Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There's 'Keep Calm and Carry On' and then there's keeping an vague eye out for your personal safety the next few days whilst the government has publicly stated that there's an extremely high risk of another attack and deployed 5,000 troops on the streets. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and only a fool would equate the latter to 'letting the terrorists win'.

Nobody's saying to call in ill at work for fear of the big bad unknown. But in the same way you don't walk down large dark alleys in Brixton with strangely hooded men at 1am, it might be an idea to avoid obvious targets if not too much of an inconvenience for an appropriate time period whilst this is ongoing, the troops are on the streets, and a clearer picture is emerging.

So we've got troops out on the streets now too, just like France? Is the norm from now on?

 CptJake wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If you take precautions and avoid places you want to go you are letting the Bad Guys Win, or so I've been told.

Feel free to let the possible, unknown future actions of a terrorist dictate what you do.

Me? I'll carry on doing what I damn well please and to hell with them. Most Brits I know have the same mindset.

Though I usually agree with you on most topics, I guess we just differ on that philosophy.

I guess so. I used to do threat assessments and risk assessments for a living. In my experience it is plain dumb to NOT mitigate against risks and work towards avoiding or eliminating threats. I fully expect the UK gov't to take my position, and their actions so far support that opinion.

Well it never hurts to take certain precautions and remain vigilant/observant, but to "avoid places you want to go" is a bit much for me.

 Ketara wrote:
There's 'Keep Calm and Carry On' and then there's keeping an vague eye out for your personal safety the next few days whilst the government has publicly stated that there's an extremely high risk of another attack and deployed 5,000 troops on the streets. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and only a fool would equate the latter to 'letting the terrorists win'.

Nobody's saying to call in ill at work for fear of the big bad unknown. But in the same way you don't walk down large dark alleys in Brixton with strangely hooded men at 1am, it might be an idea to avoid obvious targets if not too much of an inconvenience for an appropriate time period whilst this is ongoing, the troops are on the streets, and a clearer picture is emerging.

The level has been taken to Critical and they are not hiding they are worried.
Taking care is not letting them win but taking some precautions to keeping yourself safe n alive.

A few inconveniences for a week or so are worth not losing life or limb.

I'm not so shortsighted as to forget that the last time we hit critical (the London Car Bombings in 2007), there was a second linked incident the following day (at Glasgow Airport). I trust that if the police have gone up to critical and the troops have deployed, there's a damn good reason for it.

Naturally though, people are free to shove their children into high-risk zones to 'stick it to the terrorists'. Free country and all that.

 Ketara wrote:
There's 'Keep Calm and Carry On' and then there's keeping an vague eye out for your personal safety the next few days whilst the government has publicly stated that there's an extremely high risk of another attack and deployed 5,000 troops on the streets. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and only a fool would equate the latter to 'letting the terrorists win'.

Nobody's saying to call in ill at work for fear of the big bad unknown. But in the same way you don't walk down large dark alleys in Brixton with strangely hooded men at 1am, it might be an idea to avoid obvious targets if not too much of an inconvenience for an appropriate time period whilst this is ongoing, the troops are on the streets, and a clearer picture is emerging.

This guy gets it.

Be prudent guys... be safe... but do carry on with your lives.

It's safe in my neck of the woods, but honestly, I don't know if I'll bother going to London later this year after all.

Stay calm and remain British all.

No power on this earth, or otherwise shall part us from our morning cup of tea or coffee don,t worry

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So we've got troops out on the streets now too, just like France? Is the norm from now on?

That all depends on the other side. If they will not relent, we must remain vigilant.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So we've got troops out on the streets now too, just like France? Is the norm from now on?

That all depends on the other side. If they will not relent, we must remain vigilant.

Remaining vigilant it is then.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So we've got troops out on the streets now too, just like France? Is the norm from now on?

I think he meant the extra police manpower. I haven't heard that the British Army is patrolling the streets.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So we've got troops out on the streets now too, just like France? Is the norm from now on?

I think he meant the extra police manpower. I haven't heard that the British Army is patrolling the streets.

http://conservativefans.com/2017/05/23/british-army-now-on-streets-of-britain/

Allegedly they fall under police command.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Sure we can carry on as normal. And we can do the same after the next one. And the next one after that. And the next one after that. But when do we decide that enough is enough and actually do something about it? Because I for one am sick of it.

