Another terrorist attack in London

[red_elk]

I advocate for preparedness for a variety of reasons, but high among them is that it is far easier to discuss real number probabilities with people who aren't emotionally invested, and preparedness reduces that emotional investment. If someone looks at my laundry list of weapons of opportunity and says "wow dude, that's a lot of effort for something that just hardly ever happens" then...great. That's a person who is not likely to buy into the gun lobby's marketing ploys either. If they are someone who says "why don't you just get a gun?" they can be brought into an intelligent conversation about whether that is really easier and/or more effective than me knowing which lamp in the living room is a viable weapon. And ultimately the greatest danger a person is likely to face is their own gun if it is in the hands of someone who hasn't done the headspace preparation I strongly advocate that everyone should do, gun or not.

Weapon of opportunity is usually something you need in places where you can be attacked by surprise. Like stick or stone on the street, chair or bottle in the restaurant. If you believe you may need weapon at home, jut get something which will be more proper and effective than a table lamp. Shocker baton or pepper spray (for outside use) have good stopping power and relatively safe for both defender and attacker.

 

[Hrothbern]

I tried to get myself a kind of overview on this topic and hereby share.
In my text rough numbers, in the links the precision and details.

The UK police force is the smallest per capita of the main european countries.
They lost 10% following the financial crisis (austerity action ?)
20% more FTE's is needed to catch up to continental level.
The London police did not decrease during that cost cut.
Link on UK force: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ice-workforce-england-and-wales-31-march-2015

I guess the strenghtening of the police force will not only happen with more heads, more presence on the streets,
but also with lots of electronic stuff: GPS trackers on the 3,000 and 20,000 persons of major and minor interest, drones that can take out suspects, etc, etc.
Intelligence will see significant upgrade and expanding as well: cyber attacks, social media, etc, etc.
(will be a culture shock internally in the police force because those wizzkids are normally not fitting the existing culture )
Soft power actions to disencourage radicalising.... I did not hear much of it, but I guess some will happen as well.

The GPS trackers:
The UK has the highest prison population per capita in Western Europe.
As early as 2008: To save cost the responsible Minister came up with the idea to make use of GPS trackers, the RFID to use house arrest instead for minor crimes. Link: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/prisoners-to-be-chipped-like-dogs-769977.html
Also in 2008: every single Metropolitan police officer to be chipped as well. Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-brass-Big-Brother-style-tracking-scheme.html.
I do not know the status as of now. But it shows the technology is there as well as the mindset..

The many, many CCC cameras, the face recognition software, the monitoring drones and killer-drones in droves and the GPS trackers of suspects.
I guess most what governments have in mind goes in this Big Brother direction.

 

[Commodore]

Ah. So the difference between his "best case" and yours is that while he wants people shot without trial you're satisfied with just rounding them up for interrogations without trial.

Well, no. That's just you making an assumption. If they are arrested by a civilian law enforcement agency for terrorism, then they would go through the normal process of the criminal justice system of whatever nation they were arrested in just like any other criminal.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, no. That's just you making an assumption. If they are arrested by a civilian law enforcement agency for terrorism, then they would go through the normal process of the criminal justice system of whatever nation they were arrested in just like any other criminal.

Great. "If they were arrested for terrorism." I thought you were on the "pro-active" bandwagon. So, what exactly are you planning to arrest people for? "Plotting?" As in, "this guy has knives in his kitchen and talks about how you can kill someone by stabbing him in the neck with a pencil, better bring him in and see what he's up to?"

The question has been, and still is:

You have this list of 3000 "potential terrorists." On that list there are, indeed, a handful of soon to be terrorists. Maybe a double handful. The effectiveness of whatever system they are using is proven, because all the recent terrorists have sure enough been on the list. But what are you willing to do to the couple thousand people on the list who aren't terrorists? It is inarguable that the recent terrorist actions would have been proactively prevented had the UK just executed all 3000 people on the list. Is that a "fair price in collateral damage"? Proactive prevention could also have been accomplished by just incarcerating all 3000 of them. Would that be a fair price?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Remember that there are counter-terrorism activities going on all the time, many of which probably include other people on the list, which we aren't privy to because they actually work. I have no idea of the numbers involved, but I don't think it's correct to say that the entirety of the remainder of the 3000 who haven't got themselves into the news by carrying out a successful attack, "aren't terrorists".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Remember that there are counter-terrorism activities going on all the time, many of which probably include other people on the list, which we aren't privy to because they actually work. I have no idea of the numbers involved, but I don't think it's correct to say that the entirety of the remainder of the 3000 who haven't got themselves into the news by carrying out a successful attack, "aren't terrorists".

