Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
With Four Attacks This Year, Is It Now Time For The Terrorist Threat Level To Remain On 'critical'?
81 Answers
http://
It seems pointless to lower the level just because there happens to be a period of 'no attacks'.
Or is this lowering and raising of the threat level, aimed to give the impression that the government is doing something?
It seems pointless to lower the level just because there happens to be a period of 'no attacks'.
Or is this lowering and raising of the threat level, aimed to give the impression that the government is doing something?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//That may well be, but don't you think that it is better to be prepared for an attack by taking "Critical" action, rather than relax our security by going down to the "Severe" level or even lower? //
No, because they relate to different problems. Directing our resources toward the capture of an individual or cell (e.g., the person who carried out the bombing yesterday) requires different measures to being in a long-term, multi-directional state of readiness against multiple groups plotting multiple attacks in multiple ways.
And no, the levels are not there to reassure anyone. Reassuring is kind of useless.
No, because they relate to different problems. Directing our resources toward the capture of an individual or cell (e.g., the person who carried out the bombing yesterday) requires different measures to being in a long-term, multi-directional state of readiness against multiple groups plotting multiple attacks in multiple ways.
And no, the levels are not there to reassure anyone. Reassuring is kind of useless.
"Critical" action, doesn't mean that the security forces go down in a completely different direction, it means that more resources are employed and if that mean cutting down on the number of terrorist attacks then that's the one for me.
And so should it remain, no matter the cost, for the safely of us all.
And so should it remain, no matter the cost, for the safely of us all.
Except I wrote 'intern the suspects' for the families I was careful to write 'if necessary'. But then reading it properly wrecks your agenda of attacking every poster you disagree with.
I still dont see how it is illogical either way though. It has been done before when we were at war.
Doing nothing should not be an option. Or they wiil win.
I still dont see how it is illogical either way though. It has been done before when we were at war.
Doing nothing should not be an option. Or they wiil win.
THECORBYLOON
You have taken my words out of context even using two separate posts to do so.
One has to act on the record of certain groups and no one can deny that the Islamic terrorism is and has a much more recent record of mass murder throughout Europe than any Far-Right group.
Yes that is a hurtful fact for the apologists I know, but it is a fact that cannot be denied.
You have taken my words out of context even using two separate posts to do so.
One has to act on the record of certain groups and no one can deny that the Islamic terrorism is and has a much more recent record of mass murder throughout Europe than any Far-Right group.
Yes that is a hurtful fact for the apologists I know, but it is a fact that cannot be denied.
I hadn't realised there was a ban on quoting answers from other threads. Anyway, the context is the authorities taking action against terrorists and potential terrorists.
In one answer you question the need to ban a group prior to its escalating further. In the other you question the action not being taken until incidents have happened.
You are getting yourself tied up in knots. You want action taken but you oppose the ban on National Action because they haven't killed anyone.
What is it you want the government to do exactly?
In one answer you question the need to ban a group prior to its escalating further. In the other you question the action not being taken until incidents have happened.
You are getting yourself tied up in knots. You want action taken but you oppose the ban on National Action because they haven't killed anyone.
What is it you want the government to do exactly?
/// You want action taken but you oppose the ban on National Action because they haven't killed anyone ///
Yes I want action taken against those who have a record on killing people, is that a bad thing?
/// What is it you want the government to do exactly? ///
Concentrate on taking action (even if it may seem rather harsh to some) rather than introducing a ban on certain groups who are not such a threat to human life.
Yes I want action taken against those who have a record on killing people, is that a bad thing?
/// What is it you want the government to do exactly? ///
Concentrate on taking action (even if it may seem rather harsh to some) rather than introducing a ban on certain groups who are not such a threat to human life.
What you result mean is you are against the ban on National Action because they are not Muslims.
"National Action is a racist neo-Nazi group that was established in 2013. It has a number of branches across the UK, which conduct provocative street demonstrations and stunts aimed at intimidating local communities. Its activities and propaganda materials are particularly aimed at recruiting young people.
The group is virulently racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic. Its ideology promotes the idea that
Britain will inevitably see a violent ‘race war’, which the group claims it will be an active part of.
The group rejects democracy, is hostile to the British state and seeks to divide society by implicitly endorsing violence against ethnic minorities and perceived ‘race traitors’
National Action’s online propaganda material, disseminated via social media, frequently
features extremely violent imagery and language. It condones and glorifies those who have used extreme violence for political or ideological ends. This includes tweets posted by the group in 2016, in connection with the murder of Jo Cox(which the prosecutor described as a terrorist act), stating “Only 649 MPs to go” and a photo of Thomas Mair with the caption “don’t let this man’s sacrifice go in vain” and ”Jo Cox would have filled Yorkshire with more subhumans!”, as well as an image condoning and celebrating the terrorist attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando and another depicting a police officer’s throat being slit.
The images can reasonably be taken as inferring that these acts should be emulated and therefore amount to the unlawful glorification of terrorism."
"National Action is a racist neo-Nazi group that was established in 2013. It has a number of branches across the UK, which conduct provocative street demonstrations and stunts aimed at intimidating local communities. Its activities and propaganda materials are particularly aimed at recruiting young people.
The group is virulently racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic. Its ideology promotes the idea that
Britain will inevitably see a violent ‘race war’, which the group claims it will be an active part of.
The group rejects democracy, is hostile to the British state and seeks to divide society by implicitly endorsing violence against ethnic minorities and perceived ‘race traitors’
National Action’s online propaganda material, disseminated via social media, frequently
features extremely violent imagery and language. It condones and glorifies those who have used extreme violence for political or ideological ends. This includes tweets posted by the group in 2016, in connection with the murder of Jo Cox(which the prosecutor described as a terrorist act), stating “Only 649 MPs to go” and a photo of Thomas Mair with the caption “don’t let this man’s sacrifice go in vain” and ”Jo Cox would have filled Yorkshire with more subhumans!”, as well as an image condoning and celebrating the terrorist attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando and another depicting a police officer’s throat being slit.
The images can reasonably be taken as inferring that these acts should be emulated and therefore amount to the unlawful glorification of terrorism."
/// What you result mean is you are against the ban on National Action because they are not Muslims. ///
Oh for goodness sake grow up, if you are not prepared to take part in a fair and sensible debate, go and play with someone else.
/// "National Action is a racist neo-Nazi group that was established in 2013. It has a number of branches across the UK, which conduct provocative street demonstrations and stunts aimed at intimidating local communities. Its activities and propaganda materials are particularly aimed at recruiting young people. ///
And all those are more serious than killing loads of innocent people are they?
/// The group is virulently racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic. ///
If you mean that they oppose immigration, there is nothing racist in that.
Anti-Semitic and homophobic????
Any proof of that?
/// Its ideology promotes the idea that Britain will inevitably see a violent ‘race war’, which the group claims it will be an active part of. ///
And there are many on here who foresee such a thing in the future, and if there was would you not be on your own particular race's side, active or not, as one is in all wars?
/// The group rejects democracy, is hostile to the British state and seeks to divide society ///
I think one could turn their eyes to the Far-Left there.
Anyway I am not here to support Far-Right groups, this thread is about the priorities that the government should take in dealing with this increasing Islamic terrorists attacks.
Oh for goodness sake grow up, if you are not prepared to take part in a fair and sensible debate, go and play with someone else.
/// "National Action is a racist neo-Nazi group that was established in 2013. It has a number of branches across the UK, which conduct provocative street demonstrations and stunts aimed at intimidating local communities. Its activities and propaganda materials are particularly aimed at recruiting young people. ///
And all those are more serious than killing loads of innocent people are they?
/// The group is virulently racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic. ///
If you mean that they oppose immigration, there is nothing racist in that.
Anti-Semitic and homophobic????
Any proof of that?
/// Its ideology promotes the idea that Britain will inevitably see a violent ‘race war’, which the group claims it will be an active part of. ///
And there are many on here who foresee such a thing in the future, and if there was would you not be on your own particular race's side, active or not, as one is in all wars?
/// The group rejects democracy, is hostile to the British state and seeks to divide society ///
I think one could turn their eyes to the Far-Left there.
Anyway I am not here to support Far-Right groups, this thread is about the priorities that the government should take in dealing with this increasing Islamic terrorists attacks.
If I can be horrifically cold for a second here... there have been five attacks in the calendar year, which is both a lot but also not all that many, considering that many UK cities have seen no terrorist incidents at all that I'm aware of. I don't mean to belittle the danger of attacks as they do happen, but in cold practical terms the threat is, in fact, evidently *not* critical all the time. If it were, you would expect a great deal more than five such attacks in a year (and then before that there were none in 2016, unless you count Thomas Mair).
I'm sure that terrorists attacks could happen any day, at any time, and at any place. But usually they don't. It makes sense to treat the threat level accordingly, and raise it to critical only if the security services have sufficient reason to expect an attack tomorrow. Which is what it's there for.
It's also worth pointing out that, anyway, the threat level of "severe" isn't a kind of "let's just put our feet up" level; it only means that there is a strong likelihood of an attack without any specific and known threat. At the moment, that's true most of the time, so the threat level is "mostly" severe.
I'm sure that terrorists attacks could happen any day, at any time, and at any place. But usually they don't. It makes sense to treat the threat level accordingly, and raise it to critical only if the security services have sufficient reason to expect an attack tomorrow. Which is what it's there for.
It's also worth pointing out that, anyway, the threat level of "severe" isn't a kind of "let's just put our feet up" level; it only means that there is a strong likelihood of an attack without any specific and known threat. At the moment, that's true most of the time, so the threat level is "mostly" severe.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.