Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Al Qaeda terror threat or Propaganda?

35 replies

Bugrit · 04/10/2010 20:11

Am I alone in thinking that this just a prelude to more 'anti-terror' legislation which further attacks civil liberties (e.g. right to protest/gather/strike) in advance of announcements on cuts?

OP posts:
scaryteacher · 04/10/2010 20:15

Well, given that the FCO, the US and Japan have all raised their threat levels for Europe, I don't think it's propaganda at all.

ajandjjmum · 04/10/2010 20:17

Bloody tories again, causing terror alerts! Hmm

Pretty worrying tbf. There's presumably some info that's been received by someone to cause this reaction.

Original poster
Bugrit · 04/10/2010 20:41

The timing just seems a bit too convenient. ajand - it happened under Labour too e.g. power to detain 'terror suspects' for 28 days without charge and restrictions on the right of peaceful protest.

OP posts:
ajandjjmum · 04/10/2010 21:19

I know - and I don't honestly trust any politician. But I can't believe that all nations would be in cahoots just to help our lots out.
I've been feeling unsettled about getting the train into London this week (and particularly because I'm meeting DS at a different station), and it makes me angry that I feel like this. How unsettling/horrible/scary for those of you who work in the city.

Original poster
Bugrit · 04/10/2010 21:27

I really don't believe that there's some sort of x-files conspiracy going on but can see how keeping the scare factor high serves governments worldwide.

OP posts:
Chil1234 · 04/10/2010 22:26

The story was 'America advises their people to be careful when visiting Europe'.... It wasn't 'The UK says we're all doomed, lads'. The UK terror threat level has been high for some time and remains high.

Original poster
Bugrit · 04/10/2010 22:58

Agreed, UK terror level has been 'severe' since Jan this year, but was raised because of perceived threat of international terror. Terror scares get batted about the world media, we all stay on 'high alert' and Governments whittle away civil liberties in response. Doesn't the 'attack is highly likely' alert lose its impact after 10 months or so? Is it pure cooincidence that stories which keep the fear alive seem to hit the media radar whenever there's a potential threat of civil unrest?

Off to commune with aliens now and search for corn circles in the back garden :o

OP posts:
BadgersPaws · 04/10/2010 23:08

There is a terror threat and Al Qaeda are really quite serious.

But simultaneously this whole conflict has been stage managed and media manipulated since the very beginning.

The truth lies somewhere in between the scare stories and videos full of hate.

So take the warnings with a pinch of salt but keep your eyes open and try to see through the stories released to the press. And remember that old warning that they who give up freedoms in exchange for security deserve neither.

pompadourprincess · 05/10/2010 08:22

There is a massive NFL match at wembley on Oct 31st . 80,000 + people will be there, it will be screened all over the world with the US being the main viewer.
It is an ideal opportunity for a plot that would impact many.
I have tickets and I am in 2 minds if to go. Part of me thinks I cannot let these people effect my day to day life. But me and DH are going and if something happened our children wouldn't have parents.
I will contuine to find out as much as I can before we make our decision

sarah293 · 05/10/2010 08:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Chil1234 · 05/10/2010 11:05

Apparently, this warning is thought to be a result of information gained from a member of a Hamburg terror cell picked up by the Americans recently. Other members of this German-based cell (which had dropped off the radar) were hiding out in Northern Pakistan/Southern Afghanistan & were killed by drone attack this week.

The information about being extra vigilant in 'crowded places in Europe' is really too vague to be of any real use because there are hundreds of locations that fit the description and the chances of anyone being in the 'wrong place at the wrong time' are very, very small. If there was something more specific it would be worth changing behaviour.

Original poster
Bugrit · 05/10/2010 17:55

I'm certainly more scared how this kind of intelligence is used to justify dubious responsive action by the government than I am of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

OP posts:
scaryteacher · 05/10/2010 19:36

What 'dubious responsive action' by the Govt? I haven't heard of any at all. The threat level is up because of NI and Al Qaeda. As someone who grew up searching regularly under the car for bombs, then no, the impact isn't lost.

