-
I work about half a mile from where it happened, and next to fairly large police station. A lot more officers and vehicles outside there this morning coming into work. Parliament is (unsurprisingly) one of the most heavily policed places in the country; I walked past there last week and there are cops with machine guns wandering about everywhere. Just goes to show how hard it is to defend against attacks like this.
-
The bit that gets missed in this, that I think is hugely important, is there's around 3m muslims in the UK. We've (apparently) been at war with Islam for 16 years. This attack was obviously impossible to defend against. Really its lucky he did it on that bridge & not, say, down Regents Street at lunchtime, 5 dead would have been 50 dead.
And yet... despite all that this is the only time "we" have taken serious casualties in the UK since 7/7. Thats 12 years. And he killed 5 people. And thats tragic, but its a piss poor return.
It'll be hyped to all fuck - mostly by people thousands of miles from London, but its nothing. It sure as fuck isn't a war. The IRA had a 10x better strike rate than these fluffybunnies & that was only a "Trouble"
So either there's no war, or UK Muslims are not in it. Because 3m others didn't do shit yesterday, or last week, or any week since 2005, when 4 of them did shit.
Life will be 100% normal again in London within a couple of days, no one will change anything they do, today was no different out on the streets I walk. Same way I was on the tube again right after 7/7 & went from getting a seat back to fricking rammed within a couple of days.
-
@gollum said in Ferners in London:
The bit that gets missed in this, that I think is hugely important, is there's around 3m muslims in the UK. We've (apparently) been at war with Islam for 16 years. This attack was obviously impossible to defend against. Really its lucky he did it on that bridge & not, say, down Regents Street at lunchtime, 5 dead would have been 50 dead.
And yet... despite all that this is the only time "we" have taken serious casualties in the UK since 7/7. Thats 12 years. And he killed 5 people. And thats tragic, but its a piss poor return.
It'll be hyped to all fuck - mostly by people thousands of miles from London, but its nothing. It sure as fuck isn't a war. The IRA had a 10x better strike rate than these fluffybunnies & that was only a "Trouble"
So either there's no war, or UK Muslims are not in it. Because 3m others didn't do shit yesterday, or last week, or any week since 2005, when 4 of them did shit.
Life will be 100% normal again in London within a couple of days, no one will change anything they do, today was no different out on the streets I walk. Same way I was on the tube again right after 7/7 & went from getting a seat back to fricking rammed within a couple of days.
Don't forget though that part of the reason there are so few attacks is that so many are headed off before they happen.
Excellent counter-terrorism is part of the reason there are so few attacks that reach conclusion and the agencies/police will be pissed off that they didn't see this one coming (which also points to it being a random, rather than planned, act even if the individual was known to them).That doesn't totally wipe out your point that the number of attacks (or spoiled attacks) is not in proportion to the fear generated.
You are more at risk of getting killed as a pedestrian on a road in London than a terrorist attack. Last year there was a tram crash that killed more people than this yet it stayed in the headlines for a day and people were more pissed off that the trams weren't running as they would have hopped straight back on them.
-
@Crucial said in Ferners in London:
Don't forget though that part of the reason there are so few attacks is that so many are headed off before they happen.
Excellent counter-terrorism is part of the reason there are so few attacks that reach conclusion and the agencies/police will be pissed off that they didn't see this one coming (which also points to it being a random, rather than planned, act even if the individual was known to them).Definately, R4 this morning was saying 19 attacks headed off in last few years.
My point is more given the number of Muslims in the UK & the utter impossibility of stopping someone driving his car into pedestrians if this was as bad as made out we'd be having one of these a day, not 1 every 12 years. The intelligence services do an excellent job, but they are fighting lone nutjobs & a tiny number of brainwashed idiots, not a mass movement.
As Nick points put, compared to the Baader Meinhoff, the IRA, ETA etc, these guys are pathetic try-hards, but if you read the press today you'd assume we face an existential threat.
-
You would also have to assume that back in the 70's and 80's the security forces were working hard in pre-empting IRA threats.
-
@Catogrande said in Ferners in London:
You would also have to assume that back in the 70's and 80's the security forces were working hard in pre-empting IRA threats.
-
-
@TeWaio said in Ferners in London:
I just found out that a guy I deal with at Citigroup.....his wife was one of the people killed on Westminster Bridge. Hit by the speeding car on the pavement, then thrown onto the road and under a bus. Was walking to pick their two kids up from school.
