SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
For the first time in 10 years, the Prime Minister said the terror threat had been raised to the highest possible level, from severe to critical, meaning an attack is "expected imminently".
[...] Mrs May also announced that troops would replace police officers at set-piece events including sports venues and concerts.
It will be the first time since 2003 – when the Government reacted to a plot to bring down an airliner – that troops are deployed on the streets.
[...] It is the first time Britain has been on maximum terrorist alert since 2007, when a blazing car loaded with gas canisters was driven into Glasgow Airport.
Source: The Telegraph
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Soldiers Deployed in UK as Threat Level Raised to Critical
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 209 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Grelb's Reminder:
Eighty percent of all people consider themselves to be above
average drivers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @04:23PM (13 children)
> It's time to focus on the source of these problems!
You mean like the countries who engage in wars in the middle east? Overthrowing governments, invading, and bombing? I seem to remember reading that 500,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the invasion in the early 2000's. Libya was ruled by an autocrat, but it was stable, peaceful, people had a lot of benefits, free education, etc... Now NATO brought "Democracy" to the place, Gaddafi was brutally terminated, and the place has been in a state of conflict/civil war ever since.
Most people are actually human, and if they grow up watching their loved ones being killed all over the place, I can understand why they would try to strike back any way they can. I don't condone their actions, but I also understand that if we didn't attack them in the first place, I doubt they would have become radicalised to the point of committing attacks of retribution.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday May 24 2017, @04:30PM (10 children)
While it's true that's a good idea in the long-term, it's not going to do anything about the current generation of terrorists who hate us.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @04:47PM (9 children)
Well, I think it would help.
Take this guy in Manchester, he was 22. The crap in Libya started in 2011, 6 years ago, so he would have been 16, a relatively impressionable age. During that time he would watch his country of birth attack his country of origin and turn it into a hell hole. He may well have had friends and family still there who might have been victims. All while seeing politicians here gloating about it, and the people generally not that interested in what was being done in their name, or supportive of it.
It could have started a spiral that led to his radicalisation, and 6 years later, his suicide and deaths of many others.
Most people, especially those born in a country, if they are made to feel part of it, and not put in a position of being simultaneously on both sides of an ongoing conflict, will integrate and become productive members of society. Very few would out of the blue reject their host country and go on a murder spree.
6 years it relatively short term in the big scheme of things. True, those who have been radicalised already over the last decade+ are a concern, but as it was already reported, the authorities already knew about the guy and his risk to the public, so it is not a failure of surveillance or information.
The question is if he was known to authorities, if he was already known to have traveled to Syria to fight for ISIS, why was he not arrested upon his return? Rather than left on his merry way to eventually commit this attack. Joining ISIS (or any defined terror org) is a crime already, so it isn't like they couldn't do anything about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @04:52PM (8 children)
Gaddafi threatened with state sponsored terrorism. That is part of why the regime were broken. Another is that the people would elect a sane leader..
It might be harsh but it might be a good idea to deny entry to people with a risk profile of dual loyalties.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @05:07PM
I admit I don't remember hearing about him threatening the UK with state sponsored terrorism. What for? Any links?
Now we got non-state sponsored terrorism instead (ignoring where most of the wahhabist money comes from, of course)
How would you define having "Dual Loyalties"? Taken to its maximal result, you would then have to deny entry to pretty much everyone, except 22 countries:
https://d28wbuch0jlv7v.cloudfront.net/images/infografik/normal/chartoftheday_3441_countries_never_invaded_by_britain_n.jpg [cloudfront.net]
True, a lot of it happened a long time ago, but you can never be sure if someone from said country harbors any desire of revenge or retribution, can you? There is no way to scan someones mind to be sure they (or their children) won't end up seeking revenge for past grievance. And even if they don't seek revenge, you cant be sure where their loyalties actually lie. I know Indians who still have not forgiven what the UK did to India generations ago, despite being UK born long after those events.
I heard it well put once: "Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate", and invading countries is a good way of accumulating enemies.
You'd have to deport a huge chunk of the UK population I suspect, which would at least help make housing affordable for those left over I guess.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 24 2017, @05:12PM (3 children)
Uhhhhh - not exactly.
Colonel Khadaffi engaged in very little terrorism, throughout his life. What he DID do, was to reward terrorists, and/or their families with cash rewards. He also talked smack to the US/UK, and he had delusions of grandeur regarding his military prowess. To the best of my knowledge, Khadaffi never aided, abetted, planned, or ordered a terror attack to be carried out. His crimes consisted of rewarding families, after the fact. That, and providing a safe haven for various perpetrators over the years.
After the missile strike in which one of his (claimed) daughters was killed, Khadaffi kept a pretty low profile. He was afraid to stick his neck out, because he knew we were waiting to chop it off.
Bottom line, the man was not an active terrorist, nor did he run a terrorist organization. He was simply a constant thorn and embarrassment for western leaders.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday May 24 2017, @06:14PM (1 child)
-- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-12552587 [bbc.co.uk]
(Later events cast doubt on the part of that article about Mustafa Abdel-Jalil.)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 24 2017, @06:24PM
Yes, some he-said, she-said to reinforce a particular point of view. But, Agdel-Jalil doesn't even describe his "proof", let alone share the "proof". Accepting responsibility isn't quite the same as ordering and supplying the operation, of course. I can't know what actually happened, any more than anyone else can know for sure. But, I think Khadaffi was an ignorant bystander in that incident. After the fact, he certainly aided and abetted, and offered rewards.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @06:23PM
Except this incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103 [wikipedia.org], where Libyan intelligence apparatus had its filthy hands all over it.
Yeah I'm half and half on Khadafy. One one hand he was a total schmuck, on the other his constituents deserve no better, and in fact cannot deal with a world where they have better choices. He was right about the hordes of "refugees" coming to EU by the sea. He really kept them out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @06:07PM (1 child)
Hillary, is that you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @11:20PM
Nah, it's just Runaway posting cloaked. Funny, never saw him as a Khadafy supporter. Maybe it was just the all female bodyguards.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday May 24 2017, @08:21PM
Mr. Gaddafi eventually renounced terrorism, I seem recall.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaddafi [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @04:42PM
USA could not allow Saddam to sell the oil in Euro instead of Dollars which would have undermined the Dollar currency "petrodollar". So they achieved two goals. They got Iraq back on petrodollar and sent a warning to anyone else trying the same. If you want to save kids in the middle east then you have to deal with the oil-governmental-complex.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @07:45PM
Never been to Karachi or Riyadh, eh?