Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

British Police Foil Alleged Mall Massacre Copycat Plot

timothy posted about 9 months ago | from the unless-it's-an-fbi-sting dept.

United Kingdom 292

An anonymous reader writes "The Washington Post reports, "British law enforcement agencies averted a plot to orchestrate a large-scale terror attack similar to the assault on Kenya's Westgate mall, an official said Monday. Police were questioning four men in their 20s on suspicion of terrorism after they were detained Sunday in pre-planned, intelligence-led raids. A British security official said the men were planning a shooting spree akin to the Westgate attack in Nairobi, in which at least 67 people died. ... in a series of statements, the force said the men were all British nationals between the ages of 25 and 29, with roots in Turkey, Pakistan, Algeria and Azerbaijan. ... the London police firearms unit took part in the arrests. British police rarely carry weapons and their involvement suggested concern that men might have been armed." — The Sydney Morning Herald has video. Prime Minister Cameron recently expressed concern regarding such a possibility."

cancel ×

292 comments

DOUBLEPLUS (2, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 9 months ago | (#45132661)

Fake.

Just like the "terrorists" the FBI keeps "catching".

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45132709)

...until this stuff happens in a mall near you, keep your bitching up.

how bad would this be in England where almost no-one has a gun, even most of the police?
how long would it take to muster an effective response in that situation.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45132815)

Depends where it was. In one of the three major cities, not long. Especially London. The armed Police in London have a response unit on the roads 24 hours a day, and they shoot first and ask questions later.

Just because the everyday copper is not armed it doesn't mean an armed response unit is not available.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 9 months ago | (#45133087)

and they shoot first and ask questions later.

Yeah, that's what happens when you respond to "Can I ask you something?" with "Shoot!" one too many times.

Re: DOUBLEPLUS (1)

ted leaf (2960563) | about 9 months ago | (#45133641)

which because the police do have quick response cars and teams, anyone with brains would go for one of the bigger, out of london, malls, like the harlequin, watford, big enough, easy to cut off, police response times, some of the lowest in area. nice and close for sky news choppers etc...

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45132837)

There is a reason stuff like this isn't tried in states like Texas in which people have a right to carry. The only person that is responsible to protect you is you. The police do not have a legal responsibility to protect you. People, stop being willing victims. Unless you want a police state, the only right thing to do is learn how to use a weapon that is safe and responsible.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (4, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | about 9 months ago | (#45132931)

Yep, because the "the deadliest non-school shooting rampage in American history [wikipedia.org] " didn't occur in Texas.

Considering a lot of these guys commit suicide after they're done, what makes you think that their victims being armed or not is a particularly big concern?

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133027)

The Texas concealed carry laws went into effect on January 1, 1996. The Luby's massacre fo 1991 was a big reason they passed.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (5, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45133327)

Quite correct.

Luby's massacre [wikipedia.org]

In response to the massacre,[21] the Texas Legislature in 1995 passed a shall-issue gun law, which requires that all qualifying applicants be issued a Concealed Handgun License (the state's required permit to carry concealed weapons), removing the personal discretion of the issuing authority to deny such licenses. To qualify for a license, one must be free-and-clear of crimes, attend a minimum 10-hour class taught by a state-certified instructor, pass a 50-question test, show proficiency in a 50-round shooting test, and pass two background tests, one shallow and one deep. The license costs $140 for a four year license; in addition applicants must pay $10 for fingerprinting as well as instructor costs which vary.

And so: Woman with Concealed Carry Permit Stops 6 Robbers in Houston [townhall.com]

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (1)

somersault (912633) | about 9 months ago | (#45133537)

From the story you linked:

Clearly both this womanâ(TM)s life and her husbandâ(TM)s life were saved by her carrying a concealed weapon

Bullshit.. that's not clear in the slightest. It only talks about a robbery and some guys talking rough - not attempted murder. The worst that would have happened was someone getting away with their car and wallets. I wonder how much the gun, training and license even cost compared to their potential losses and insurance claim.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133037)

Yes, I was aware of that incident. I seem to remember one of the people who was spared in that incident wishing they had their pistol on their person instead of it sitting in their vehicle. That story could have played out differently if they had done that.

The point of being armed isn't that the maniac will kill himself anyway. The point of being armed is to take out the maniac before they can rack up the numbers.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133397)

Yes, I was aware of that incident. I seem to remember one of the people who was spared in that incident wishing they had their pistol on their person instead of it sitting in their vehicle. That story could have played out differently if they had done that.

Of course they wish that. They have no idea what it is like living in a country without gun regulations whatsoever.
The US isn't at one end of the spectrum, we have examples all the way from heavier gun regulation and no gun regulation at all. As it turns out all the hypothetical deterring violence with more guns is just bullshit.
This doesn't mean that one have to remove guns from society, there are many nations with a high gun ownership percentage but where the gun owners keep the guns locked up and treat them with respect when they bring the guns out.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 9 months ago | (#45133493)

Why don't they attack police stations then? If the goal is to hurt people, feel in control, and make an otherwise insignificant demise infamous and tragic, being dominated by the intended victim spoils the whole thing.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (1)

somersault (912633) | about 9 months ago | (#45133619)

"Dominated"? You might want to use something other than language you picked up in an FPS when there are no respawns.