You up for tanks and soldiers everywhere guns open? Security checks everywhere? Your internet, phone calls etc constantly monitored? Cuts and tax increases to fund all the workers needed for that surveilance plus heavy upscale of military and police force required?

And of course even that won't be bullet proof. Hard to stop somebody willing to exchanes his life to others.

When the Critical rating gets dropped, the troops will be recalled.
It's up to the upper government to decide when that is.

But, the armed forces have been targetted themselves before anyway (Lee Rigby).

The Home Secretary has said odds are, Abedi wasn't acting alone. What that means is that at least one other person was involved, and judging by some other reports I've seen about, this other connection is likely to be the one who supplied him with the explosive device.

In other words, there's a rogue Islamic bomb maker on the run at the minimum that they're trying to pull down. Three people arrested so far, no idea if they're part of the crime or just people connected to people who are. Either way, they'll be combing Abedi's possessions as we speak, interviewing anyone who knows him, trawling the CCTV, and trying to figure out who got him the bomb and nail them fast.

That means this other chap is likely on a timer and knows it. Hence the 'critical' status, if he's going to hit anywhere, he may well try and do it soon before they catch up with him. That's my reading of what facts we've got so far anyway. Hopefully it's just the one bloke and not a cell of them, or this could get ugly.

 Ketara wrote:
The Home Secretary has said odds are, Abedi wasn't acting alone. What that means is that at least one other person was involved, and judging by some other reports I've seen about, this other connection is likely to be the one who supplied him with the explosive device.

In other words, there's a rogue Islamic bomb maker on the run at the minimum that they're trying to pull down. Three people arrested so far, no idea if they're part of the crime or just people connected to people who are. Either way, they'll be combing Abedi's possessions as we speak, interviewing anyone who knows him, trawling the CCTV, and trying to figure out who got him the bomb and nail them fast.

That means this other chap is likely on a timer and knows it. Hence the 'critical' status, if he's going to hit anywhere, he may well try and do it soon before they catch up with him. That's my reading of what facts we've got so far anyway. Hopefully it's just the one bloke and not a cell of them, or this could get ugly.

Equally, they could be hedging - given the apparent sophistication of the bomb, and lack of evidence he did act alone, they are working one the basis it is likely someone helped, without any direct evidence of such. Not saying that is the case at all, but odds are that he wasn't acting alone only means they judge it more likely than not, that he was assisted.

It could well be the case, but I'm inclined to think that for them to declare critical alert and undertake to deploy troops, there must have some evidence beyond guesswork.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


As a country, we've had far, far worse. I work bloody close to one of the last atrocities of the IRA. My brother and I were once at London Bridge station mere hours before a bomb went off there. I wasn't scared then. And I'm not scared now.

As whole, while the IRA may not have been too concerned with collateral, women and children generally weren't their primary targets in these attacks.

When the IRA was setting up bombs, they often didn't care who it would hit. Obviously some of their attacks were more targeted (like trying to kill Thatcher) but a lot of them were just about getting a body count, no matter who it was.

Russia has offered the UK a increased relationship to fight ISIS and share info, and hunt them down. And one more tabloid press saying Putin seems to draw a line at targeting kids and was stating they would punish them for the attack.

If there genuine. Well it could be a powerful boost to fight against them.
They may have managed to get two nations not seeing eye to eye decide to unite.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


As a country, we've had far, far worse. I work bloody close to one of the last atrocities of the IRA. My brother and I were once at London Bridge station mere hours before a bomb went off there. I wasn't scared then. And I'm not scared now.

As whole, while the IRA may not have been too concerned with collateral, women and children generally weren't their primary targets in these attacks.

When the IRA was setting up bombs, they often didn't care who it would hit. Obviously some of their attacks were more targeted (like trying to kill Thatcher) but a lot of them were just about getting a body count, no matter who it was.

I have only a passing familiarity with IRA, but didn´t they have a strategy to avoid civilian targets and focusing more on targets connected to the UK state like finance districts, airports and bridges?

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


As a country, we've had far, far worse. I work bloody close to one of the last atrocities of the IRA. My brother and I were once at London Bridge station mere hours before a bomb went off there. I wasn't scared then. And I'm not scared now.

As whole, while the IRA may not have been too concerned with collateral, women and children generally weren't their primary targets in these attacks.