I didn't. I said they are "potential terrorists." That's why they are on the list. Some will be terrorists next week. Some will be next year. Some won't be ever because they will think better of it. Some won't be because they really shouldn't even be on the list.

The issue is that there doesn't seem to be any practical way to sort them further. Depending on who you listen to the current monitoring of the list process either stops more than ninety percent of their actions, or is hamstrung into total ineffectiveness by political correctness and a failing government. So, do we do something different?

Take the "20,000 fired cops" and hire them back with an additional 8,000 and you would have enough people to use rotating shifts and keep 3000 people on a 24/7 accompaniment. Just come right out and tell three thousand people the government has hired them four friends, one of which is to be with them at all times. That increased monitoring might push their stopping percentage way up. Or just shoot all 3000 and be done with it.

Thing is that anything that sounds potentially effective also sounds ridiculously draconian. Is the UK ready for that? Are you?

 

[Senethro]

Not to mention they don't take reports of suspicious person's seriously. If someone tries to notify the police about something or someone suspicious, they just get lectured by the police about being racist.

Hmmmm. What if the solution was more racism??????

 

[red_elk]

You have this list of 3000 "potential terrorists." On that list there are, indeed, a handful of soon to be terrorists. Maybe a double handful. The effectiveness of whatever system they are using is proven, because all the recent terrorists have sure enough been on the list. But what are you willing to do to the couple thousand people on the list who aren't terrorists? It is inarguable that the recent terrorist actions would have been proactively prevented had the UK just executed all 3000 people on the list. Is that a "fair price in collateral damage"? Proactive prevention could also have been accomplished by just incarcerating all 3000 of them. Would that be a fair price?

What about intelligence work, which will narrow down the list to a hundred people, then interviewing them and searching their houses if necessary?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What about intelligence work, which will narrow down the list to a hundred people, then interviewing them and searching their houses if necessary?

Do you think no "intelligence work" has been going on? If "intelligence work" was going to narrow the list down to a hundred, guess what, the list would be narrowed down to a hundred. Or by "intelligence work" do you mean "the waving of a magic wand that is somehow different than all the intelligence work we have used before"?

 

[red_elk]

Do you think no "intelligence work" has been going on? If "intelligence work" was going to narrow the list down to a hundred, guess what, the list would be narrowed down to a hundred. Or by "intelligence work" do you mean "the waving of a magic wand that is somehow different than all the intelligence work we have used before"?

No, not a magic wand. Usual stuff like enrolling agents, using undercover operatives, monitoring Islamist sites, etc.
I'm sure it is being done and I'm also sure it can be done better.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, not a magic wand. Usual stuff like enrolling agents, using undercover operatives, monitoring Islamist sites, etc.
I'm sure it is being done and I'm also sure it can be done better.

How? What makes you so sure it "could be done better" when there is no doubt at all that everything you mentioned is already being done?

 

[Commodore]

Do you think no "intelligence work" has been going on? If "intelligence work" was going to narrow the list down to a hundred, guess what, the list would be narrowed down to a hundred. Or by "intelligence work" do you mean "the waving of a magic wand that is somehow different than all the intelligence work we have used before"?

The problem is regulations governing intelligence collection on our own people. I don't know what the laws are in the UK, but in the US our intelligence community is forbidden from collecting intelligence on US persons unless it is for counterintelligence purposes. Terrorism doesn't fall under that category. US persons is defined as any US citizen, legal resident of the US, or any foreign worker/student who has a work/student visa for a US-based company/university.

That is a pretty wide swath of people the intelligence community is forbidden to collect intelligence on. I say lift those regulations and start letting our intelligence community start collecting on potential domestic threats again.

 

[red_elk]

How? What makes you so sure it "could be done better" when there is no doubt at all that everything you mentioned is already being done?

From what I know, building network of informers requires years of work and good financing. But when it's created, news about terrorist attacks are gradually replaced with news about prevented attacks and arrested (or killed in shootout with police) suspects. London wasn't hit by terrorist attacks very often until recently, so this area most likely didn't get enough attention and financing. There are all chances that it will get all of this now.

