know and is even accepted by American think tanks like the AEI, is that Al Qeada (Al Zawahiri, in particular) 'disowned' ISIS - for being too aggressive and extreme.

Look it up bruv.

I think you need to look it up again bruv

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:


That's not the issue. That particular threat level 'normally' means there is some imtelligence of an attack.

But not in this case, the Home office have admitted.

That's why this is suspicious.

Really that is news to me, normally they would not raise without a significant threat, which is clearly of the AlQaeda threat, being as we receive many from islamic extremist, thus you are really being a conspirator theorist mate

Not conspiracy theories. Facts.

For a start, a severe threat level means an attack is highly likely. Which normally means there is some intelligence.

https://www.gov.uk/terrorism-national-emergency/terrorism-threat-levels

And again: Al Qeada has nothing to do with ISIS.

You need to look some facts up before making a judgement.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Really that is news to me, normally they would not raise without a significant threat, which is clearly of the AlQaeda threat, being as we receive many from islamic extremist, thus you are really being a conspirator theorist mate

Not conspiracy theories. Facts.

For a start, a severe threat level means an attack is highly likely. Which normally means there is some intelligence.

https://www.gov.uk/terrorism-national-emergency/terrorism-threat-levels

And again: Al Qeada has nothing to do with ISIS.

You need to look some facts up before making a judgement.

You just looked really silly there mate, is there a threat?

take your time and they are affiliates

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Oh please. Manipulating the public is a fact of life. I'm surprised at you, really.

As for Muslim leaders doing something. Great idea, except there are no Muslim leaders.

Organisations like MCB don't lead anyone.

Your evidence for manipulation, not hot air buddy?
Sorry that is your view bruv, if you buy into it which i never do, I study history and thus see though bullshit

Really, no Imans, no parents, no brothers or sisters, they can all do this, which is why because they are not there is a huge problem, nobody is taking the situation to hand and thus maybe you or someone else has to, no good saying great idea and ignoring it

There are plenty of books out there by eminent scholars who have plenty of proof about how govt and media manipulate the public.

Google manufacturing consent.

When you said Muslim leader, I thought you meant like the pope. Imams and media establishments are speaking out. My facebook feed is full of it.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Not conspiracy theories. Facts.

For a start, a severe threat level means an attack is highly likely. Which normally means there is some intelligence.

https://www.gov.uk/terrorism-national-emergency/terrorism-threat-levels

And again: Al Qeada has nothing to do with ISIS.

You need to look some facts up before making a judgement.

You just looked really silly there mate, is there a threat?

take your time and they are affiliates

Is threat 'highly likely'? Is the question you should be asking.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Your evidence for manipulation, not hot air buddy?
Sorry that is your view bruv, if you buy into it which i never do, I study history and thus see though bullshit

Really, no Imans, no parents, no brothers or sisters, they can all do this, which is why because they are not there is a huge problem, nobody is taking the situation to hand and thus maybe you or someone else has to, no good saying great idea and ignoring it

There are plenty of books out there by eminent scholars who have plenty of proof about how govt and media manipulate the public.

Google manufacturing consent.

When you said Muslim leader, I thought you meant like the pope. Imams and media establishments are speaking out. My facebook feed is full of it.

Mate I research as you well know, so tell me how many thwarted attempts were told as imminent?
None were, most were kept under raps.
The fact is Muslims are as a group here and elsewhere not stemming the battle against the Rhetoric conflict fight with extremists, they are winning this and it will take in my view a religious view point to combat the misconceptions that are leading disillusional Muslims to their cause.


Have to go zack, but my later point rings true, this is the way to combat extremism, and it will take Muslim community top do

Night mate and peace be with you.

Didge wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Isn't all this a prelude to the UK becoming more involved in military action against IS?  Trying to scare us out of our wits so there's no backlash against the government?

How many terrorist attacks or attempted terrorist attacks have there been to the uk?
I can tell you the attempted ones are quite a few, is that being scared or the reality being because are intelligence service is so good, many lives have been saved?
Does it take successful attacks to make you sit up?

I don't think there have been that many. And preventing it is not worth $17-trillion and another 50,000 lives.  The whole argument that these guys are a threat to the homeland and therefore we must start another war is bogus.  It's raised by those who want a war anyway.

We've had enough wars.  It's time to settle down.  However, the Muslim people need to sort out their sheit... Really, it's none of our business.  Let them have at each other. We can check back in a couple of decades.

nicko wrote:Re invade with hard military action,  if "boots on the ground"  are needed so be it, with volunteers only [ to appease the weak kneed here] and hit them with every thing we've got and take no prisoners.  Don't anyone here say," we can't do that, it's agains't the Geneva Convention" fcuk the Geneva Convention with this scum.

And after 10-years and another £17-trillion, y'all can leave and it will start all over because...well, because the Islamic civil war isn't finished. It's just a pause button, not some solution.

Wouldn't it be much easier and cheaper to let them have their silly civil war?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


How many terrorist attacks or attempted terrorist attacks have there been to the uk?
I can tell you the attempted ones are quite a few, is that being scared or the reality being because are intelligence service is so good, many lives have been saved?
Does it take successful attacks to make you sit up?

