Is it time to bring out our Special Forces?

[Deleted member 63160]

RoP means 'Religion of Peace', it is a derogatory term for Islam.

Only if you think they're all a bunch of ****s. If you truly believe they are peaceable it's really lovely.

 

[terrypin]

Thank you, that's put my mind at rest, knowing any would-be attackers would be so predictable.

Bless em.

Oh grow up. Mumbai- one of the largest cities in the world, Paris- capital of France, Brussels- capital of Belgium London tube bombings, 9/11 etc
Why the hell would they strike somewhere that isn't high profile?

You are presuming the threat comes from the same organisation or any attacks will follow the same pattern.

By stating they've only hit capitals contradicts your list of possible targets.

Oh, can you point out where I said they'd attack anywhere specific, I didn't predict a target.

 

[WalksWithTurkeys]

RoP means 'Religion of Peace', it is a derogatory term for Islam.

Only if you think they're all a bunch of ****s. If you truly believe they are peaceable it's really lovely.

I'm assuming it is used here as a sarcastic moniker. It would seem so from the tone of (deleted) threads, but let's not get back into that stuff.

 

[mikeey84]

Thank you, that's put my mind at rest, knowing any would-be attackers would be so predictable.

Bless em.

Oh grow up. Mumbai- one of the largest cities in the world, Paris- capital of France, Brussels- capital of Belgium London tube bombings, 9/11 etc
Why the hell would they strike somewhere that isn't high profile?

You are presuming the threat comes from the same organisation or any attacks will follow the same pattern.

By stating they've only hit capitals contradicts your list of possible targets.

Oh, can you point out where I said they'd attack anywhere specific, I didn't predict a target.

Nice straw man there. I never said capitals, I used examples of large, high profile cities, Mumbai and new York are not capital cities. Try reading an atlas before you criticise my comments!

In your first comment, that started this thread, you yourself assumed that uksf do not already have teams spread out across the UK. If you had actually done some research, you will find that there are SF garrisons spread throughout this fair isle of ours.

On the whole, the major terrorist attacks in the past few years in the west (pretty good comparison to make, as we live in the west) have been on high profile targets. These are usually in major cities, or are high enough profile that they probably have their own contingency plans (sellafield for example) or are a one off event (Brighton bomb)

Saying this isn't saying they are predictable, that would be foolish, but as I previously said, it is unlikely they would hit a low profile target with a guns and suicide vest hostage situation.

 

[WalksWithTurkeys]

Thank you, that's put my mind at rest, knowing any would-be attackers would be so predictable.

Bless em.

Oh grow up. Mumbai- one of the largest cities in the world, Paris- capital of France, Brussels- capital of Belgium London tube bombings, 9/11 etc
Why the hell would they strike somewhere that isn't high profile?

They hit Paris while it was a soft target. Mumbai would have been a soft target too. It is quite conceivable that they would conclude that security was too strong in London, or Birmingham, and go for a softer target. After all that PCC chappie did suggest that a smaller city would make an easier target.

Anyway, would killing 100 people in Snoozyville have any less of an impact in terms of publicity than killing 100 people in London? And perhaps they could kill even more in Snoozyville, since the Snoozyshire coppers might be too busy chasing the local combine harvester snaffler.

 

[mikeey84]

Thank you, that's put my mind at rest, knowing any would-be attackers would be so predictable.

Bless em.

Oh grow up. Mumbai- one of the largest cities in the world, Paris- capital of France, Brussels- capital of Belgium London tube bombings, 9/11 etc
Why the hell would they strike somewhere that isn't high profile?

They hit Paris while it was a soft target. Mumbai would have been a soft target too. It is quite conceivable that they would conclude that security was too strong in London, or Birmingham, and go for a softer target. After all that PCC chappie did suggest that a smaller city would make an easier target.

Anyway, would killing 100 people in Snoozyville have any less of an impact in terms of publicity than killing 100 people in London? And perhaps they could kill even more in Snoozyville, since the Snoozyshire coppers might be too busy chasing the local combine harvester snaffler.

You are making the mistake that these people (if you can call them that) think in any way that is rational.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Didn't the London bombers travel from up north somewhere?

 

[joe-90]

 

[longdogs]

 

[mikeey84]

Didn't the London bombers travel from up north somewhere?

Exactly, heading for a meaningful target!

 

[JBR]

If someone had been to Syria to train in Jihad, then micro-chipping should be the norm.

Nonsense! They should never be let back in. Why waste the expense of microchipping unless, of course, they can make explosive microchips? I saw something like that in a film, so maybe they can.

 

[JBR]

Very optimistic, improbable if not impossible.

The Trafford Centre was a mere example so the location and proximity to Hereford is irrelevant.
It could happen anywhere.

Its unlikely to happen ANYWHERE.

I doubt ISIS will rock up at Grantham Town vs Nuneaton Bourough at the Meres Stadium next Saturday, or mow down shoppers in the Clocktowers shopping center in Rugby, or a folk concert in Scarborough.

London, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cardiff (with apologies to Newcastle, Sheffield, Nottingham and Liverpool) are by quite a distance the most likely targets, and there are SF within an hour or so of pretty much all of those locations.

I'm pretty sure that Bradford, Leicester, Rochdale, Tower Hamlets and such places are safe.

As for Special Forces (who I am sure are the best in the world), the best they can do is try to clean up after the slaughter, as in Paris and Brussels. We're not talking about terrorists hijacking aeroplanes or buildings here and then making demands; the first anyone will know about it is when the bombs have gone off.

 

[Whitespirit66]

In the past, most terrorists in The UK (eg. IRA) didn't want to die any more than the police and military who were tackling them. Much more difficult to combat terrorists who actually want to die. As long as we have the ROP amongst us, this threat will be ever present.

 

[joe-90]

It's the new Hundred Years War.

 

[WalksWithTurkeys]

Thank you, that's put my mind at rest, knowing any would-be attackers would be so predictable.

Bless em.

Oh grow up. Mumbai- one of the largest cities in the world, Paris- capital of France, Brussels- capital of Belgium London tube bombings, 9/11 etc
Why the hell would they strike somewhere that isn't high profile?

They hit Paris while it was a soft target. Mumbai would have been a soft target too. It is quite conceivable that they would conclude that security was too strong in London, or Birmingham, and go for a softer target. After all that PCC chappie did suggest that a smaller city would make an easier target.

Anyway, would killing 100 people in Snoozyville have any less of an impact in terms of publicity than killing 100 people in London? And perhaps they could kill even more in Snoozyville, since the Snoozyshire coppers might be too busy chasing the local combine harvester snaffler.

You are making the mistake that these people (if you can call them that) think in any way that is rational.

Their thought is rational within their perverted death cult mind set. A dung beetle eats excrement for reasons that are quite rational even though we would never willingly do that.