UK lowers threat level to "Severe"

[The_Casual_Observer]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/13/terror.plot/index.html

:eyes:

[babylonsister]

1. Is there a British counterpart to DU, I wonder? What must

the residents there think? And I'll add my own :eyes:

[madame defarge]

2. I've been reading comments at BBC...

It's nowhere near DU, but it will give you an idea of British sentiment. (Anyone who signs in can comment, so you'll see comments from all over; however, it's predominently people in the UK who are posting.)

The question posed is: Do you feel safer?
People can add any comment they want; the most frequently posted comment is along the lines of "I'll feel safer when Bush & Blair are out of office..."

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=3122&&edition=2&ttl=20060814022242

[babylonsister]

3. Thanks, madame, for the link, and

I really like your name here!

[madame defarge]

4. Back atcha, babylonsister...

Cool avatar too. B-)

[tulsakatz]

6. thanks for that link!!

There are some interesting comments there!

I especially like this one......

The government went about the whole debacle in the wrong way

Stricter security checks on the few people suspected were behind this was all that was required. Not rocket science to narrow down potential people needing extra checks:

1) Bound for the US
2) Bought ticket close to travel date
3) Muslim
4) Travelling alone or in non-family groups

Not PC but you can't afford to be in this area.

Little delay and resources quickly targeted where most useful.

Tom Rhodes, Perth

Now why isn't this guy working for Homeland Security? In a few simple sentences, he profiled the most likely suspects!

[Stella_Artois]

11. Profiling ?

And how would one identify the Muslim passengers ? Given that they could be white and middle class ? Get them to wear special badges ?

[tulsakatz]

13. ok, I see your point........

...in fact, a muslim can be anyone including an American. So maybe that definition wasn't a good one but I think the other ones still would be a good idea.

[dipsydoodle]

8. Knit one, pearl one............

A lot of people over here are closer to DU than you may think. :)

[tulsakatz]

5. I have a British friend.....

...and when we first heard about the critical alert, I wrote to her. She doesn't get online every day but I did hear from her today. (I wanted to know if we were getting the same story as they are hearing)

Anyway, she said they heard the planes were NOT supposed to explode over the ocean, they were supposed to explode as they flew over US cities!! This is what she said:

I don't know what to think about the current threat. But I do know that the terrorists were supposed to be meaning to blow up the planes as they flew over US towns and cities... coming in to land etc... and that they were intending to do it in waves of three or four flights at the same time. The number of planes was somewhere between 9 and 12 and with over 300 on board... it would have been a lot of deaths.. both English going on Holiday or business trips and Americans on their way home from Europe. And... if they had been bombed over cities, then that would have meant a lot of deaths on the ground as well. So the figures would have probably been more than 9/11 in actual fact. So yes... it would have been awful.

Now if it's a fake or not.. again... who knows these days? But as one who flies now and then, I prefer the authorities to be careful rather than not. If it's all a fake... then it's to draw attention away from Israel and Lebanon... or at least it could be.

Now I know why they used the word 'unimaginable' to describe the possible damage.

[dipsydoodle]

9. Not sure where your friend got that information

I've seen no mention of that in any of our news. Feeling was that the intention was to blow up over the ocean thus destroying all evidence. Would only have been apparent that "terror" was related by the number of such issues.

[tulsakatz]

12. yes, I understand the planes were supposed to explode into the ocean

....or at least that's what we were told.

And as I stated before, I wrote to her because I wanted to know what the Brits were hearing about this. Actually, when I first wrote to her, I just wanted to know if she thought this was a real threat instead of more propoganda.

And I do know my friend works in the journalism business so I do trust that she knows what she's talking about. I would certainly trust her more than the spin coming from the govt.

And if it is true........it would certainly account for the 'unimaginable' definition of this in the news (by the Brits).

[dipsydoodle]

14. Your friend may be able to confirm for you

that on BBC2 News tonight one of the spokepersons they normally use from Kings College quoted that the actual threat of harm from a terrorist related incident is actually less than that of a train accident. That perhaps puts the matter in perspective.

Yes - I guess unimaginable is the sort of word that would be used here to make people sit up.

[tulsakatz]

15. I'll ask her about that........

..from the beginning, I had wondered why they used the word 'unimaginable' to describe the effects of this attack, if it had been allowed to go forward.

After she said what she said, it seemed to make more sense to me. But you are right too, if they say something is unimaginable, that would get more attention.

But I will ask her if she saw the report on BBC.....I'm sure she knows something about it.

[T_i_B]

10. A British Counterpart to DU?

Well DU has its very own UK forum!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=191

Besides that there is the Guardian "Comment is Free" stuff I suppose.

[dipsydoodle]

7. Here's an uptodate Sky News link

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13537330,00.html