Is another terror attack imminent?

[anotheoldgit]

http://tinyurl.com/25rnkd7

Why are our troops in Afghanistan when the 'danger to British streets' seems to be coming from Pakistan.

In the hypothetical scenario of Britain and the US invading Pakistan, what would it mean to the thousands of Pakistanis residing in Britain.

[Gromit]

Careful what you wish for.

They would probably want to evacuate their families to these shores.

[missnemesis]

I thought they'd already done that gromit ;-)

[bobjugs12]

A Mumbai style attack here would cause devastation on an unimagniable scale. The Met have already stated that they would not be able to bring enough armed officers on scene quick enough to control an attack in that style, and unlike India where the Police are armed, we would end up with no real way of containing the situation. Yes the terrorists would end up dead eventually, but not before they'd taken a lot of people with them.

[jno]

well, apparently not. Still, I'm always hesitant to take leaks from 'intelligence sources' without a pinch of salt. They need to justify their existence by proving they're keeping terror at bay, and anonymous chats to the Telegraph are one way of doing. I'm not saying they're lying or even exaggerating, but I'd prefer to hear a second opinion from somewhwere.

[bobjugs12]

JNO, without giving any details, what you read in the media is maybe 1% of what intelligence services do. I'm not just talking about big police raids, and CIA Predators launching in Asia, but right down to letting Ahmed Bloggs know that they know he's been looking at stuff he shouldn't on t'internet (thus warning him off carrying on down that path)
The Security Services do not need media leaks to justify budgets. The Home Office, MoD and FCO set their budgets and they are briefed by the JIC and other agencies as to what is really happening

[ummmm]

Bob...is the world scarier than we think?

[jno]

oh, I know they do lots of little stuff, bobjugs. It's the allegedly big stuff I approach with caution. "We've just averted a major terror attack" - well, maybe they have, who's to say. As for briefing the government... well, WMDs.

[bobjugs12]

No idea ummmm, I don't know how scary you think it is, and i've been out of that game for a while now.
On the flip side, the guys in London work bloody hard for terrible pay, and do a fantastic job.

[bobjugs12]

JNO, you are now confusing the Civil Service with the politicians.
Do you remember the deployment of troops to Heathrow a few years back. That wasn't for a media stunt, trust me. There was a very real and very credible threat of attack.
Bear in mind, the 'leak' has probably come from someone who released a watered down official press document to a reporter, and the reporter has made it look like a dramatic scoop for his paper

[sandyRoe]

Remember John Scarlett, now Sir John, tweaking documents to promote the invasion of Iraq?
Could we trust anything they say?

[steg]

i think the difference is aog is in Afghanistan at the time of invasion, the ruling Taliban were encouraging and training terrorists. The Pakistanis are at least trying to get rid of them

[bobjugs12]

Sandy, yes mate you can. I have no political ambitions, nor any great loyalty to any establishment (other than the state). If you don't believe the hierarchy or the government, then at least believe me when I say there is a very real, serious and ongoing threat to this nation from terrorism (both foreign and homegrown)

[jno]

bobjugs, I was referring to the intelligence services' supply of information to politicians. The politicians didn't make it up (though they may have exaggerated it wildly); they were told WMDs existed. Maybe they did but they have yet to be found, years on.

[steg]

Bob, do you think that the invasion of Afghanistan has helped keep away the terrorist so far, or do you think that it is just coincidence that there has been no successful attacks on Britain since the invasion or ..........?

[bobjugs12]

We have found plenty of evidence to point at ongoing WMD programs, just not the evidence of current WMD possession, which is not that surprising really.
Did they have WMD, yes (google Halabja); did they have WMD at the time of the invasion, possibly. Did they have the capability to create WMD, yes.

[sandyRoe]

Terrorists don't really present a threat to this nation. The 9-11 killings didn't threaten the USA, nor did the London Tube bombs threaten the UK as a nation.
Terrorists may injure or kill, but they don't threaten anything but grief and loss for a few innocent people.

[bobjugs12]

Steg, i'm gonna have to say pass on that. There is arguments to support all the different standpoints i'm afraid, and policy on that was well above my payscale.
What I can say is that the threat is not from a single nationality, and we as a country should not be limiting ourselves in defence terms to an Afghan-centric budget. We will not be in Afg forever, and the reduction in budget to projects like our carriers, fast jets and heavy armour only reduces our options in the future and puts us even more in the pockets of our allies.

[Gromit]

I must be getting old, I remember when the Secret Services, ermm, kept things secret. They did not want to scare the public, but quietly and efficiently they went about their job.

It seems now that the agenda IS to frighten the public and every threat now no matter how flimsy is given maximum publicity.

The constant drip of scary information justifies the vast amount of money the Secret Services spend, and the scary stuff that they make public helps politicians introduce more and more legislation that pry on all of us.

[steg]

thanx for your answer bob

[bobjugs12]

Gromit, again from an inside(ish) perspective, they do not publish everything they do, nor do they wish to establish a Big Brother 1981 type nation.
The media are more responsible for hype, fear and disruption than the security and intelligence services are. They (the papers) will 'sex up' documents and press releases, use harmelss information to create a story, or if nothing is forthcoming, just make up a story.