WoT confuses me most is...

OK, I'm confused. (Not news to most of you, I'm sure :wink3:)

If this report is true, the War on Terror has resulted in a more efficient, better resourced and deadlier Al-Q'eda.

If it's false, the UK security services are fear-mongering for political effect.

Please tell me what I should think.

:dizzy2:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

UK 'number one al-Qaeda target'

Al-Qaeda has become more organised and sophisticated and has made Britain its top target, counter-terrorism officials have told the BBC.

Security sources say the situation has never been so grim, said BBC home affairs correspondent Margaret Gilmore.

They believe the network is now operating a cell structure in the UK - like the IRA did - and sees the 7 July bomb attacks "as just the beginning".

Each cell has a leader, a quartermaster dealing with weapons, and volunteers.

According to our correspondent, each cell works on separate, different plots, with masterminds controlling several different cells.

Those involved in the cells were often aware they were being followed and so were meeting in public spaces.

In addition, training is taking place in the UK and Pakistan.

It was thought that five years ago al-Qaeda was a number of "loosely-connected organisations" with common aims, but it is now more organised, she said.

Security officials are concerned the group is targeting universities and the community, and are "less worried" about mosques, she added.

The network is targeting men in their late teens and early 20s, according to our correspondent.

"They set up groups a bit like Boy Scouts or Boys' Brigade... totally legitimate.

"Those who are particularly interested they start giving religious indoctrination.

"Then those who are very interested they start introducing to political teachings, anti-Western rhetoric.

"And those who are still interested they then start giving technical training.

"They also start sending them on bonding sessions to things like white-water rafting.

"You end up with a small team of people - the cell is prepared.

"A lot of this is happening outside London," our correspondent added.

Joint regional offices of MI5 intelligence gatherers and anti-terrorist police officers have been set up in Manchester, Birmingham and Sheffield.

BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera said the view was Britain was particularly vulnerable because "it may be easier for al-Qaeda to strike the UK than other targets".

He said these views were "based on activity they are actually seeing. Plots they're disrupting, trials which might be coming up soon".

"There is hard evidence behind it, rather than just theories," said our correspondent.

"That's based partly on what they are seeing, in terms of the types of activity, and partly based on the coincidence, that al-Qaeda's leadership is based in the tribal areas of Pakistan where there are links to the UK and flows of people going back and forwards.

"It makes it easier to make the UK a target than the other countries it might wish to target."

The network also appeared to be better organised, he continued.

"The leadership of al-Qaeda does appear to have been re-grouping and to be more coherent and organised than had been thought in recent years.

"The view is it clearly was an organised group before 9/11, but the campaign in Afghanistan disrupted that leadership very heavily.

"But in recent years, particularly in the tribal areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan, the al-Qaeda leadership has been able to re-group and re-organise itself.

"In doing so it's able to open up channels of communication, contact, recruitment and planning around the world, and operate those in a more coherent fashion than maybe we were seeing three years' ago."

However, intelligence analyst Crispin Black said another attack in the UK "was not inevitable", citing the UK's "considerable successes against the IRA".

"We still have that expertise and training present within our military forces and intelligence," he said.

"It is no longer about looking for a needle in a haystack. We have some pretty good clues and information on where we should be looking."

A Home Office spokeswoman referred to a recent speech by Home Secretary John Reid in which he referred to the now "seamless threat" of radicalisation.

This was a challenge they expected to "last a generation", she said.

My gut level response is to say a bit of both.

Has Al-queada, faced with a more active opposition, been forced to reorganize and refine its efforts? Certainly. This "effect" is no different than any "army" in history. Once they've been through a few fights, they learn what portions of the peacetime routine were wrong. So while I'm sure there is a good deal of truth here, this is hardly a surprising development (unless our terror-fighters are complete idiots, which I trust they are not).

Britain as primary target? A little fear-mongering mixed in, no doubt (is it funding/budget time over there?). On the other hand, not without some value since British Government support for the WoT and the USA is a good notch stronger than British Public support for same. If they were to engineer an attack or two that de-coupled the USA and the UK, playing on that difference, it would be a coup that made Spain pale by comparison.

I think England was going to get attacked sooner or later.It was meant to proably send more Biritsh Troops over seems, an attempt anyhow..

That only Shows That there one Easy Solution for this, but I'll keep it to myself.

It Also Shows that These guys won't be easy to take down. We have to start adpapting to their sytle or fighting,or it won't work out good for us ..

The people and the government are opposed on this one. We think the best thing to do is to get out, Tony Blair thinks the best thing is to suck up to Bush. I don't think a terror attack is going to change anyone's thinking on this as the people already want to get out.

I think Seamus has the crux of it. When we were just letting Al Queda bomb us with nary a reaction (WTC 1993, Khobar towers (with some help from Hizbullah), Tanzania/Kenya Embassy bombings, USS Cole), they were getting pretty fat and lazy. How much did they learn bombing an enemy that at most would publicly condemn and insist that such actions "would not stand"? Going after them in Afghanistan certainly made them more wary and more clever in their attacks.

As for tying the actions in Iraq to the War on Terror, despite what the administration has to say, I personally do not believe the war in Iraq to be related to the larger War on Terror. I would put it under the heading of 'mutually coincident' and leave it at that.

There's also a certain amount of learning Al Queda will pick up themselves along the way. Even if we had continued to do nothing in 2001, their attacks would become more targeted, more ferocious, and carried out with better logicstics and planning... simply because with each attack they learn more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

The people and the government are opposed on this one. We think the best thing to do is to get out, Tony Blair thinks the best thing is to suck up to Bush. I don't think a terror attack is going to change anyone's thinking on this as the people already want to get out.

---

A big attack, whilst it would destroy Blair, would probably increase the public's support for action... British people are funny.

I think a terrorist attack might have the opposite effect - Blair might well gain support (if he played his cards right) while i suspect the reaction towards action would be very mixed :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

If it's false, the UK security services are fear-mongering for political effect.

---

You think? The BBC just love doing this crap. They've been flailing their arms about and screaming at the top of their voices recently because two alleged "terrorists" have gotten loose in the British public. Granted, no names have been mentioned, no faces shown, and no locations given. They're just.. "Terrorists". ~:rolleyes:

Well, both sides get a little bit better with every iteration of the loop.
The govs smarten up a bit, catch a few more terrorists/suspects, or defuse a few more potential plots; then the terrorists learn from their mistakes, and improve their techniques and methods a bit; then the govs take that into account, and come up with measures to counter the news techniques; then the ...

Round and round it goes.
Same as with the "copyright protections" and cracks: we made this unbreakable system; it gets cracked; ok, we improve on that and create the next "unbreakable" system; guess what, after a while, that one gets cracked too; ok, this one is really really unbreakable; guess what, it's not~;) . And so on...

So everybody is bound to get a little better with each iteration - each side pushing the other to become a little better, if they want to keep going. Nothing really spectacular, or unpredictable, if you ask me.:shrug: