How Britain has been kept safe for a decade • Hacker News Board

Re: How Britain has been kept safe for a decade

#31

Post by Shivetya » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 2:03 PM UTC

sevenless wrote: post #7

Touch a big fucking piece of wood with that title, BBC. Guns are much rarer in the UK than on the continent. This obviously doesn't make attacks impossible but it does make life harder for terrorists. For example, the maniac who murdered Lee Rigby with a knife tried to get a gun first. All he could get was a modified starter pistol that jammed on the first shot. The right wing terrorist who murdered Jo Cox apparently…

I seriously doubt that terrorist would have any issue smuggling an automatic weapon or crate of them into the UK. Like he stated, having that water between them and the mainland does help a lot.

France has another issue besides lack of communication among its various police and intelligence agencies. It tries to enforce a very secular environment which included not allowing head scarves which just gives one side another excuse to resort to violence.

Re: How Britain has been kept safe for a decade

#32

Post by bybjorn » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 2:07 PM UTC

sevenless wrote: post #23

hammock wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless the driver was asleep at the wheel and it was all an accident, it's pretty clear Nice was a terrorist attack. The question you're looking for is whether it was an act of Muslim extremism.

As far as I know, we don't know the motivation of the Nice attack, so we can't yet say it was certainly terrorism. It was certainly a deliberate act of mass murder but that does not necessarily mean it was a terrorist attack, which implies a political or religious motivation to terrorize (as opposed to, say, mental illness or general hatefulness). For example most US mass shootings are not considered terrorism. I rea…

You do not believe the reports that he was shouting "allahu akbar" then? Also, check the latest news on the "cryptic sms's" sent from his phone.

Re: How Britain has been kept safe for a decade

#33

Post by HappyFunGuy » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 2:08 PM UTC

Being safe from terror attacks is 9 parts not being attacked, and 1 part catching people beforehand. If you state you are safe, because you're doing the 10% right, you're mistaken.

Would you also state there's no planes blowing up because the TSA or UK equivelent? It is because they are not trying. So find out why they aren't trying, and you'll find out why you're "safe."

Maybe you are killing less people with drones? Maybe your local assholes are bad at recruiting human meat sacrifices.

If it was because information sharing, you'd have jails full of bad dudes right?

Re: How Britain has been kept safe for a decade

#34

Post by mason55 » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 2:09 PM UTC

cmdkeen wrote: post #29

JupiterMoon wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends upon who you trust. Police/government release figures and press releases. However, one of the problems with the official statements is that terrorism trials in the UK can be (and are) held in closed courts in which evidence is withheld. Therefore the public cannot know if what they are being told is accurate+. + I don't actually think that we are being lied to (at the moment) but with closed trials we can'…

Given Erol Incedal, prosecuted in one of the few actual "secret trials", was found not guilty I'd say that suggests a pretty decent basis for believing the system isn't rigged. I'd even go so far as to say that secret trials are likely to be the ones with higher acquittal rates as the further advanced the plot is the less likely the need for secrecy as more conventional evidence can be led by itself. The judiciary an…

Can you tell me about some of the differences in the Continental system? As an American is love to learn the nuances

Re: How Britain has been kept safe for a decade

#35

Post by realusername » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 2:09 PM UTC

I expected much more from the BBC than some stupid "our intelligence is better you see !!" article. No it's not the intelligence which prevented anything, it's the fact that strategically, the UK is a much less desirable target than France. No amount of intelligence could have prevented what happened in Nice and Paris and saying the opposite is trying to rewrite history.

Re: How Britain has been kept safe for a decade

#36

Post by ap22213 » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 2:14 PM UTC

bengalister wrote: post #20

Maybe the lack of coordination between intelligence agencies is to blame (it cannot help anyway) but it cannot alone explain the difference. First we (I am French) have a larger muslim population: 3-3,5 millions for UK the double in France mainly from North Africa. So statistically speaking there's a higher chance of having islamists in France. Also many of French of Arabic origin just hate or despise France and the…

Could you or other French elaborate more on that last paragraph? I'm curious of why the younger French would want to leave. Is it only because of the influx of Muslims, violence, and job opportunities? Or, are there other things going on, as well?

Re: How Britain has been kept safe for a decade

#37

Post by interfixus » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 2:16 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #30

hammock wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless the driver was asleep at the wheel and it was all an accident, it's pretty clear Nice was a terrorist attack. The question you're looking for is whether it was an act of Muslim extremism.

> it's pretty clear Nice was a terrorist attack. What was the goal of the 'terrorist' then? In other words, what political aim did he have?

Hm ... yes, let's see, what possible goal might he have had? What conceivable purpose could indiscriminate mass murder in a major European city serve? I'm certain noone ever attempted such a thing before. Equally certain they didn't claim allegiance to any particular, you know, religion or anything like that. No pattern to see here, move along.

Re: How Britain has been kept safe for a decade

#38

Post by DominikR » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 2:16 PM UTC

sevenless wrote: post #23

hammock wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless the driver was asleep at the wheel and it was all an accident, it's pretty clear Nice was a terrorist attack. The question you're looking for is whether it was an act of Muslim extremism.

As far as I know, we don't know the motivation of the Nice attack, so we can't yet say it was certainly terrorism. It was certainly a deliberate act of mass murder but that does not necessarily mean it was a terrorist attack, which implies a political or religious motivation to terrorize (as opposed to, say, mental illness or general hatefulness). For example most US mass shootings are not considered terrorism. I rea…

Yeah, I've noticed that Liberals/Socialists nowadays tend to split hairs to relabel terrorists as something else.

So it's not a jihadist terror attack but instead the cause is repressed homosexuality or toxic male masculinity.

I was speechless when a few days ago Obama said it was hard to "untangle" the true motives of the guy that shot 5 police officers in Dallas even though the attacker himself stated he wanted to kill as many whites and white police officers as possible.

It's plain and simple denial, because these things do not fit their political narrative.

Re: How Britain has been kept safe for a decade

#39

Post by kelukelugames » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 2:17 PM UTC

HappyFunGuy wrote: post #33

Being safe from terror attacks is 9 parts not being attacked, and 1 part catching people beforehand. If you state you are safe, because you're doing the 10% right, you're mistaken. Would you also state there's no planes blowing up because the TSA or UK equivelent? It is because they are not trying. So find out why they aren't trying, and you'll find out why you're "safe." Maybe you are killing less people with drones…

When companies get hacked, their competitors don't say "we have better security." Because they know that invites them to be hacked.

Re: How Britain has been kept safe for a decade

#40

Post by walshemj » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 2:19 PM UTC

realusername wrote: post #35

I expected much more from the BBC than some stupid "our intelligence is better you see !!" article. No it's not the intelligence which prevented anything, it's the fact that strategically, the UK is a much less desirable target than France. No amount of intelligence could have prevented what happened in Nice and Paris and saying the opposite is trying to rewrite history.

One problem in France there is no single equivalent of MI5 - there are multiple organisations doing counterterrorist work.