Quote:
Originally posted by Claeren@Jul 17 2005, 04:54 PM
Most guns are first world guns.
Which airports? By which terrorists?
Uniformed officers with normal side arms are as effective, if not more so and at least without such serious drawbacks, as heavily armed guards.
Claeren.
|
I always find the machine guns comical (from experience in NYC). Are terrorists really scared of those big guns? No 'terrorist' has EVER been confronted directly in a first world nation with a fully automatic machine gun to my knowledge, let alone been killed by one.
Which airports? By which terrorists?
Attack on the Munich Airport, February 10, 1970: Three terrorists attacked El Al passengers in a bus at the Munich Airport with guns and grenades. One passenger was killed and 11 were injured. All three terrorists were captured by airport police. The Action Organization for the Liberation of Palestine and the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attack.
May 1972 - Lod Airport Massacre - Japanese Red Army acting on behalf of Palestinian terrorists. Automatic weapons and grenades. Twenty-four killed. Terrorists ran out of grenades and ammunition and killed themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lod_Airport_Massacre
Attack and Hijacking at the Rome Airport, December 17, 1973: Five terrorists pulled weapons from their luggage in the terminal lounge at the Rome airport, killing two persons. They then attacked a Pan American 707 bound for Beirut and Tehran, destroying it with incendiary grenades and killing 29 persons, including 4 senior Moroccan officials and 14 American employees of ARAMCO. They then herded 5 Italian hostages into a Lufthansa airliner and killed an Italian customs agent as he tried to escape, after which they forced the pilot to fly to Beirut. After Lebanese authorities refused to let the plane land, it landed in Athens, where the terrorists demanded the release of 2 Arab terrorists. In order to make Greek authorities comply with their demands, the terrorists killed a hostage and threw his body onto the tarmac. The plane then flew to Damascus, where it stopped for two hours to obtain fuel and food. It then flew to Kuwait, where the terrorists released their hostages in return for passage to an unknown destination. The Palestine Liberation Organization disavowed the attack, and no group claimed responsibility for it.
Airport Attacks in Rome and Vienna, December 27, 1985: Four gunmen belonging to the Abu Nidal Organization attacked the El Al and Trans World Airlines ticket counters at Rome’s Leonardo da Vinci Airport with grenades and automatic rifles. Thirteen persons were killed and 75 were wounded before Italian police and Israeli security guards killed three of the gunmen and captured the fourth. Three more Abu Nidal gunmen attacked the El Al ticket counter at Vienna’s Schwechat Airport, killing three persons and wounding 30. Austrian police killed one of the gunmen and captured the others.
Uniformed officers with normal side arms are as effective, if not more so and at least without such serious drawbacks, as heavily armed guards.
Well, in one post you're effectively calling SWAT team guys with machine guns "joke cops" which is, of course, absurd.
In another post you're saying if a "multi-faceted" terror attack occurs, the cops with sidearms, apparently not joke-cops" because in your estimation they would be more effective, would need the back up of the "joke-cops" to contain things.
Guns are guns and I assumed earlier we were talking volume of men - and eyes - with machine guns rather than volume of men with a lesser calibre weapons . . . . . you sound like you're objecting to the visual difference between a gun in a hip holster versus one slung over the shoulder.
In Iraq, they might agree there's a difference in calibre though. The local cops say the bad guys often have bigger guns than they do and its like pea shooters versus cannons. They seem to think that's a problem in maintaining law and order. Heck, the anti-drug cops say the same thing over here.
Take that to the New York Stock Exchange where much of the street out front is barricaded off and guys with genuine machine guns loiter semi-discreetly out front. Is that part of the deterrent, along with metal detectors, secure passes, etc? Of course it is. Most likely a terrorist would go looking for a softer target. He would alter his behaviour because of it.
I didn't see a lot of machine guns in London to tell you the truth. But I saw a lot more cops than I saw in New York.
Again, I agree with the premise that things like metal detectors, spies, etc are the most effective front line in getting to bad guys before they even have a chance to put on their bomb pack . . . . but I really have no objection to lots of visible guys - and their eyes - with machine guns providing a deterrent at selected obvious, high risk/high reward targets.
Its a reaction to the obvious . . . . just as on-site airport security is tighter partly as a reaction to the incidents I cited above in the distant past.
I'm sure if I went to Spain, with a leftist anti-war government, I would see lots of the same at selected places as well.
Its nice outside. Back tomorrow. You should get some fresh air Bub!! :P
Cowperson