When the IRA was setting up bombs, they often didn't care who it would hit. Obviously some of their attacks were more targeted (like trying to kill Thatcher) but a lot of them were just about getting a body count, no matter who it was.

I have only a passing familiarity with IRA, but didn´t they have a strategy to avoid civilian targets and focusing more on targets connected to the UK state like finance districts, airports and bridges?

Not really. Those may have been targets which they certainly tried to hit (along with soldiers and police officers) but they were also putting bombs in pubs, shopping centres, town centres etc.

 jhe90 wrote:
Russia has offered the UK a increased relationship to fight ISIS and share info, and hunt them down. And one more tabloid press saying Putin seems to draw a line at targeting kids and was stating they would punish them for the attack.

If there genuine. Well it could be a powerful boost to fight against them.
They may have managed to get two nations not seeing eye to eye decide to unite.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that. I still hate Putin's regime but when compared to these scumbags he's the lesser evil.

And the IRA liked to think that they were a legitimate army fighting a guerrilla war against an occupying force but they weren't.

A lot of British politicians singing the praises of our health service and army, today, and yet, these same people have been cutting our army and health service to the bone for years

two-faced


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And another thing - I've been going over my history of terrorism books, and have drawn the following conclusion:

There are two aspects of terrorism. The atrocity, and the reaction.

Now, obviously the atrocity is often hard to stop and is often outwith our control

but the reaction is not. Terrorism is robbed of a lot of its power if the targeted population refuses to be terrorized.

That is why I still maintain that the suspension of the election campaign was a grave error, and the deployment of troops to be tokenism at its worst.

During the Blitz of 1940, who would appear on the streets to reassure the population? Who would insist on shops opening and buses running?

Winston Churchill. He knew the power of the symbolism of carrying on gave to the population.

I'm up in here in Scotland, the middle of nowhere, miles from a big town or city, and yet election campaigning is suspended?

Terrible event, I can only imagine the death toll will be going up sadly with so many in critical condition.

Of course on other places of the internet we're already knee deep in the false flag BS or laughing at Arianna Grande because of her political positions. So many people are just pure garbage.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A lot of British politicians singing the praises of our health service and army, today, and yet, these same people have been cutting our army and health service to the bone for years

two-faced


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And another thing - I've been going over my history of terrorism books, and have drawn the following conclusion:

There are two aspects of terrorism. The atrocity, and the reaction.

Now, obviously the atrocity is often hard to stop and is often outwith our control

but the reaction is not. Terrorism is robbed of a lot of its power if the targeted population refuses to be terrorized.

That is why I still maintain that the suspension of the election campaign was a grave error, and the deployment of troops to be tokenism at its worst.

During the Blitz of 1940, who would appear on the streets to reassure the population? Who would insist on shops opening and buses running?

Winston Churchill. He knew the power of the symbolism of carrying on gave to the population.

I'm up in here in Scotland, the middle of nowhere, miles from a big town or city, and yet election campaigning is suspended?

True but compared to most modern political figures he is kind of getting doctorate while they barely passed a GCSE it seems..

...hmm ..


uh huh.

Bold claim there perhaps.

But it's true. They see her and her fans and as whores. And they're not into music either. They see the likes of her as disgustingly unislamic and therefore a legitimate target.

Right. And the Bataclan attack was chosen because ISIS hates avian apex predators and the musical stylings of Obituary and Cannibal Corpse. /s

The target was chosen because it was a soft target with maximum casualties. It could have been any band.

 reds8n wrote:

Spoiler:

...hmm ..


uh huh.

Bold claim there perhaps.

I can see the point. Targets are selected for reasons. I suspect this one was chosen for a combination of several, to include 'soft target' with high probability of high casualties, the expected types of casualties (mostly younger people), the symbolism (hitting a Western pop concert in which the star and her audience are indeed examples of 'western decadence'), as well as physical target aspects (security situation, ingress routes, lack of cover to protect target and so on).

I'm sure the investigation will come up with more accurate reasoning for this selection, as well as other sites/events considered and so on.

Just like hitting a Christmas Party or Christmas Market, a gay dance club and other recent target selections all 'make sense' when you consider who was doing the targeting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Looks like a 5th 'lone wolf' arrested in relation to this event.

And looks like an off duty cop was one of the victims killed.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40032504