Explosion at Manchester Arena, England - Ariana Grande Concert

[williamjm]

17 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Tragically the govt only ever seems to raise the terror alert level to critical AFTER a critical terror attack happens.

It wasn't as if they didn't have a terror alert level beforehand, the previous alert level was 'an attack is highly likely'. If they always had the terror alert level at the highest possible level then it might lose meaning.

[Fragile Bird]

CNN is reporting that the 20-year old brother of the bomber has been arrested in Libya, and that 'under interrogation' has said they were members of an ISIS cell, and that he was preparing for his own plot.

[The Anti-Targ]

14 hours ago, Isis said:

On the way into work this morning I was wondering how long it would be before the first one of these types of comments appeared.

The threat level has been raised because there is a possibility that Abedi was not working alone, meaning that there could be more attacks of this kind planned to take place in the near future (e.g, I personally wouldn't go anywhere near Wembley this weekend).

The problem is that the security services cannot 'claim success' because that is the secret nature of their work - they cannot disclose the details. So when they thwart an attack or the preparations of an attack the average person will not get to hear about it and that's just how it is. Nobody does that kind of work for the glory. There is no spin. It's just public servants working hard and doing their best to stop people getting hurt. So can we please point the blame in the direction it is deserved - the terrorists and not those working in CT.

You missed the point. It's not about celebrating or publicising every thwarted attempted terror attack, it's about actually dealing with the core problems and preventing all terror attacks. Though when these attacks do occur, often the govt will mention that it has prevented numerous attacks, which it no doubt has. But the thing is, ISIS and its ilk aren't deterred by prevented attacks any more than drug smugglers are deterred by big drug busts. As long as enough get through then their goals are being met. Which means however much prevention is occurring, strategically current counter-terrorism is ineffectual. It's saving lives, which of course is a very good outcome in itself and should not be ignored. But it's not achieving the more important goal of ending terrorism.

If we normalise life by accepting that we now live in a world where the occasional terror attack will happen and that's just how it is, and it's OK that the responsible agencies are keeping it to an infrequent occurrence then that is not an acceptable situation. Clearly the agencies responsible are impotent to prevent all terror attacks, so something other than counter-terrorism enforcement needs to be done. But our governments are clueless about what to actually do. And if we modify our behaviours, like cancelling the next big concert, and I see Arianna Grande has cancelled some of her concerts, then ISIS is making headway by disrupting our lives.

[Werthead]

59 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

You missed the point. It's not about celebrating or publicising every thwarted attempted terror attack, it's about actually dealing with the core problems and preventing all terror attacks. Though when these attacks do occur, often the govt will mention that it has prevented numerous attacks, which it no doubt has. But the thing is, ISIS and its ilk aren't deterred by prevented attacks any more than drug smugglers are deterred by big drug busts. As long as enough get through then their goals are being met. Which means however much prevention is occurring, strategically current counter-terrorism is ineffectual. It's saving lives, which of course is a very good outcome in itself and should not be ignored. But it's not achieving the more important goal of ending terrorism.

If we normalise life by accepting that we now live in a world where the occasional terror attack will happen and that's just how it is, and it's OK that the responsible agencies are keeping it to an infrequent occurrence then that is not an acceptable situation. Clearly the agencies responsible are impotent to prevent all terror attacks, so something other than counter-terrorism enforcement needs to be done. But our governments are clueless about what to actually do. And if we modify our behaviours, like cancelling the next big concert, and I see Arianna Grande has cancelled some of her concerts, then ISIS is making headway by disrupting our lives.

What is your proposed solution?

Taking punitive action against all Muslims is the strategic goal of these people, widening the gulf between Muslims and non-believers and moving towards some kind of major clash of civilisations. They will not be dissuaded by the West making Islam illegal, shutting mosques and - somehow - exiling their own third-and-fourth generation citizens. As well as not being practical, it stands counter to our values, to whit punishing the actions of the overwhelming majority for the actions of the lunatic fringe few.

These people are not operating on any kind of rational political or military basis: killing 22 civilians at a pop concert in Manchester, or 6 on Westminster Bridge, or 130 people in Paris, is simply futile in achieving any kind of lasting impact. Britain endured 300,000 dead to defeat Nazi Germany, France over 700,000 dead. We are simply not going to be intimidated by such measures. If anything, they will strengthen our resolve.

These people are also not part of a centralised campaign being run by ISIS (who have their own problems as Mosul falls and Raqqa comes under siege), they are lone actors effectively franchising themselves out by adding on the name of ISIS to whatever they are doing, just as they did with al-Qaeda beforehand and will likely do so with whatever crazy group-of-the-month shows up next.