Yes, it can "spoil the whole thing", but there would be a lot less "things" if guns were harder to come by. I'm sure this argument has been played out hundreds of thousands of times online by now though, and those who worship guns aren't going to give up their god anytime soon.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 9 months ago | (#45133623)

Quit trying to bring logic into this.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133071)

This happened in San Antonio... one of the malls had a mass shooting abruptly stopped by a concealed weapons carrier pointing his piece at the shooter making his opening rounds... and stopping the massacre before it started.

I wish having to have everyone armed was not necessary. I wish the US had a federal police force where officer training was on par with Germany's officers or English bobbies. Stuff like knowing the law, unarmed combat, situation de-escalation, and being able to handle a situation with words as opposed to pulling out the stungun or the .40 and opening fire.

It used to be this way. I remember days where a simple clearing of the throat by a police officer would immediately stop a fight. I remember when an arrest was a "you are coming with me" statement, not this down on the ground ritual of cuffing and stuffing.

Would I live in a police state? If the police were beholden to the people and there wasn't this mutual fear (police fear citizens, citizens fear police), then yes. Let people who are trained and know what they are doing (and the ramifications of their actions) enforce things. A society needs laws (and enforcement) to function, but on the other hand, the laws have to be made so they don't breed contempt (like the "war on drugs" crap.)

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (5, Insightful)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 9 months ago | (#45133239)

Would I live in a police state? If the police were beholden to the people and there wasn't this mutual fear (police fear citizens, citizens fear police), then yes. Let people who are trained and know what they are doing (and the ramifications of their actions) enforce things. A society needs laws (and enforcement) to function, but on the other hand, the laws have to be made so they don't breed contempt (like the "war on drugs" crap.)

That would not be a police state. That would be a state where the police serve the people and the people work with and assist the police. Neither of those are true in the United States.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (1)

jjjhs (2009156) | about 9 months ago | (#45133535)

Except when the business posts a "No Guns" sign. Some states put their weight behind it. Even otherwise, if the owner/employee finds out (like open carrying), private property rights trumps personal safety if you are asked to leave or put away the gun and don't you get charged with trespassing. The company likely wouldn't be held liable for whatever happens to you either.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45132853)

...until this stuff happens in a mall near you, keep your bitching up.

What do you mean, "until"? If it does happen to him, he'll just start right up with bitching about how useless law enforcement is because they didn't stop the one, single "real" attack that matters.

It's a foolproof self-serving scheme he's got going on here. On his deathbed, he'll be bitching about law enforcement. If he never got involved in an armed altercation in his life, law enforcement is clearly a useless waste of HIS taxpayer dollars because all violent crime is "fake", and he'll be bitching about it with his last breath. If he's dying due to a nice perforation through his vital organs delivered by some punk kid hiding in an alley, law enforcement is clearly a useless waste of HIS taxpayer dollars because they didn't save HIS life from the "real" attacks, and he'll be bitching about it with his last breath.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (4, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about 9 months ago | (#45132885)

It will not. Terrorism is not a relevant threat to anything. It is a cheap way to scare people though. This stupid argument (scare them so they do not think clearly) has been used time and again. But it is only one thing: Manipulative. It has no connection to reality other than that. For real threats to your life, limb and well-being: Cars, cancer, heart disease, and governments that mess it up. In the US, add guns.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45133013)

Random accidents and disease are different than deliberate, planned human action. If not, then why prosecute bank robberies, murder, and assault? Why not just report them like an accidental drowning and be done with it? There is a flaw to your thinking. If unchecked, terrorist violence grows.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (2)

gtall (79522) | about 9 months ago | (#45133393)

"Terrorism is not a relevant threat to anything" unless its your ass that gets shot.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (2)

TheCarp (96830) | about 9 months ago | (#45133513)

Until? I will take the odds on that "until" any day of the week. If I was scared about threats like that, I would be in bed rocking back and forth sucking my thumb, and wouldn't go near a car.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (2, Insightful)

RelaxedTension (914174) | about 9 months ago | (#45132781)

My first thought as well, another attempt to justify spying on everyone. Let's reel in the guys we been pushing and prodding for months into saying something incriminating. I'll wait to see more details before I believe it.

It's terrible that my first impression on news like this is "ya, right...", especially after the Kenyan incident.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (3, Insightful)

intermodal (534361) | about 9 months ago | (#45132861)

It was barely a year ago where I easily dismissed my conspiracy-minded friends saying this stuff. today it makes more sense than any official story I've heard in months.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (0, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 9 months ago | (#45132863)

The Kenya mall attack was known well in advance. It was allowed to happen, for specific political purposes. The presence of SAS men and Israeli commandos in Westgate, at the time of the attack is remarkable.

The only question for those in possession of the facts is this: Was Westgate allowed to happen by those who could have prevented it, or was it actually sponsored by those same agencies?