I don't think there have been that many.  And preventing it is not worth $17-trillion and another 50,000 lives.  The whole argument that these guys are a threat to the homeland and therefore we must start another war is bogus.  It's raised by those who want a war anyway.

We've had enough wars.  It's time to settle down.  However, the Muslim people need to sort out their sheit...  Really, it's none of our business.  Let them have at each other.  We can check back in a couple of decades.

Actually there have been quite a few thwarted by our intelligence service and every penny worth the amount spent on thus saving countless lives. To claim they are not a threat is complete nativity on your part Quill, which was the sort of attitude take by the west with Nazi Germany, until it was too late and you do not sit back and allow a situation to become far worse later when you could have done something about it, that is just plain poor strategical thinking on your part. It is also irresponsible being the US and Britain are partly responsible for their rise, even though much blame falls on the Ira government, you do not do a poor job and walk away from it, I would never hire someone like you if that was your philosophy, where you were not willing to correct your mistakes. You sadly have no contemplation of what we Brits have had to endure with terrorism, on the scale we have had over countless years with foreign terrorism, from the IRA to Islamic terrorism, hence your nativity here and why the Brits do not suffer fools lightly. The reality is again Muslim extremists make it their business to attack Britain and hence why many of us have become hardened to any terrorist threat and are not just going to sit back and wait until it is too late. AS I said to Zack this is still not enough as much needs to be done from within the Muslim community to trump the rhetoric being used by the extremists, a battle they are losing at the moment. 500 Brits fighting there is not something to be diminished as you are doing who are all trained in the arts of bomb making, hence my reasoning no mercy or quarter should be given to them.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:If I was a woman, I would avail my uterus to bare your children.

Holy Christ...hope that's an old Muslim saying or sumthin'. Don't bend over in the shower, Ben...just in case.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't think there have been that many.  And preventing it is not worth $17-trillion and another 50,000 lives.  The whole argument that these guys are a threat to the homeland and therefore we must start another war is bogus.  It's raised by those who want a war anyway.

We've had enough wars.  It's time to settle down.  However, the Muslim people need to sort out their sheit...  Really, it's none of our business.  Let them have at each other.  We can check back in a couple of decades.

Actually there have been quite a few thwarted by our intelligence service and every penny worth the amount spent on thus saving countless lives. To claim they are not a threat is complete nativity on your part Quill, which was the sort of attitude take by the west with Nazi Germany, until it was too late and you do not sit back and allow a situation to become far worse later when you could have done something about it, that is just plain poor strategical thinking on your part. It is also irresponsible being the US and Britain are partly responsible for their rise, even though much blame falls on the Ira government, you do not do a poor job and walk away from it, I would never hire someone like you if that was your philosophy, where you were not willing to correct your mistakes.  You sadly have no contemplation of what we Brits have had to endure with terrorism, on the scale we have had over countless years with foreign terrorism, from the IRA to Islamic terrorism, hence your nativity here and why the Brits do not suffer fools lightly. The reality is again Muslim extremists make it their business to attack Britain and hence why many of us have become hardened to any terrorist threat and are not just going to sit back and wait until it is too late. AS I said to Zack this is still not enough as much needs to be done from within the Muslim community to trump the rhetoric being used by the extremists, a battle they are losing at the moment. 500 Brits fighting there is not something to be diminished as you are doing who are all trained in the arts of bomb making, hence my reasoning no mercy or quarter should be given to them.

You are building a negative premise for going to war, Didge.  You can kill all potential threats right today, and there will be more next week. Negative goals is not the way to do it.  You build a positive premise.  We had goals with Hitler...save Britain, save Europe, defeat an ideology.  There's nothing to be gained in the Middle East...you think you are going to defeat that ideology?

What do you want to accomplish?  Take all of their land and kill all Muslims?  Put them in slavery?  Because I will tell you, 10-years of war and some $17-trillion will not work...we've tried it.

So before you commit, tell me what you want to accomplish.  Close your eyes and tell me what you want to see.  And don't even hint that you want them to suddenly change and be all loving to one another.  They want their war.

Then, after all that, give me your end-game...how are you going to get out after you are thru fucking around wasting your time?

RE: 'Terror Threat Levels":

AUSTRALIA remained on a "Medium" level last week...


I WONDER how long it will be before our Western guvm'nts see fit to place warning signs in front of Federal government buildings - similar to the 'Bush Fire Warning' signs developed in Oz many years ago, and adopted by some fire-prone parts of the US over the last couple of decades ~

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Actually there have been quite a few thwarted by our intelligence service and every penny worth the amount spent on thus saving countless lives. To claim they are not a threat is complete nativity on your part Quill, which was the sort of attitude take by the west with Nazi Germany, until it was too late and you do not sit back and allow a situation to become far worse later when you could have done something about it, that is just plain poor strategical thinking on your part. It is also irresponsible being the US and Britain are partly responsible for their rise, even though much blame falls on the Ira government, you do not do a poor job and walk away from it, I would never hire someone like you if that was your philosophy, where you were not willing to correct your mistakes.  You sadly have no contemplation of what we Brits have had to endure with terrorism, on the scale we have had over countless years with foreign terrorism, from the IRA to Islamic terrorism, hence your nativity here and why the Brits do not suffer fools lightly. The reality is again Muslim extremists make it their business to attack Britain and hence why many of us have become hardened to any terrorist threat and are not just going to sit back and wait until it is too late. AS I said to Zack this is still not enough as much needs to be done from within the Muslim community to trump the rhetoric being used by the extremists, a battle they are losing at the moment. 500 Brits fighting there is not something to be diminished as you are doing who are all trained in the arts of bomb making, hence my reasoning no mercy or quarter should be given to them.