If anything, this attack in particular has several oddities: it was a suicide bombing rather than using a vehicle or knife, the more recent trend of attackers. Getting together the materials for an explosive requires a bit more specialised knowledge and research, the sort of thing that should trip red flags and be much more detectable by intelligence services. The guy had also just come back from Libya, which should have really put him on a watch list (although, as C4 News pointed out, there's a fairly large Libyan expat community in the UK, many of whom have been visiting family back home after Gaddaffi's fall). It also looks like he had a network, albeit a small one, backing him up. These are all things that should have been detected.

[Stubby]

[MOD]

3 posts have been deleted.

1 poster has been permanently banned from the forum for repeatedly disrespecting the forum rules.

Please carry on.

[/MOD]

[Fragile Bird]

<posting error>

[DreamSongs]

Mormont, I'm glad your daughter is OK. 

[Which Tyler]

22 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/home-secretary-us-intelligence-leaks-amber-rudd-irritating-donald-trump-russia-security-manchester-a7752511.html

 

Dear the USA - if you want your allies to continue sharing confidential information with you - please still stop leaking to the press / foreign diplomats.
Sincerely
the UK / Israel (/Jordan?)

So after asking the US not to leak confidential information to the press; the US decides to leak crime-scene photos to the press too!

Please stop it, you are compromising a criminal investigation, and we are trying to prevent further terrorist attacks. We will no longer share any further information about this case with you until our investigation is complete.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40040210

[Lordsteve666]

15 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

So after asking the US not to leak confidential information to the press; the US decides to leak crime-scene photos to the press too!

Please stop it, you are compromising a criminal investigation, and we are trying to prevent further terrorist attacks. We will no longer share any further information about this case with you until our investigation is complete.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40040210

Yeah this seems totally unacceptable as far as I am concerned.

People don't even know if their loved ones are dead or not yet and the US press is already posting pictures of blood-stained shrapnel and releasing intel against the wishes of the UK police and security services.

Aside from how disrespectful it is so early on, it also potentially compromises the investigation as those responsible now may well have a good idea of what the police know. It gives them a head start in covering their tracks and vanishing. With something like this you gotta move fast and have a ban on revealing intel for a short while to grab suspects, evidence, and support networks before they know you are onto them.

This obsession with rolling news cover of every minutiae of detail may well have buggered up this operation, leaving people at risk in the future.

Well played USA! 

[Isis]

13 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

You missed the point. It's not about celebrating or publicising every thwarted attempted terror attack, it's about actually dealing with the core problems and preventing all terror attacks. Though when these attacks do occur, often the govt will mention that it has prevented numerous attacks, which it no doubt has. But the thing is, ISIS and its ilk aren't deterred by prevented attacks any more than drug smugglers are deterred by big drug busts. As long as enough get through then their goals are being met. Which means however much prevention is occurring, strategically current counter-terrorism is ineffectual. It's saving lives, which of course is a very good outcome in itself and should not be ignored. But it's not achieving the more important goal of ending terrorism.

If we normalise life by accepting that we now live in a world where the occasional terror attack will happen and that's just how it is, and it's OK that the responsible agencies are keeping it to an infrequent occurrence then that is not an acceptable situation. Clearly the agencies responsible are impotent to prevent all terror attacks, so something other than counter-terrorism enforcement needs to be done. But our governments are clueless about what to actually do. And if we modify our behaviours, like cancelling the next big concert, and I see Arianna Grande has cancelled some of her concerts, then ISIS is making headway by disrupting our lives.

Do you think there is an obvious solution which the government should be implementing to 'prevent all terror attacks' then?

I didn't say that preventing attacks by ISIS would deter ISIS. The purpose of preventing attacks is to keep people safe.

Ok, I have a question for you: do you think that CT work is only related to what is happening either right now or in the immediate future?

[Horza]

14 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If we normalise life by accepting that we now live in a world where the occasional terror attack will happen and that's just how it is, and it's OK that the responsible agencies are keeping it to an infrequent occurrence then that is not an acceptable situation.

What do you mean "now"?

[ants]

My best wishes Mormons that your daughter has no mental scars as well as being fine physically. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

They are now reporting that there were multiple complaints and warnings lodged about this young man by the Muslim comminity in the area, but apparently the authorities did not take this information seriously or perhaps none of it was actionable...

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/security-services-missed-five-opportunities-stop-manchester/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

[Werthead]

12 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

They are now reporting that there were multiple complaints and warnings lodged about this young man by the Muslim comminity in the area, but apparently the authorities did not take this information seriously or perhaps none of it was actionable...