Re: DOUBLEPLUS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45132923)

Yeah, well.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (2)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 9 months ago | (#45133021)

Or, with less tinfoil headgear, we could consider that it was probably suspected enough to get response teams in place, but not reliably confirmed enough to justify the panic a closure would cause. When it then turned out to be real, the response turned out to be inadequate.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (3, Interesting)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45133051)

The presence of SAS men and Israeli commandos in Westgate, at the time of the attack is remarkable.

You find the antiterrorist forces responding to a terrorist attack to be remarkable? Much like the Fire Brigade showing up at a fire?

The only question for those in possession of the facts is this: Was Westgate allowed to happen by those who could have prevented it, or was it actually sponsored by those same agencies?

The leadership of the terrorist group could have prevented it, but it fit with their plans and usual method of operation. My question is, why do you keep denying that?

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (4, Informative)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 9 months ago | (#45133057)

The presence of SAS men

One man [mirror.co.uk] and he was off-duty.

and Israeli commandos in Westgate

Those commandos were airlifted [ibtimes.co.uk] after the siege began. They were not there when things happened.

Either go back on or get your off meds because the tinfoil isn't working.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133431)

Cool story bro.

BRITAIN DID TO KENYA (-1, Offtopic)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 9 months ago | (#45132787)

"Alsatian dogs were used to terrify prisoners and then ‘maul’ them. There are other similarities with Abu Ghraib: various indignities were devised using human faeces; men were forced to sodomise one another. They also had sand, pepper and water stuffed in their anuses. One apparently had his testicles cut off, and was then made to eat them. ‘Things got a little out of hand,’ one (macho European) witness told Elkins, referring to another incident. ‘By the time we cut his balls off he had no ears, and his eyeball, the right one, I think, was hanging out of its socket. Too bad, he died before we got much out of him.’ Women were gang-raped, had their nipples squeezed with pliers, and vermin and hot eggs thrust into their vaginas. Children were butchered and their body parts paraded around on spears."
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n05/bernard-porter/how-did-they-get-away-with-it [lrb.co.uk]

The Kenyan Human Rights Commission (KHRC) estimates that 90,000 Kenyan’s were executed, tortured or maimed during the colonial government’s crackdown, while 160,000 were detained in appalling conditions
http://thinkafricapress.com/kenya/britain%E2%80%99s-faces-colonial-past-kenya [thinkafricapress.com]

Re: BRITAIN DID TO KENYA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45132921)

90,000 Kenyan's what?

Re:BRITAIN DID TO KENYA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133055)

"Alsatian dogs were used to terrify prisoners and then ‘maul’ them. There are other similarities with Abu Ghraib: various indignities were devised using human faeces; men were forced to sodomise one another. They also had sand, pepper and water stuffed in their anuses. One apparently had his testicles cut off, and was then made to eat them. ‘Things got a little out of hand,’ one (macho European) witness told Elkins, referring to another incident. ‘By the time we cut his balls off he had no ears, and his eyeball, the right one, I think, was hanging out of its socket. Too bad, he died before we got much out of him.’ Women were gang-raped, had their nipples squeezed with pliers, and vermin and hot eggs thrust into their vaginas. Children were butchered and their body parts paraded around on spears."
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n05/bernard-porter/how-did-they-get-away-with-it [lrb.co.uk]

The Kenyan Human Rights Commission (KHRC) estimates that 90,000 Kenyan’s were executed, tortured or maimed during the colonial government’s crackdown, while 160,000 were detained in appalling conditions
http://thinkafricapress.com/kenya/britain%E2%80%99s-faces-colonial-past-kenya [thinkafricapress.com]

You found a way to blame whitey.

Good for you. You get your Progressive Star for today!

Re:BRITAIN DID TO KENYA (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45133107)

BRITAIN DID TO KENYA ... terrify prisoners ... ‘maul’ them... Abu Ghraib ... various indignities .... sodomise one another ...

What relevance does any of that have to either this incident? What relevance does it have to the terrorist attack at Westgate mall last month that these suspects apparently hoped to recreate?

That axe of yours must be getting might sharp with all the grinding.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (4, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45132965)

Since you keep making these claims, you must have some evidence. Can you present it? Or is this just a crank theory of yours?

Were the 7/7 London attacks [bbc.co.uk] "fake" too? Including the 52 dead bodies?

Are the convictions that the police are getting "fake" too?

London terror bomb plot: the four terrorists [telegraph.co.uk]

Four men pleaded guilty to plotting a Christmas bomb attack on the London Stock Exchange and causing a 'Mumbai-style' atrocity.

Fertiliser bomb plot: The story [bbc.co.uk]

Five men have been convicted of plotting to build a bomb which police say could have killed hundreds of British people. The men were caught after police and MI5 launched a massive surveillance operation.

Since you're Canadian, perhaps you could comment on this plot. Was it "fake" too?

Canada jails Toronto truck bomb plotter Zakaria Amara [bbc.co.uk]

One of the key figures in a conspiracy to set off three truck bombs in Canada has been sentenced to life imprisonment. Zakaria Amara, 24, pleaded guilty in October to co-leading the Islamist militant group dubbed the Toronto 18. The group's targets included the city's stock exchange and a military base.