Chil1234 · 05/10/2010 20:01

Yes, what 'dubious responsive action'? The only interview I heard on the subject was with the Foreign Secretary and he simply said that the threat had been high for some time and that we should remain vigilant. Quite low-key. Now if it had been the last lot still in power we'd all be on a night-time curfew, six months detention without trial and need retina scans to catch a bus.

Original poster
Bugrit · 05/10/2010 20:28

I was referring to the dubious responsive action of the 'last lot' and really don't believe things will be much different this time around. The media coverage/response didn't seem low-key to me on Sunday.

I'm not ignorant to the fact that terrorism exists, btw. I was in Brighton when the Grand Hotel was bombed by the IRA in 1984 and was shit-scared (I was 11).

I still think the likelyhood of being in the wrong place at the wrong time is very slim and I really do worry more about loss of civil liberties than I do about terrorist attacks. But, maybe things will be different under the ConDems [hmmm]

OP posts:
Original poster
Bugrit · 05/10/2010 20:29

That should be a Hmm

OP posts:
scaryteacher · 05/10/2010 23:55

Everyone worries about civil liberties until they are directly affected by terrorism. I'd far rather someone's civil liberties were infringed than anyone got killed frankly.

Original poster
Bugrit · 06/10/2010 17:55

'someone' is all of us. Perhaps we should agree to disagree :)

OP posts:
BadgersPaws · 06/10/2010 21:00

"I'd far rather someone's civil liberties were infringed than anyone got killed frankly."

In the 80s some people felt that way because the targets were thought to be the Irish and they weren't Irish.

These days some people feel this way because the targets were thought to be Muslims and they weren't Muslim.

As Bugrit says that targets would actually be all of us.

It's not "someone's" civil liberties who would be infringed, it would be yours.

When you have anti-terror legislation used to harass photographers, check on parents applying for school places, to investigate benefit fraud, to enforce no-smoking policies and to try and get money out of Icelandic banks then something is very very wrong.

If a free and tolerant society can be turned into a totalitarian paranoid police state then the terrorists have scored a bit of a victory.

Wigeon · 06/10/2010 21:03

OP - er, no. Really no. .

whomovedmychocolate · 06/10/2010 21:11

I think we are about due frankly. :( It's politically difficult because actually it's going to slow down recovery - or perhaps not, people react oddly to freak events.

But I would also posit the argument that in economic terms it would make sense to withdraw all security regimes from airports, public transport etc. take away and spend that money on public services, possibly raising potential terrorists out of poverty and their aspirations towards something more positive than murder.

It's unwise to predict such things but I think it'll be an electronic attack this time. You can do a hell of a lot of damage by attacking infrastructure and networks.

Wigeon · 06/10/2010 21:22

WMMC: you'll be happy to know then that the Defence Secretary has said that a renewed focus on cyber security will be an important part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (due to be published in a couple of weeks) here.

I predict another successful person-borne improvised explosive device myself rather than a cyber attack which affects the UK national interest.

There is actually a bunch of government-funded work around preventing people becoming terrorists in the first place (as well as the work around protecting the country in the event of a terrorist attack).

Sleep well everyone!

Hassled · 06/10/2010 21:26

I don't think this is the sort of thing anyone pisses about with. The reason there's been nothing since 7/7 is because we have a bloody good intelligence service - if they say the threat is raised, it's safe to assume the threat is raised.

BadgersPaws · 06/10/2010 21:36

"The reason there's been nothing since 7/7 is because we have a bloody good intelligence service"

Another big reason is that the terrorists are not that skilled, it's hard to progress when you're a suicide bomber as the career prospects are limited and the opportunities to reuse your skills slim.

We had the same skilled intelligence services during the time with the IRA and yet they managed far more "successes".

Hassled · 06/10/2010 21:49

I appreciate I may well be talking out of my arse here (not an insider) but I think intelligence has probably moved on a long way since the worst of the Troubles. As widgeon said, time and money is spent on prevention now, which has to help in intelligence as well. I don't think that was ever the approach in the 70s/80s. And terrorism itself has changed - far more sophisticated. You're not comparing like with like.

The career prospects of a suicide bomber are indeed slim.