Privacy and the State

[amateur51]

Remember what the IRA said after the Brighton bomb? " We only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky always".

It is sadly inevitable that some terror plots will succeed, despite the best efforts of MI5, GCHQ, and MI6. If anything, that proves that they need all the powers at their disposal to counter the threat. We do not know how many Nairobis have been prevented by the use of the very measures that the Guardian is attempting to derail with its irresponsible reporting.

Personally, when it comes to the risk of being blown apart on a tube train or slaughtered whilst out shopping, I prefer to rely on the professionalism and dedication of our security services, and not on luck.

Bit of an academic preference I'd say, given how many terror plots have been foiled in Chichester.

I bet my bottom dollar that if any Nairobis had been foiled we would have heard about it loud and clear.

[Mr Pee]

Bit of an academic preference I'd say, given how many terror plots have been foiled in Chichester.

I bet my bottom dollar that if any Nairobis had been foiled we would have heard about it loud and clear.

A perfect illustration of your complacency. I very much doubt that any terror plots had been foiled in Bali before the night-club bomb went off.

And- shock, horror- we country bumpkins do, on occasion, visit London or other large urban conurbations. You'll have seen us amsy- we're the ones with straw round our trousers.

[Richard Barrett]

This is a military issue

I see you've been brainwashed by the whole Bush/Blair propaganda about us being on a constant "war on terror" footing.

[ahinton]

I see you've been brainwashed by the whole Bush/Blair propaganda about us being on a constant "war on terror" footing.

Indefensible and sad though this is, he's hardly alone in having been so; in any case, it's not mere propaganda, it's fact, since we are indeed on a 'constant "war on terror" footing' simply and solely because those two "leaders" wilfully put us on one not merely by their talking it up but by the reality arising from the actions that they instigated.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I see you've been brainwashed by the whole Bush/Blair propaganda about us being on a constant "war on terror" footing.

PIffle.

[Mr Pee]

Indefensible and sad though this is, he's hardly alone in having been so; in any case, it's not mere propaganda, it's fact, since we are indeed on a 'constant "war on terror" footing' simply and solely because those two "leaders" wilfully put us on one not merely by their talking it up but by the reality arising from the actions that they instigated.

Ah yes. Of course, they instigated 9/11, and presumably all these as well:-

http://directorblue.blogspot.co.uk/2006/09/illustrated-history-of-terror-attacks.html

Or in your world, these were all justifiable responses to The Great Satan.

THAT is piffle.

[amateur51]

A perfect illustration of your complacency. I very much doubt that any terror plots had been foiled in Bali before the night-club bomb went off.

And- shock, horror- we country bumpkins do, on occasion, visit London or other large urban conurbations. You'll have seen us amsy- we're the ones with straw round our trousers.

I've lived in London for over 40 years mate, so I know plenty about a city being in thrall to bombers of all sorts and complacency doesn't enter into it.

Remind me - when was the Bali bombing? Did this gathering of intelligence stop that?

[Mr Pee]

Remind me - when was the Bali bombing? Did this gathering of intelligence stop that?

The bombings- plural- were in 2002. And like you, I have no idea what the intelligence background was to the attacks. But obviously it didn't stop the bombings, or we wouldn't be talking about them, would we? However, given the level of surveillance and monitoring that is now being practiced, it is just possible that such an atrocity might be prevented today. Which, whilst good for us, is sadly of little comfort to the familes and loved ones of the 202 victims.

[ahinton]

Ah yes. Of course, they instigated 9/11, and presumably all these as well:-

http://directorblue.blogspot.co.uk/2...r-attacks.html

Two (or more) wrongs don't make a right and never have done (but see below); did I suggest either that Bush/Blair conspired to commit or allowed to be committed the 9/11 atrocity or indeed any of the others listed in your link, valuable as it is (and for which many thanks) or that the Bush/Blair lot were the world's only terrorists during their respective times in office? Of course not! - and to have done so would have been utterly absurd.

Or in your world, these were all justifiable responses to The Great Satan.

THAT is piffle.

It is indeed - except, of course, that they are not "justifiable responses" in "my world" - a world about which you demonstrably have even less knowledge than I had previously assumed and which you therefore have no right to drag into what might otherwise pass for your latest contribution to an intelligent discussion.

However, in YOUR world, Mr Pee, two (or more) wrongs apparently DO make a right, at least whenever it appears to suit you that they be cajoled into doing so!

[ahinton]

The bombings- plural- were in 2002. And like you, I have no idea what the intelligence background was to the attacks. But obviously it didn't stop the bombings, or we wouldn't be talking about them, would we? However, given the level of surveillance and monitoring that is now being practiced, it is just possible that such an atrocity might be prevented today. Which, whilst good for us, is sadly of little comfort to the familes and loved ones of the 202 victims.

That last part is, of course, undeniable and I'm sure that no one here would seek to deny it. However, your habitual complacency seems also to lead you to pass over the fact that one aspect of the principles of efficient terrorism has an uncomfortable commonality with those of governments that actively make loud noises about the "war on terror", namely the spreading of as much fear as possible wherever possible; were you only to bear this in mind, you might come to recognise that terrorists accordingly perceive a vital need to frighten their adversaries and other targets into upping their security and surveillance procedures to the extent that they ultimately interfere to a greater or lesser extent with the freedom of speech, movement and action that the citizens of those "enemy" nations supposedly enjoy.

The more terrorist threats that are issued, the more those threatened by them risk being duped into knee-jerk reactions that, if taken far enough, may well ultimately result in every threatened nation being on constant red alert, with all the compromises to those freedoms of speech, movement and action that go with the implementation and maintenance of such states of emergency and engender so fundamental a sense of distrust that citizens will become ever increasingly suspicious of their governments and security services and indeed of one another; likewise the negative effects on the economy of those threatened nations cannot fail to be compromised as a direct consequence of this and of the cost of maintaining such high levels of seciruty and surveillance.

The fact that terrorist atrocities continue to occur and that one outcome of them is increased security activity, including surveillance, surely therefore speaks for itself.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Would it be possible for the security and terrorism experts gathered here to either get hold of today's Times, or listen to World at One on iPlayer (between 1:10 and 1:20 approx.)? Their fellow experts actually in the job are saying that the impact of Snowden's leaks is worse than the Cambridge spy ring.

[vinteuil]

.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24493062

[Richard Barrett]

the impact of Snowden's leaks is worse than the Cambridge spy ring

Oh dear.

[vinteuil]

Sir David Omand, former head of GCHQ, opines (of the Snowden leaks) : "The assumption the experts are working on is that all that information or almost all of it will now be in the hands of Moscow and Beijing."

... like, doh!

Does he - really? - imagine that Moscow and Peking didn't already have all the info? Can he really be that innocent???

[Serial_Apologist]

I think they shuold bring back George Smiley!