These sorts of attacks are consistent with the announced intention of terrorist groups around the world. I think you need to present some evidence rather than simply make proclamations.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133163)

The July 7 attacks in London were known about well before anything happened. The government decided to not inform the public, and hire private security firms to man each location at the precise times for "practice" attacks. One of the security companies went to the BBC with all the evidence showing what was planned, who was going where, and they even brought the mayor of New York for consultancy services for the event. The only thing the security companies didn't know was that they were facing real bombs and not just a practise session.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (0)

Kjella (173770) | about 9 months ago | (#45133167)

Since you keep making these claims, you must have some evidence. Can you present it? Or is this just a crank theory of yours?

He's a crank. Sure, it might be possible that some things are not all as they seem but he's on a roll that everything is some sort of conspiracy or false flag operation. Nothing is as simple as crazy religious fundamentalists shooting up an easy low-security target for huge publicity and terror factor.

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133485)

He is a crank, but he got +5 insightful and you didn't. This is an ongoing problem. For the past few months any war-related threads on Slashdot have been consistently moderated in a pro-al-Qaeda manner. AQ propaganda gets modded up. Arguments against AQ are modded down. We are left with the top posts claiming AQ doesn't exist and everything wrong in the world is the fault of whoever is resisting them, and you have to go to -1 and wade through the crap to find any intellectual discussion. I have to wonder if AQ has a team of moderators assigned to work on these threads. They have the money and manpower to do it, and they might assume that the Slashdot audience is vulnerable to anti-Western propaganda after the Snowden affair.

Re: DOUBLEPLUS (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45132967)

The UK police have a pretty good track record of foiling real plots; the kind that have hard evidence and result in people going to jail. The Birmingham rucksack plots, the liquid bombs, all were viable and held up in UK courts before anything happened.

And sadly, we also get the odd plot that slips through the net, like the killing of the soldier in Woolwich.

So, I wouldn't doubt that there is solid evidence behind the arrests. However, the only place I've seen mall attacks mentioned is in US media reports, and that's just speculation on their part.

DeMenzies (-1, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 9 months ago | (#45133117)

Nuf Said.

Woolwich? Pull the other one.

Tinfoil hats over here! (1)

onyxruby (118189) | about 9 months ago | (#45133005)

I've got exactly what you need [urbandictionary.com] ! Tinfoil hats are cheap [amazon.co.uk] . They are easy, to make too, it takes less than two [youtube.com] minutes. Don't believe the MIT study [theatlantic.com] that debunks the time honored tinfoil hat, it's a government conspiracy you know!

Don't worry, there are support groups [meetup.com] for conspiracy theorists! Now I know like any number of other conspiracy theories those pesky facts might get in the way [popularmechanics.com] . However, learn from Joseph Goebbels [psywarrior.com] and don't ever let logic, facts or reality get in your way. I know you look like a raving lunatic to any rational person, but not to worry, there is someone even crazier will soon show up to defend you, so cheer up!

Re:DOUBLEPLUS (1)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about 9 months ago | (#45133577)

Or alternatively, news should be outlawed because it clearly incites people to violence.

British police rarely carry weapons (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45132681)

If they observed the Right to Bear Arms on that side of the pond, I suspect they would have a lot less problem with terrorists and ne'er-do-wells. God Bless the NRA.

Re:British police rarely carry weapons (5, Insightful)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | about 9 months ago | (#45132735)

I suspect they would have a lot less problem with terrorists and ne'er-do-wells.

Nope, there'd simply be a lot more people getting shot.

Re:British police rarely carry weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45132883)

Yep. The ones that deserve it. Save 'em a ton of money on incarceration costs.

Re:British police rarely carry weapons (2)

somersault (912633) | about 9 months ago | (#45133039)

I think you'd find that the ones who deserve it are mostly the ones with the guns. Everyone else is too busy thinking about getting on with their life to consider violent crime.

Re:British police rarely carry weapons (4, Insightful)

bedroll (806612) | about 9 months ago | (#45133605)

Good call. We have hundreds of millions of guns here in the US and we have the lowest incarceration costs in the world... oh wait.

Well at least we never have armed gunmen attack public forums... crap, that's not quite it either.

Re:British police rarely carry weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45132917)

I suspect they would have a lot less problem with terrorists and ne'er-do-wells.

Nope, there'd simply be a lot more people getting shot.

Exactly. NRA aficionados are impervious to facts, in this case, firearm-related death rate.

Re:British police rarely carry weapons (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133029)

Nope, there'd simply be a lot more people getting shot.

That is very, very true. In US and Canada there is a perception that if police has guns, they only use it as a last resort. In many cases that is not that case.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/another-fatal-shooting-on-an-empty-toronto-bus-16-years-earlier/article13494159/ [theglobeandmail.com]

Re:British police rarely carry weapons (3, Funny)

tuckerteeth (560608) | about 9 months ago | (#45132819)

There is no UK law preventing an individual from wearing bear arms.

Re:British police rarely carry weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133649)

what about walking around in bear feet?

