U.K. raises terror threat level to 'severe'

a reply to: TrueBrit

I see where you are coming from, really I do. But what about those guys that killed Lee Rigby?

The larger threat to the UK comes not only from those ISL fighters who are UK citizens fighting abroad, in my opinion an attack in the UK is far more likely to come from Jihadists that have been born and raised in the UK and who have never left in the first place.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: citizenx1

The difference? British military personnel are not, and have never been, a part of an organisation which PROMOTES and ADVISES its members to execute unarmed, shackled detainees, rape torture and kill women, string people up in the street, kill children with specific and clear intent to do just that...

I am not saying our lads are perfect, but they are subject to military law, and to a code of ethics. We know they have failed to keep to those covenants in the past, but their breakage of their oaths in that regard, is counter to the codes of military practice to which they are beholden, and can land them in serious hot water. ISIS fighters are told to be barbaric, to slit the throats of people on video, with the intention of publishing that video to the entire world and threatening the entire world with that same treatment.


Comparing the modern British Military to ISIS in terms of ethics, is like comparing Sir Gallahad to Charles Manson.

Who decides what ethics and means are acceptable? Surely that is an individual matter based on conscience rather than dictated by a majority to a minority?

For me, fighting for what you believe is worth so much more than doing it for money.

You're right, "our boys" aren't saints - many are just thugs in uniform who behave in just as despicable a way as those we're being told to hate right now.

I have to conclude that people fighting in this way must be left alone by the British and other governments unless or until they commit a crime against the people of the nation. Fighting for something the government doesn't believe in isn't necessarily a crime.

a reply to: citizenx1

Suggestion.

You're right, "our boys" aren't saints - many are just thugs in uniform who behave in just as despicable a way as those we're being told to hate right now.

Role up to Aldershot and walk into a pub spouting this crap.

"thugs in uniform".

Don't think it would go down to well with the para's

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
This makes total sense.

I find it quite perplexing that people are surprised by this or are trying to call it out as some kind of political move.

We have over 500 British nationals who we know are going off to groups like ISIS to receive training. Guys like Jihad John. Now think about it if Jihad John and his other British Chums over in Iraq and Syria are prepared to cut of the head of a American what makes you think they won't us their UK citizenship get on the next BA Flight out of Karachi to London to go build some bombs and cause some mayhem, get a ticket up to sit about with those 72 virgin's.

Of course JTAC are going to recommend raising the threat level.

I sort of agree as an other comment also brought up the change in UK force logistics with a threat level upgrade but part of me thinks this would be exactly what you would do to show how we're Better Together, or in this case, all in it together
I do not trust the Gov of the UK they are and have been shown to be dishonest and if loss of leave and a few extra quid on defense budgets, I think if they could they would. don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting there is no threat just the timing of said threat.

Because the threat is very real.

Cameron trying to make that money, shut the Brits down into Martial Law ala Children of Men, and still emerge the victor while playing all sides against each other. Ol Iron Crotch Thatcher must be dancing a jig from hell!

Business as usual looks like and eerily reminiscent of Bush's color coded fear tactics daily.

Just a heads up also - the NATO summit is upcoming (any one who frequents plane spotter sites on FB will have noticed the upsurge in movements - and a certain helicopters arrival :-) )

I would think that this upswing is also timed to coincide with this huge conference and the people who are attending it without necessarily referencing the event directly.

originally posted by: ArchPlayer
Cameron trying to make that money, shut the Brits down into Martial Law ala Children of Men, and still emerge the victor while playing all sides against each other. Ol Iron Crotch Thatcher must be dancing a jig from hell!

Business as usual looks like and eerily reminiscent of Bush's color coded fear tactics daily.

Martial law!!

What a load of crock.

The threat level is changed quite a lot, for most of 2006 and 2010 it was raised to "Severe" and at times has even been higher with zero sign of Martial Law on the streets.

The last time i can recall anything close to martial law was way back in 2003 when they had to deploy troops and tanks with a Nimrod overhead at Heathrow following intelligence that terrorists were about to shoot down a commercial airliner.

a reply to: citizenx1

Well...

They are a proscribed terrorist organisation under British Law, and membership of that group therefore, is a criminal offense in this country. It also has to be said, that aside from the much publicised strength of, and regimented appearance of their more traditional military assets, they are also your bog standard, car bombing, knee capping, extortionists, no different to the IRA of old, or AQ.

To me the threat will come in the form of a co-ordinated take over a local area or area's, By local UK extremist's and sympathizers that will shut down hotels ect, and implement a kill on site order.
The terrors that have taken place over the last few years point to an enemy looking and watching for the reaction to different scenarios and using that information to plan something beyond our comprehension.
I truly hope I'm wrong but we are not prepared for a group or group's of highly armed men taking area's and killing and holding them with house to house street CQB fighting against an unarmed population such as the UK.


en.wikipedia.org...


mashable.com...



wer much to young to deal with thesee problems but they keep thrusting them self's on us... untill finaly wer foced to think of the solution

a reply to: crostkev

Interesting you point to Mumbai.

