Of course my one paragraph is generalized. It is not, however, inaccurate.

I know that they lowered their threat level. It is so easy now, with 20/20 hindsight to say that they should not have, but at the time that seemed to be OK. At least they don't raise the threat level to manipulate election results. In this counrty, the "threat level" may be high, but there's precious little security involved.

Yes, there are terrorists in the making in the London area. You should write to their security services about that. Obviously, they aren't aware of it.

"It is so easy now, with 20/20 hindsight, to say they should not have..."

Actually, it really doesn't involve 20/20 hindsight at all- merely common sense. You see, there was a G-8 conference going on with the leaders of the world's richest countries in attendance-and this is post 9/11-and there had already been a horrific bombing in Madrid-any one of those factors mandates the highest threat level. There's nothing too terribly difficult about that. No other country in the world hosting G-8 would have lowered the threat level during that time period. No other.

"the threat level may be high, but there's precious little security involved...".

Besides being a very cynical comment, it's inaccurate, and rather glaringly so.

A whole new array of security measures goes into effect when the threat level is raised. These counter-measures are extensive. A lay person would not see most of what is going on, (unless you happened to live in NYC and DC), but it's there-and more importantly, it works. It's very costly, but that's the nature of the beast, so to speak.

For example, when Secy. Chertoff raised the threat level the other day for surface transportation, a very measured response, a whole new array of security measures went into effect for those modes. And although you and others may think that it's all just show-that's actually not necessarily a bad thing either-(but it isn't correct).

Let me ask you, when you see dogs patrolling a subway system, you don't know, do you? whether those dogs are trained to sniff explosives, or whether they're just nice house dogs being trotted out for show, right? And that's the idea. A criminal or terrorist (all terrorists are criminals but not all criminals are terrorists) doesn't know that either, but if they see dogs patrolling a particular form of transportation-they'll be forced to conclude that the vulnerability they seek is not there, and so they will move on in search of softer targets. It's all about risk management-you manage the risk, in order to lower the vulnerability.

Security is not all about what is seen, but rather, what's going on about you that you DON'T see. In other words, what you THINK you see in terms of security counter-measures is not necessarily all that's going on there, be it with canine patrols, airport security screening, or even, with some very interesting new software-video cameras, just to name a few examples. It's as much a mind game as it is anything else.

"You should write to their security services...obviously they're not aware of it."

Oh, well, that's just the problem isn't it? The British Govt. has been aware of this problem for WELL over a decade and has done precious little to eradicate the threat!

Let's go through a little short list:

Sheik Abu Hamza-formerly of the Finsbury Park Mosque in London where in a raid in 2003, they found chemical suits (as I mentioned on the other thread) and ricin in an apt. Hamza is wanted in Yemen, and has now been turned out of the mosque, but yet, there he is, NOW-preaching in the London parks his uniquely hate-filled anti-western ideology-no doubt working to radicalize even more disaffected Muslim youth, just as he did with the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, the shoe bomber's accomplice, (who, btw, was just sentenced to 15 years in England, yes that's right-just 15 YEARS for backing out of bombing ANOTHER commercial airliner -there was a second shoe bomb, you see), and of course, the 9/11 hijacker wannabe Zacarias Moussaoui, who will be sentenced in several months in a Northern Virginia court (I can guarantee you, he WON'T get 15 years!) also a Finsbury Park graduate.

And now, I've saved the best for last:

Although nothing unfortunately has been narrowed down at this point, a group that is under intense scrutiny at the moment is a Moroccan splinter group affiliated with al-qAEDA-called the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group-this group was responsible for the 2003 suicide bombings in Casablanca. They were also responsible for the Madrid bombings.

When the Spanish police closed in on the Madrid bombers a month after the fact, all 7 of them blew themselves up rather than be taken into custody. But before they did, they made phone calls to Britain-because, guess what? they have a cell operating there!

One of the key founders of the group is a gentleman named Mohammed Guerbouzi. Moroccan law enforcement authorities have an outstanding international arrest warrant on him for masterminding the bombings in Casablanca in 2003, and of course, there were those phone calls to Britain right before the Madrid bombers blew themselves up.

Mohammed Guerbouzi lives in London, and has for several years.

The warrant for his arrest was issued two years ago-but he is STILL in London, because British officials vaguely indicate there was not enough "evidence" to take him into custody.

I'd say the British law enforcement and intelligence community needs a refresher course in risk management-but of course, it's a little late for that now.

spygirl, sometimes we are our own worst enemies.

Most assuredly, and that even applies to countries as well!

ttt
Can't get rid of the same pit in my stomach I had while watching the second tower hit.

Hold your loves tight!

Was this the one you were looking for?