Re:British police rarely carry weapons (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 9 months ago | (#45132867)

Yeah. Guns solve all problems! Well known fact.

Re:British police rarely carry weapons (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45132873)

No, the reason these chaps get caught so easily in the UK is because it's pretty much impossible to get your hands on a gun, let alone an assault rifle and enough ammo to carry out something like this.

If anyone wanted to do this in the US, their steps would involve "getting a gun" and "shooting people". Neither of which is a particularly challenging task and, in case you've not been watching the news recently, is something so simple that children can do it, and they frequently do.

"Humm, guns keep killing people and every time we add more guns nothing changes. Hey how about more guns? Awesome lets try that"

Re:British police rarely carry weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45132879)

Notice how the moron capitalizes the "Right to Bear Arms" which isn't even a real thing.

Re:British police rarely carry weapons (5, Insightful)

jabuzz (182671) | about 9 months ago | (#45132897)

Really for most of my lifetime the terrorist problem in the United Kingdom was expatiated by the U.S.A. harbouring convicted terrorists and refusing to extradite them back to the U.K. while all the time allowing said terrorist groups to raise money. In that respect 9/11 was a huge boon because all of a sudden the U.S.A. realized that it could no longer support such terrorist activities.

Re:British police rarely carry weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133007)

"In that respect 9/11 was a huge boon because all of a sudden the U.S.A. realized that it could no longer support such terrorist activities."

Haha, good one. Mossad dances at such suggestions, news at 11.

Re:British police rarely carry weapons (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45133395)

Really for most of my lifetime the terrorist problem in the United Kingdom was expatiated by the U.S.A. harbouring convicted terrorists and refusing to extradite them back to the U.K. while all the time allowing said terrorist groups to raise money.

No, there were cases that showed the same problem handing the IRA then as handling al Qaida today. The administration wanted to hand them over, but a court blocked it in much the same way as the courts have intervened in various aspects of the fight against al Qaida.

Re:British police rarely carry weapons (1, Informative)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | about 9 months ago | (#45133311)

Lets get something straight. The NRA doesn't give a damn about you. They are not an organization that represents gun owners. They represent gun manufacturers and sellers. 75% of NRA members are in favor of common sense gun restrictions, like background checks to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and unstable. The NRA fought against it because it would hurt the bottom line of the only people they care about supporting.

If you support the NRA, you are a dupe and you are being used by people who don't care if you live or die as long as they make a profit, pure and simple.

I have no problem with guns as long as they are used responsibly, and I support people's right to defend themselves against crime, but take a close look at where your loyalties are.

A religion of peace (5, Funny)

swb (14022) | about 9 months ago | (#45132687)

Really, it is.

Re:A religion of peace (3, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about 9 months ago | (#45132851)

There are no "religions of peace". What happened to them is that they got wiped out a few thousand years ago by the other religions. Religions are very much subject to evolution. (Which is hysterical, come to think of it.) Today, there are just some that use "peace" as camouflage, but all religion can safely be assumed to be dangerous if the sufferer is deeply infected ("fundamentalist" or "fanatic"). BTW, in this sense, political orientations can qualify as "religion".

Re:A religion of peace (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133069)

BTW, in this sense, political orientations can qualify as "religion".

Hey, man, you dropped this. I noticed it on the ground because of how bright and out-of-place it was; I didn't know they still made shoehorns like that anymore.

Re:A religion of peace (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 9 months ago | (#45133333)

BTW, in this sense, political orientations can qualify as "religion".

Hey, man, you dropped this. I noticed it on the ground because of how bright and out-of-place it was; I didn't know they still made shoehorns like that anymore.

Is it the kind with teeth? Because you know there's no such thing.

Re:A religion of peace (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133353)

Islam (and some other weird religions) is NOT a religion of peace - my religion (Greek Orthodox Christian - almost similar to Catholic) IS A RELIGION OF PEACE, and excluding some small Protestantic Christian churches -mostly in the USA?- that pay too much attention to the Old Testament instead of the New Testament, most other Christian churches are also like that (and not to forget Buddist!)...

Re:A religion of peace (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133643)

My religion is the right one, all the others are wrong!

Re:A religion of peace (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45132977)

Would you have them massacre civilians with drones instead, like good Christians and secularists do?

Re:A religion of peace (1)

jovius (974690) | about 9 months ago | (#45133085)

Depends on how religion is applied. The victims of Islamic terrorism are virtually all other muslims (or people who happen to born to a country predominantly muslim), who wish nothing more than to live at peace.

Re:A religion of peace (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133149)

People dont get the definition of religion of peace or salam
i-slam is a noun/verb meaning do peace or submiter to Alla
a mu-slim is m-prefix=source of-salam(peace)
the world is comprised of the civilized or peace world ruled by islam the dur al islam
the unconverted world is the world of war or dur al harav the world of the sword(harav).
It is an insight to a different way of viewing the world without a socialist or christian starting point.
This is not to be anti muslim or to imply that they are all potential terrorists as I prefer their company to nutty American Christians who talk on about their great constitution by far. Just that pompous westerners are convinced that everyone is a brown little American, or European just waiting to be unwrapped by their wealthy well educated human superiors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam [wikipedia.org]

Re:A religion of peace (1)

intermodal (534361) | about 9 months ago | (#45133183)

Claiming a religion and actually practising it are very different things.