You are building a negative premise for going to war, Didge.  That's not the way to do it.  You build a positive premise.  We had goals with Hitler...save Britain, save Europe.  There's nothing to be gained in the Middle East.

What do you want to accomplish?  Take all of their land and kill all Muslims?  Put them in slavery?  Because I will tell you, 10-years of war and some $17-trillion will not work...we've tried it.

So before you commit, tell me what you want to accomplish.  Close your eyes and tell me what you want to see.  And don't even hint that you want them to suddenly change and be all loving to one another.  They want their war.

Then, after all that, give me your end-game...how are you going to get out after you are thru fucking around wasting your time?

We have goals here, showing it is a not a negative premise, that is where also you are completely wrong, the goal is to to take them out with military options and also deny them the capacity they have with gaining support as they play off the weak and vulnerable, of which at present the later is losing, so the military option is needed to contain and stop their growth and spread. The second positive aim is to correct the mistakes left by both our nations, where again we fucked up, that does not mean we thus leave a nation to its own plight after being partly responsible, saving hundreds of thousands with the aim to get a better Iraq yet another positive aim,.
So my end game is for the Muslim community to work on a better religious attractive approach to help deal with those looking for purpose in their lives drawn to the rhetoric of IS and other extremist organisations, which will only be achieved over time, whilst in the mean time, military intervention is needed to both save countless lives under imminent threat to Iraq and Syria, where destroying most of its capabilities to fight will help diminish the capabilities of IS to recruit. We failed against the Taliban and AL Qeada because the Muslims themselves have not found a rhetoric way to stem disillusioned Muslim men seeking such purpose in their lives, hence why you are looking at this through tunnel vision, whilst I look at the bigger picture and the bigger threat yet to come..


Your view is waving the white flag until its late, no military strategy would advocate such a view as to ignore a growing threat.

At least 'fire danger' is based upon objective criteria, Bee. Brush, weather, retained water levels?

How do you calibrate peeing in your pants? Cause that's all it is...trying to scare the piss out of you.

Original Quill wrote:At least 'fire danger' is based upon objective criteria, Bee.  Brush, weather, retained water levels?

How do you calibrate peeing in your pants?  Cause that's all it is...trying to scare the piss out of you.

As seen the Brits are not scared at all and we tend to joke and laugh at threats, showing again how out of touch on reality you are here Quill

Didge wrote:
We have goals here, showing it is a not a negative premise, that is where also you are completely wrong, the goal is to to take them out with military options and also deny them the capacity they have with gaining support as they play off the weak and vulnerable, of which at present the later is losing, so the military option is needed to contain and stop their growth and spread. The second positive aim is to correct the mistakes left by both our nations, where again we fucked up, that does not mean we thus leave a nation to its own plight after being partly responsible, saving hundreds of thousands with the aim to get a better Iraq yet another positive aim,.

We had t0-years of military options, Didge. I promise you, they won't work next time either. The only mistake we ever made in the Middle East was going in to begin with.

There is nothing the military can do. Do you think if we bomb the shiet out of them, they will change their minds? Dream on.

Didge wrote:So my end game is for the Muslim community to work on a better religious attractive approach to help deal with those looking for purpose in their lives drawn to the rhetoric of IS and other extremist organisations, which will only be achieved over time,

Didge wrote:...whilst in the mean time, military intervention is needed to both save countless lives under imminent threat to Iraq and Syria, where destroying most of its capabilities to fight will help diminish the capabilities of IS to recruit. We failed against the Taliban and AL Qeada because the Muslims themselves have not found a rhetoric way to stem disillusioned Muslim men seeking such purpose in their lives, hence why you are looking at this through tunnel vision, whilst I look at the bigger picture and the bigger threat yet to come..

Your view is waving the white flag until its late, no military strategy would advocate such a view as to ignore a growing threat.

I don't think Muslim men are disillusioned. I think they are highly motivated. They just have two religious views, each a dogma in itself. It's not waving a white flag to realize that you can't command the waves to stop.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:At least 'fire danger' is based upon objective criteria, Bee.  Brush, weather, retained water levels?

How do you calibrate peeing in your pants?  Cause that's all it is...trying to scare the piss out of you.

As seen the Brits are not scared at all and we tend to joke and laugh at threats, showing again how out of touch on reality you are here Quill

Well, it's not about me.  I believe screaming 'raise threat level' was an action that Cameron took.  It was for the benefit of the British people...it wasn't us, nor as veya points out, Oz or anywhere else.

May I join you in joking and laughing and most of all, staying out of purposeless wars?