I remember a few years ago there was a series of meetings held in London between the emergency services and the military who were basically planning for the exact scenario. They even went out to big businesses in the area and got them involved.

Just think about the mess that 6 guys with guys working in teams of 2 could do to a busy shopping centre or night club.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

There was a more recent incident of that - on 7/7 the army closed off access to Heathrow with APCs - in addition uniformed Forces personnel were patrolling civilian areas around RAF Northolt as a security precaution.

(Yes I live near there and had to drop a friend off at T4 that night)

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
and if you add multiple locations on a set time and date the fear that would be caused would be as big as 9/11 (god I hope not)
I'm not going to go into my back ground but I know of scenarios that were looked into and to me we lack any capability to prevent a attack of that kind on even a small scale with our unarmed population

a reply to: Silk

true and the SAS and SRR where also deployed to london to assist police with making hard arrests.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
If their citizenship is removed in absentia, then they could be detained as foreign terror suspects, and that distinction would expand the law enforcement options available to the police and indeed make it possible for them to be tried as enemy combatants.

TrueBrit: I'm not trying to start a flame war BUT:

I've read several of your posts on various threads regarding the militarization of polices, both here in the US and in on your turf; the UK. How do you then come to terms with telling LEOs to try and arrest and detain enemy combatants while at the same time trying to neuter those same LEOs?

I am in agreement that we have seen a rapid fielding of soldier-cops and am against it 100%. But I also don't want to be sending Barney Fife to raid an IED manufacturing house, loaded with potentially armed jihadist, carrying only a pea shooter.

With that being said, we know the names of these people. I say strip them of their citizenship in abesentia , blast their names for the general public to see and hear, and bar them from reentry unless surrendering at their local embassy for a fair court hearing upon returning to their home nation.

Cops shouldn't be soldiers and using them in that role for one person and expecting them to not see those 'terrorist' traits' in others and act accordingly is what is causing many of excessive force problems IMO.

a reply to: crostkev


Yup its a pretty big threat.

I think though in most big Cities a police armed response would be on the scene quick enough, and in lost of these larger cities they are trained for just this kind of thing.

however it would be inevitable that many would be killed in the 5 minutes ( or longer) it would take a ARV to get to the scene

Not really very much anyone can do about it.

That is why we have the CONTEST Strategy to try to prevent these things form happening in the first place. UK Counter terrorism is really quite robust.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

But I will add at no time did I feel my rights or the democracy of the country threatened - quite on the contrary.

Worth remembering when the idea of Marshal Law is brought up in the context of the UK that we beheaded a King (before any other European nation) and then deposed the guy who did it to put a Monarch back on the throne.

We arn't a Nation with a constitution to be hijacked - ours is fluid and we tend to be a people pretty hard to put down (thinking of Blitz Spirit and the Falklands specifically)

a reply to: Silk


You get a star from me for that post!

I think in the UK we have a much more relaxed police force and as such we as a population don't feel quite so threatened by them.

So long as we are not the ones on the receiving end of their law enforcement.

a reply to: Silk
I don't believe the targets for an op of the kind I envisage will involve armed forces area's it will be highly populated
Muslim majority area's The demand will be Islamic law convert or die type madness and could last from minuets to hours to even days if there were multiple areas to deal with.








wer much to young to deal with thesee problems but they keep thrusting them self's on us... untill finaly wer foced to think of the solution

a reply to: crostkev

A good point - but bear in mind the IRA tried and failed to instigate that amount of terror over a 20 year armed conflict here on the mainland and aimed at major population centers.

The Provo's were a good training for our security forces - and I believe left us in a pretty good position to deal with Urban and Covert Insugency. It's inciteful to see the number of foiled terror attacks post 7/7 on the UK versus the attacks by the IRA in London and the Provinces over the period 1970 - 1990.

Whilst never a proponent of "shoot to kill" I was very aware of the operation in Loch Gaul and Gibralter and know from my contacts just what a devestating blow the use of our own special forces, the detachment and various other services can deal to home grown terrorists.

I do have a great degree of faith in our Security Services (and recognise some of their failings) but this is a threat that can be tracked and identified much more readily. If we did what we did using Human Int in the 70s and 80s the reliance upon communication by modern technology by this new breed of Terrorist my indeed be their achillies heel.

(Of course this is only my thoughts)

If the scenario I have laid out, is in the sight's of the intelligence community, what day you upgrade a terror threat level is an irrelevant matter.
To me, it then becomes political and there are some big issues on the PM's table. the break up of the united kingdom being lets just say big,
Now if our Australian friends, well there head of state anyway, thinks it would be an international disaster if there was a UK break up and the bad guy's would love to see it happen (I say bad guys because ISIS was not directly mentioned) then why the so called perceived attack now and lets say there is a plan for attack on the UK, why now, logic dictates at the very least a question mark on this one.