Re:A religion of peace (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133385)

It's easy to be a religion of peace after you've killed, subjugated or enslaved all of the competition. When they say religion of peace, they mean it, no matter how many bodies it takes to get there. There will be one world wide Caliph whether you want it or not, and then there shall be peace on earth.

Human rights, other religions, freedom, human dignity and body limbs are of course all strictly optional. On the plus side you can look forward to know your voting results before you vote!

Just in time (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45132689)

Because of course they uncovered this by spying on citizens, so they really should be able to keep spying on everyone.
Just think of the malls.

More info (5, Interesting)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45132723)

This was a somewhat more exciting series of arrests than usual.

Police shoot at car in suspected terror raids [telegraph.co.uk]

Armed police shot at the tyres of a car to stop two suspected terrorists during a dramatic series of raids to foil an alleged plot to attack the UK.

Officers fired special Hatton rounds – large shotgun ammunition designed to burst tyres or breach doors – to force the vehicle over in east London on Sunday evening. Witnesses also reported seeing police ram the back of the car before it was finally brought to a halt while a helicopter hovered overhead. In simultaneous arrests, armed officers swooped on a man in the street in west London while a fourth man was arrested at a flat south east of the city. A large number of armed officers were used because it was feared the men had access to weapons and were planning a suspected Islamist terror attack, the Daily Telegraph understands.

The head of MI5 is concerned [independent.co.uk] about the diminishing margin of advantage they have to detect such things in the face of a continuing threat.

Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute in London, Mr Parker pointed out the statistics of the threat from terrorism faced by the UK. The “plain facts”, he said, were that “from 11 September 2001 to the end of March this year, 330 people were convicted of terrorism related- offences in Britain In the first few months of this year, there were four major trials related to terrorist plots. Since 2000, we have seen serious major acts of terrorism in this country typically once or twice a year.”

Re:More info (1, Troll)

intermodal (534361) | about 9 months ago | (#45132881)

Terrorism-related offences. Right. Sort of like how our DHS includes materials in its courses that teach public safety officers that anyone who displays any libertarian symbols or who believes they have civil liberties is a potential terrorist, eh?

Re:More info (1, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45133151)

So you see no difference between a planned massacre and that nonsense? No difference between mass murder and pamphleteering?

Re:More info (1, Offtopic)

intermodal (534361) | about 9 months ago | (#45133211)

While I appreciate the effort you've put into your attempt to put words in my mouth, I'm going to have to require you to do better than that if you want any questions answered.

Re: More info (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133235)

You're forgetting that for more than 30 years, we had US-backed terrorists running around mainland Britain, exploding bombs and killing people.

They were called the IRA. They were real and they made a horrible mess of cities like Manchester and London.

Be as cynical as you like about your security agencies, but the UK ones did a bloody good job throughout the IRA campaigns, and are very good at what they do. They have a track record, they foil plots, and they get convictions in UK courts.

Re: More info (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133349)

The IRA was far more credible of a threat than the present "oh no, he's related to someone named Abdul!" paranoia.

Security Theatre (2)

intermodal (534361) | about 9 months ago | (#45132785)

Between Cameron's insistence upon an approach that sounds an awful lot like a police state and the fact that this attack was "not imminent," you'll have to pardon me for speculating that this is a new episode of the hit sitcom "Security Theatre." After the pilot episode "TSA at the Airport," they've moved through a few seasons of bland, uninspired episodes, followed by their made-for-TV movie "PRISM" and now what appears to have been an action-packed feature film, "These Guys Might Have Roots in the Middle East: Save the Mall!"

I think I'll watch a new series. This one jumped the shark long ago.

In other words: Nothing happened (0)

gweihir (88907) | about 9 months ago | (#45132807)

Except that the British police wanted some "anti-terror" "success" so badly the asked their spy agencies for some easy scapegoats.

Re:In other words: Nothing happened (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45133191)

The point of conducting investigations and arrests is to prevent an attack. Experience shows that doing police work that way results in many fewer people having their civil rights violated by high velocity lead pellets or bomb fragments which render them dead. So, something did in fact happen: investigation showed a plot in the works and arrests were made.

Re:In other words: Nothing happened (2)

intermodal (534361) | about 9 months ago | (#45133243)

Clearly you have more confidence in the veracity of what we are told by governments than I do.

Firearms unit (5, Interesting)

phorm (591458) | about 9 months ago | (#45132825)

One thing I'm actually rather impressed with. Rather than running around with guns all the time, apparently the BP have a special unit to deal with cases where they're warranted. Certainly it's a different culture than N. America in that regard.

Re:Firearms unit (4, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 9 months ago | (#45132929)

That's because in the US, most potentially violent criminals carry guns. Thus police have to assume every potentially violent criminal is carrying a gun until searched proven otherwise, or else place their own lives in danger - if an offender is reaching into his pocket, there's no time to calmly try to talk him down. In the UK, guns are quite rare even to hardened criminals due to the difficulty obtaining them. For our street thugs, knives are the weapon of choice. So our police can be a bit less cautious.