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/security-services-missed-five-opportunities-stop-manchester/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

More likely, the savage cuts to police and counterterroism meant that the security forces had insufficient bandwidth to deal with the number of "people of interest" who are out there.

[Hereward]

What cuts to CT would these be? MI5 monitor "people of interest" and they have had major increases in funding. The fact is that there are over 20,000 "people of interest" and monitoring each one full time would take a team of 15-20. So, are you seriously suggesting that Tory cuts are responsible for there not being 400,000 highly trained secret policemen? Not even the Stasi managed that.

[Horza]

Yep, all the big three UK intelligence agencies have expanded rosters but the scale of the problem is as Hereward outlined and the situation is the same elsewhere. 

[Werthead]

12 hours ago, Hereward said:

What cuts to CT would these be? MI5 monitor "people of interest" and they have had major increases in funding. The fact is that there are over 20,000 "people of interest" and monitoring each one full time would take a team of 15-20. So, are you seriously suggesting that Tory cuts are responsible for there not being 400,000 highly trained secret policemen? Not even the Stasi managed that.

At the same time that police budgets have been slashed by 20% since 2010. There are over 19,000 less police officers currently employed compared to 2010, further reduced by a significant rise in long-term sick levels (as, weirdly, 124,000 people struggle to tackle the workload of 143,000). During periods of increased security, getting extra officers on the streets is only possible by cancelling leave and begging overtime. This is an can only be sustained for a few days at a time. The intelligence services have to use domestic police to carry out some of their CT work and if the police numbers are dropping, that becomes a problem.

This guy also wasn't a low-priority person of interest in the sense of him being someone who'd once mumbled something about ISIS being okay in work one time, alarming co-workers. He had a repeated history of expressing favourable sentiments to Islamic terrorism and had been reported multiple times to the police and counter-terrorism. He'd also been barred from his mosque for saying these things. He'd just flown to Libya and back and had procured explosives, and had a small but active group of supporters. He wasn't a lone wolf driving a car into a crowd of people out of the blue, which no-one could predict or defend against. He ticked every single box to be under constant surveillance and wasn't. The failure here is significant and must be explained.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Werthead said:

 He ticked every single box to be under constant surveillance and wasn't. The failure here is significant and must be explained.

Tend to agree. This seems like a reasonable expectation given the reports on this guy. And this really negates the whole "Muslims need to report radicals" argument that often gets forwarded. They did on numerous occasions here. The authorities need to take these complaints seriously.

[Horza]

11 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Tend to agree. This seems like a reasonable expectation given the reports on this guy. And this really negates the whole "Muslims need to report radicals" argument that often gets forwarded. They did on numerous occasions here. The authorities need to take these complaints seriously.

 

11 hours ago, Werthead said:

At the same time that police budgets have been slashed by 20% since 2010. There are over 19,000 less police officers currently employed compared to 2010, further reduced by a significant rise in long-term sick levels (as, weirdly, 124,000 people struggle to tackle the workload of 143,000). During periods of increased security, getting extra officers on the streets is only possible by cancelling leave and begging overtime. This is an can only be sustained for a few days at a time. The intelligence services have to use domestic police to carry out some of their CT work and if the police numbers are dropping, that becomes a problem.

This guy also wasn't a low-priority person of interest in the sense of him being someone who'd once mumbled something about ISIS being okay in work one time, alarming co-workers. He had a repeated history of expressing favourable sentiments to Islamic terrorism and had been reported multiple times to the police and counter-terrorism. He'd also been barred from his mosque for saying these things. He'd just flown to Libya and back and had procured explosives, and had a small but active group of supporters. He wasn't a lone wolf driving a car into a crowd of people out of the blue, which no-one could predict or defend against. He ticked every single box to be under constant surveillance and wasn't. The failure here is significant and must be explained.

They do, it's just there are hundreds of equally compelling candidates for round the clock surveillance and you can't watch them all.

This is not a unique situation, as evinced by the fact that almost every major terror European attack since 9/11 was committed by people known to the security services.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

On 5/28/2017 at 4:35 AM, Horza said:

They do, it's just there are hundreds of equally compelling candidates for round the clock surveillance and you can't watch them all.

This is not a unique situation, as evinced by the fact that almost every major terror European attack since 9/11 was committed by people known to the security services.

Yeah, I get that. We can't reasonably expect the authorities to be able to thoroughly investigate all of these complaints. It's just frustrating when it seems like this incident could've been avoided.