If a TRUE terrorist attack would occur via this method, i am of the belief that our counter-terrorism forces are amongst the best on the planet.

The problem with the Mumbai attacks was communication, lack of resources and the distance that the counter-terrorists had to travel (Delhi to Mumbai)...

Whereas London would undoubtably be a harder place to strike, due to the large amount of police (with armed police permanently on stand by) and military nearby.

Unless of course an attack would be another 7/7 inside job, then obviously certain pawns would not be used...

Originally posted by mr-lizard
If a TRUE terrorist attack would occur via this method, i am of the belief that our counter-terrorism forces are amongst the best on the planet.

True.

Just as long as there are no Brazilian's out jogging the day of the next incident. Hopefully that won't be repeated.

Other than that, they are usualy pretty good.

CX.

don't Know....don't think so? couldn't find anything on a Google search.

But my cynical/conspiracy mind reading between the lines 'he said that the UK is at greater risk than the US, according to reports. " probably means something is imminent in the UK, to keep us 'scared', to justify the surveillance (cctv)that is everywhere in London, the erosion of our rights, the justification for all the wars.... etc etc etc

I think Obama's statement that the UK is more at risk than the US from an attack is a covenient scare-mongering tactic in light of the fact that this month has been one of the bloodiest, if not the bloodiest month for British soldiers in Afghanistan and British support for the war there is beginning to wane.


Nothing like a good old scaremongering of the British public to boost support for the war again, Obama thinks.



Sorry Obama, you fail. We see right through you.



If there ever was an attack on London like Mumbai, one needs to contemplate that the reason the gunmen had the run of the town for so long was because the police were brave, but poorly armed, with bolt-action rifles or pistols or even unarmed against people armed with AK-47's.


In London, you have armed police officers at train stations and airports, you have SO19, (sometimes known as CO19) which is equivalent to SWAT in the US.


Of course, traffic could be a problem. London is also a big city.

My guess is that the longer the situation developed, depending on how the S019 handle matters, the more chance the SAS could be brought in. And those chaps do not take prisoners.



If it's an inside job.....well Obama seems to know....

I'm just amazed that people in the media can report this with a straight face. We've had so many fake terror arrests, so much BS... even the people who do think 7/7 was a real incident have seen a constant theme of terror arrests on innocent people, the shooting of De Menzes, the pathetic life of Richard Reid, carbombs that conveniently failed to go off...

Unless these "terrorists" have help from our wonderful security forces, they seem a bit crappy, frankly.

See, now, the IRA (also funded by the US) were proper terrorists. Their stuff worked. These jihadis don't amount to much, it seems to me. But then I'm one of those folks who understands the nature and prevalence of the false flag attack.

See, now, the IRA (also funded by the US) were proper terrorists. Their stuff worked.

Exactly - so why do we have all these draconian measures put in place NOW, when these guys were far more deadly, and far more active for decades, not just a few years?

"AQ" hits a place not even on the same continent, and we go running around scared as if the world will implode at any moment?

It doesn't add up.