Re:Firearms unit (1, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | about 9 months ago | (#45133073)

Exactly. The criminals don't need to carry guns because the police don't have them.

Re:Firearms unit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133459)

In the UK, guns are quite rare even to hardened criminals due to the difficulty obtaining them. For our street thugs, knives are the weapon of choice. So our police can be a bit less cautious.

The exception here is Northern Ireland. It's the only place in the UK where beat officers are armed as standard, even if it is only with pistols. Given the sporadic attempts to murder police officers by paramilitaries either with small arms or bombs of various sorts it's a different situation to the rest of the UK, but even then a police officer firing a weapon here is still A Big Fucking Deal rather than a sad but common state of affairs, despite the attackers sometimes phoning in fake emergencies to lure the police into a trap.

Re:Firearms unit (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 9 months ago | (#45133505)

Not to mention the perpetrator-victim relationship, in the UK and most of Europe a knife is enough. Depending on where you are in the US if you tried to rob anyone with a knife chances are you'd get the wallet while you're up close then get held or shot at gunpoint as you're trying to get away. If you have to assume your victim might have a gun (legally or illegally) the only "safe" way to rob them is to control them at gunpoint from start to finish. As I understand it guns are not that terribly hard to acquire here in Europe but they are usually overkill to commit the crime and they rarely let you get out of a situation you couldn't escape with a knife. Unless you intend to kill but most murders around here happens in close relations with victims in "stabbing distance", not gang violence on the street. And of course to an armed robbery you send armed police...

We don't bother with sidearms, we use BIG GUNS (4, Interesting)

evilandi (2800) | about 9 months ago | (#45133413)

Quite.

It's a big mistake to think that the British police are unarmed. They're not.

They just don't bother with piddling little pistols.

If you're going to have a gun, have a BIG GUN.

Other than for plain-clothed detectives working undercover, pistols are pretty much laughed at by the British police. Compare the stopping power of a weeny little Colt or a Glock to that of an MP5 sub-machine gun, G36 assault rifle or (God help you if you see one of these - strongly suggest you change your plans for that day) an SA-80 or AR-15 assault rifle.

Although British police don't routinely carry sidearms, in high crime urban areas they will carry SMGs or assault rifles in a locked gun cabinet in the boot (trunk) of their car. In extremely difficult or vulnerable areas such as airports or tourist hotspots, they will carry MP5s around, mixing in with the crowd. The bobbies carrying MP5s are very nice blokes, feel free to strike up a conversation with them. Just back off the ones carrying SA-80s and AR-15s, there's a good chap.

Our largest island is only 700 miles long. Where on earth are you going to run to, that a radioed-ahead armed response unit can't get to first?

I can fully understand why lots of larger countries have routinely armed police - calling for backup could take hours. But it's extremely difficult to outrun the police radio on an island only 700 miles long with a heavily-armed SMG & assault rifle unit every 25 miles or so, and CCTV at every trunk road junction (interstate intersection).

(The police at Birmingham Airport used to have those truly lovely-looking P90 bullpup rifles for manoeuvrability in corridors & aeroplanes; from my recent visit it looks like they've swapped over to MP5s - a shame as the bullpups just looked like a wonderfully practical bit of design. I once saw West Midlands Police using one of those wacky Steyr Augs - again, lovely design - but seem to have standardised now on SA-80s and AR-15s. There seems to be a lot more standardisation across the various regional firearms units these days. Probably very practical from a co-ordinated response point of view, but a lot less showy from a nerd point of view.)

Bullshit (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45132845)

This story keeps on growing. In the British press this morning it was claimed that the men fought in Syria and that they have access to weapons in the UK. That was it.

Now the international press reports that the men were planning an atrocity.

However, the police have found no guns or, in fact, any evidence of any crime. They would certainly be crowing about it if they had.

This is such a non-story the BBC aren't bothering to report it.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45132959)

the BBC aren't bothering to report it

The BBC never hesitate to publish reports about muslim suspects.

Right?

Re:Bullshit (2)

Shimbo (100005) | about 9 months ago | (#45133309)

>However, the police have found no guns or, in fact, any evidence of any crime. They would certainly be crowing about it if they had.

This is such a non-story the BBC aren't bothering to report it.

British police tend to say very little, to avoid being accused of prejudicing a future trial. The arrests were Sunday evening, and the suspects can be help up to 48 hours before being charged or released.* There isn't really much to add to the story until then; expect a further statement in a few hours. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24530867 [bbc.co.uk]

*Although they could apply for a magistrate for an extension, in terrorism cases.

Impossible (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45132905)

Firearms are illegal in the UK, so it's impossible for any criminals to have them. No need for any "firearms division" of police, unless they're worried about the terrorists having knives.

Re:Impossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133011)

Mmm. Like brains in America.