Farken terrible man
-
@NTA said in Ferners in London:
Lot of commentary out there on social media.
You have to take into consideration that anti-terrorism and intelligence services are much better and more advanced now than they were back then. Governments are also spending billions more on preventing terrorism. I don't even want to think about what the situation would be like if the current lot of loonies were operating against 70s era resources. The Baader Meinhoff and co would be kittens in comparison.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Ferners in London:
@NTA said in Ferners in London:
Lot of commentary out there on social media.
You have to take into consideration that anti-terrorism and intelligence services are much better and more advanced now than they were back then. Governments are also spending billions more on preventing terrorism. I don't even want to think about what the situation would be like if the current lot of loonies were operating against 70s era resources. The Baader Meinhoff and co would be kittens in comparison.
Just like sports it is hard to judge groups from different eras. The terrorists have more tech than the 70s and so do anti-terror agencies. What is really difficult now is that back then the terror organization planned and executed their operations. Now groups like ISIS can "inspire" whack jobs to give themselves to the cause
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Ferners in London:
You have to take into consideration that anti-terrorism and intelligence services are much better and more advanced now than they were back then. Governments are also spending billions more on preventing terrorism. I don't even want to think about what the situation would be like if the current lot of loonies were operating against 70s era resources. The Baader Meinhoff and co would be kittens in comparison.
I don't buy that at all.
All the restraints in place now (Human rights acts etc) were not there in the 70's. The laws about detention without charge were far looser. As was the engagement laws - the SAS flat out exceuted a number of unarmed IRA guys (rightly IMHO). The security services in the 70's & 80's had carte blanche, the current guys are staggeringly contrained.
As for the idea that BM would be kittens, jeysus, do you know who the BM were?
-
@canefan said in Ferners in London:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Ferners in London:
@NTA said in Ferners in London:
Lot of commentary out there on social media.
You have to take into consideration that anti-terrorism and intelligence services are much better and more advanced now than they were back then. Governments are also spending billions more on preventing terrorism. I don't even want to think about what the situation would be like if the current lot of loonies were operating against 70s era resources. The Baader Meinhoff and co would be kittens in comparison.
Just like sports it is hard to judge groups from different eras. The terrorists have more tech than the 70s and so do anti-terror agencies. What is really difficult now is that back then the terror organization planned and executed their operations. Now groups like ISIS can "inspire" whack jobs to give themselves to the cause
Compare the semi-professional sharpshooters at Munich airport in 1972 with the GSG9 today. It's night and day. My parents used to board planes with absolutely no security checks. Now look at what you have to go through.
-
@gollum @Rancid-Schnitzel Comparisons between the two eras and the various terrorist groups are not really going to prove anything. The times were different, the laws were different, the engagement rules were different, the aims of the terrorist groups are different.
For us the threat is without doubt real and potentially greater than it was, but as it stands the resultant atrocities bear no comparison with what went on in the 70's and 80's.
Not arguing one side or another here, just saying that comparisons are not much help.
-
@gollum said in Ferners in London:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Ferners in London:
You have to take into consideration that anti-terrorism and intelligence services are much better and more advanced now than they were back then. Governments are also spending billions more on preventing terrorism. I don't even want to think about what the situation would be like if the current lot of loonies were operating against 70s era resources. The Baader Meinhoff and co would be kittens in comparison.
I don't buy that at all.
All the restraints in place now (Human rights acts etc) were not there in the 70's. The laws about detention without charge were far looser. As was the engagement laws - the SAS flat out exceuted a number of unarmed IRA guys (rightly IMHO). The security services in the 70's & 80's had carte blanche, the current guys are staggeringly contrained.
As for the idea that BM would be kittens, jeysus, do you know who the BM were?
Ffs, I said they'd be kittens compared to the current lot of loonies. Learn to read.
As for the rest, yeah sure they had greater scope to electrocute a guy's nads, but the security and intelligence apparatuses were much smaller and less developed than they are now. Potential terrorist had access to places and targets they'd never get close to now.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Ferners in London:
Ffs, I said they'd be kittens compared to the current lot of loonies. Learn to read.
Yes, and even that implies you don't realise how bad the BMG were. Or how well armed. The current islamic lot are struggling to use cars, BMG were fully armed with automatic weapons & semtex, both of which they used.
I get you are trying to discredit Nicks chart to "prove" that we are at much greater peril, but your arguement ignores literally everything about the BMG (that was a terrible group to talk about to make your point), the laws, the methods used to combat etc
Ferners in London