If you have different data or better solution to terrorist problem, you are welcome to share it. Keeping inventory of table lamps and other heavy things at home doesn't look like a good solution to me.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

From what I know, building network of informers requires years of work and good financing. But when it's created, news about terrorist attacks are gradually replaced with news about prevented attacks and arrested (or killed in shootout with police) suspects. London wasn't hit by terrorist attacks very often until recently, so this area most likely didn't get enough attention and financing. There are all chances that it will get all of this now.

Yeah. Funny how without a half dozen dead people bleeding in the street a prevented attack doesn't get much, if any coverage.

The problem is regulations governing intelligence collection on our own people. I don't know what the laws are in the UK, but in the US our intelligence community is forbidden from collecting intelligence on US persons unless it is for counterintelligence purposes. Terrorism doesn't fall under that category. US persons is defined as any US citizen, legal resident of the US, or any foreign worker/student who has a work/student visa for a US-based company/university.

That is a pretty wide swath of people the intelligence community is forbidden to collect intelligence on. I say lift those regulations and start letting our intelligence community start collecting on potential domestic threats again.

That dratted freedom business again! Always getting in the way of benevolent dictatorships.

 

[innonimatu]

The problem is regulations governing intelligence collection on our own people. I don't know what the laws are in the UK, but in the US our intelligence community is forbidden from collecting intelligence on US persons unless it is for counterintelligence purposes. Terrorism doesn't fall under that category. US persons is defined as any US citizen, legal resident of the US, or any foreign worker/student who has a work/student visa for a US-based company/university.

That is a pretty wide swath of people the intelligence community is forbidden to collect intelligence on. I say lift those regulations and start letting our intelligence community start collecting on potential domestic threats again.

You trust your intelligence people far too much. Looking at US news it would seem that whatever internal information they collect, they use doing politics to advance agendas of this or that faction...

 

[Kozmos]

Got a citation for that?

 

[Commodore]

That dratted freedom business again! Always getting in the way of benevolent dictatorships.

How does the government collecting intelligence impede your freedom in any way? What is it that you are doing now, that you won't be able to do if the government starts allowing intelligence agencies to collect on US persons?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How does the government collecting intelligence impede your freedom in any way? What is it that you are doing now, that you won't be able to do if the government starts allowing intelligence agencies to collect on US persons?

Count on not being blackmailed.

 

[Commodore]

Count on not being blackmailed.

That's just paranoia right there. Sure, maybe once every few decades one bad intelligence collector may try to blackmail a wealthy businessman or politician. But no intelligence collector, no matter how corrupt they are, is going to waste time and effort to blackmail Joe Blow American. And it's not like they'd be collecting information on every single person. Even with all the technology out there, that simply isn't practical. Domestic intelligence collection would work much the same as intelligence collection on a battlefield. The collector would move into a community (obviously with a cover story and all that good stuff) where suspicion of a threat was identified and start building their network of informants and sources among the local populace to start collecting information on suspicious individuals or organizations. Once those targets are identified, they would be the focus of more "intense" intelligence collection. They'd be the ones getting their phone calls, purchase histories, and internet browsing histories intercepted and monitored in order to ascertain whether or not they really are a threat.

Basically, people get this idea that the intelligence community spies on everyone, and that simply isn't true. Even if we wanted to (which we don't), we simply don't have the manpower or resources to spy on everyone so that manpower and resources have to be focused on the things that will actually answer whatever our intelligence requirements are.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's just paranoia right there. Sure, maybe once every few decades one bad intelligence collector may try to blackmail a wealthy businessman or politician. But no intelligence collector, no matter how corrupt they are, is going to waste time and effort to blackmail Joe Blow American. And it's not like they'd be collecting information on every single person. Even with all the technology out there, that simply isn't practical. Domestic intelligence collection would work much the same as intelligence collection on a battlefield. The collector would move into a community (obviously with a cover story and all that good stuff) where suspicion of a threat was identified and start building their network of informants and sources among the local populace to start collecting information on suspicious individuals or organizations. Once those targets are identified, they would be the focus of more "intense" intelligence collection. They'd be the ones getting their phone calls, purchase histories, and internet browsing histories intercepted and monitored in order to ascertain whether or not they really are a threat.

Basically, people get this idea that the intelligence community spies on everyone, and that simply isn't true. Even if we wanted to (which we don't), we simply don't have the manpower or resources to spy on everyone so that manpower and resources have to be focused on the things that will actually answer whatever our intelligence requirements are.

Intelligence in the US is routinely used for political purposes. You may be comfortable living among a "network of informants," but your position is not widely held.