Re:Impossible (3, Informative)

lazarus corporation (701348) | about 9 months ago | (#45133147)

No, firearms are not illegal in the UK - that's a common misconception.. Some specific types of firearms are illegal (e.g. handguns), the rest require the owner to hold a firearms licence.

Muslim Faith causes adherants to kill randomly (-1, Flamebait)

bhlowe (1803290) | about 9 months ago | (#45132937)

Calling it a "copycat" makes it sound like someone is doing it for attention, and not religious ideology. This same type of tragedy happened in Utah in 2007 and was initially reported as a teenage shooter... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting [wikipedia.org] Time to stop sugar coating the effects of prolonged exposure to the curse that is Islam.

Re:Muslim Faith causes adherants to kill randomly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133127)

No, no. When an Islamic person shows up to work and starts shooing people to the strains of "Allah Akbar!!!!", it's "workplace violence" [wikipedia.org] .

"Violence"?!?! How could that be? Islam is a "religion of peace", is it not?

Embrace the Vibrancy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133249)

Of diversity! It's a strength!

Slashdot- news for zionists (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45133603)

The owners of Slashdot aren't even trying to hide their political bias and zionist war-mongering agenda these days. How is ANY aspect of this story appropriate for this site? Are Slashdot readers considered such cretins, that they can't find this anti-Muslim nonsense on the usual mainstream media sites, like Fox News and the BBC?

Every day, the decent people of Syria, once a bastion of peace and stability in the Middle East, suffer the most depraved terror attacks carried out by islamic extremists recruited, funded, trained and armed by the British and American governments. Clegg (the REAL Prime Minister of Britain- Cameron is just the Conservative flavoured dingle-berry that hangs of him) follows Tony Blair's specific instructions, and has massive training camps in Jordan, where British, American and Israeli special forces oversee the creation of wave after wave of terror units that flood into Syria.

Saudi Arabia launders much of the money used to pay for the operation, and provides the specialist 'dirty' divisions responsible for chemical attacks, and extermination of whole towns and villages. These units are put together by US intelligence and special ops in Saudi itself, using psychopaths 'recruited' from the worst prisons in Saudi and across the West controlled Middle East, North Africa and Turkey. Saudi Arabia has repeatedly boasted about clearing out "death rows" from multiple prisons, and using the condemned men as the frontline torturers/rapists/mass murderers that are designed to prove to the civilian population of Syria that resisting the will of Obama and Blair will bring absolute unstoppable hell to their nation. This was the same tactic, of course, the Adolf Hitler used during his invasion of Russia.

The Syrian invasion is overseen by British intelligence bases in Qatar (and al Jazeera, the infamous mock-Muslim news-service that was created by the BBC World Service from its Arab Desk, is THE frontline propaganda outlet run by British Intelligence in Qatar).

So there is real terrorism in this world- masses of it. It is almost entirely a construct of those that the owners of Slashdot support and hold religious and political allegiance with. The present days horrors occurring in those nations exterminated by Tony Blair and his US allies- Libya, Iraq and Syria- are unthinkable. Libya and Syria had been peaceful, stable prosperous nations with extremely LIBERAL muslim-flavour regimes that gave full rights to women. Iraq, save for the times Saddam was doing the biding of the US government, and waging war against the 'enemies' of America's neo-cons, had pretty much been the same- at least from the POV of ordinary, non-political Iraqi citizens.

So, Slashdot will continue to post daily anti-muslim, anti-Syria, anti-Russia, anti-China stories, with not the slightest attempt to justify the propaganda with the suggestion such stories fall under the remit of this site. Inthis sense, Slashdot operates like the 'official' technical journals you would have found in Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, or early 20th century racist eugenics loving USA.

Remember, PUSH news outlets, like Slashdot, only have a certain number of daily slots. By ensuring many of these slots push the same propaganda agenda, it appears (to very naive readers) that these stories have accumulating significance. This is like how every newspaper in Nazi Germany could run TRUE stories of jewish crimes each day, and yet by such selective reporting, be completely DISHONEST in their representation of ordinary jewish criminality. Slashdot uses the same trick.

Comparison (4, Interesting)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | about 9 months ago | (#45133607)

USAian approach to fighting terrorism: Let's have a trillion dollar war on some random country. That'll show em. Nobody will mess with us afterwards. Oh, and let's spend a fortune in tax dollars on an elaborate security theatre in all airports so that we turn air travel into an ordeal. Let's also hire goons to intimidate anyone who wants to enter the country as a tourist, especially if their skin is dark or if there's any stamps in their passports that show they've been to muslim countries. And let's spend more than then next half dozen countries combined on super-duper high tech weapons even if our own armed forces are telling us they don't want them.

British approach to fighting terrorism: Keep plugging away behind the scenes. Use the intelligence agencies to infiltrate terror groups and arrest them before they can strike. Keep it discreet, keep it quiet, and don't announce anything publicly until there's been an arrest. Meanwhile, let life go on as normal, keep going to work, keep on flying, keep shopping in busy streets, keep commuting on crowded trains and buses, and on no account do we change our way of life in search of an impossible-to-obtain standard of security because to do so would be to let the terrorists win.

I wonder which one is more effective.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...