Brits knew something was up?

[kermitology]

My cousin was in London during the bombings, and having just spoken to him he had some interesting things to say about being there.

First, he was at Kings Cross, about 24 hours before the bombers and noticed a few things during the days before the attack. There seemed to be an increased police presence on the streets of London with officers carrying semi-automatic weapons, and strangely that there were no garbage cans around. Anything remotely resembling a garbage can was either removed or sealed. At one point after having something to eat him and a friend, on their way to the Tower of London, couldn't find anywhere to put their garbage. They stopped and asked a police officer where they could find somewhere to throw the stuff out and the officer told them they had to keep it with them. After explaining that the Tower of London probably wouldn't want them to have the garbage on them the officer took it from them.

Seems to me that the British tried to do something to prevent something centred around leaving a bomb in a garbage can or something of that ilk..

[HumanTorch]

To be fair I think we all knew this was going to happen, it was just a matter of when, where and how. I saw another attack coming right after 9/11, as I'm sure many others did also. It's very interesting the things your cousin noticed, you don't see police wanding the streets (especially in a country like Britian) carrying around semi-automatic weapons. That alone makes things clear that they knew something was up.

[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.

Bomb sniffer dogs, undercover cops, xray and metal detecting machines, and random searches all seem FAR more effective. Every dollar spent on heavy weapons is a dollar not spent on other forms of protection.


Claeren.

[Canada 02]

The G8 summit was in Scotland that week. Perhaps Blair was hosting some world leaders in London before hand.

[peter12]

Originally posted by Claeren@Jul 16 2005, 02:51 PM
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.

Bomb sniffer dogs, undercover cops, xray and metal detecting machines, and random searches all seem FAR more effective. Every dollar spent on heavy weapons is a dollar not spent on other forms of protection.


Claeren.

One 2 occasions I have had assault rifles pointed directly at my head, once in Prague airport and once on an Armenian highway. Both times I was extremely intimidated and frightened.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Canada 02@Jul 16 2005, 02:58 PM
The G8 summit was in Scotland that week. Perhaps Blair was hosting some world leaders in London before hand.

Maybe they knew something was up but my guess is that's it -- the G* was going on just down the road.

Remember how tight the security was in Calgary while that thing went on? The conference wasn't even in town but cops were all over the place worried about bombs and more than that protesters.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally posted by Claeren@Jul 16 2005, 02:51 PM
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.

Bomb sniffer dogs, undercover cops, xray and metal detecting machines, and random searches all seem FAR more effective. Every dollar spent on heavy weapons is a dollar not spent on other forms of protection.


Claeren.

They're not machine guns. They are almost always simply a shotgun or an automatic rifle.

What the tax dollars go toward are the appearance of an armed force as a a deterrent from entering an area and doing something that would be conspicuous.

But it's true, armed police officers can't stop a guy with a bomb in his backback.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by kermitology@Jul 16 2005, 07:33 PM
My cousin was in London during the bombings, and having just spoken to him he had some interesting things to say about being there.

First, he was at Kings Cross, about 24 hours before the bombers and noticed a few things during the days before the attack. There seemed to be an increased police presence on the streets of London with officers carrying semi-automatic weapons, and strangely that there were no garbage cans around. Anything remotely resembling a garbage can was either removed or sealed. At one point after having something to eat him and a friend, on their way to the Tower of London, couldn't find anywhere to put their garbage. They stopped and asked a police officer where they could find somewhere to throw the stuff out and the officer told them they had to keep it with them. After explaining that the Tower of London probably wouldn't want them to have the garbage on them the officer took it from them.

Seems to me that the British tried to do something to prevent something centred around leaving a bomb in a garbage can or something of that ilk..

We were at Kings Cross in late May - about five weeks before the attacks - and my wife asked an officer where a garbage can was and he said there wasn't any . . . . . well ahead of your experience.

Garbage cans, I think, were removed probably via the IRA experience. They're an obvious place to drop a bomb and their removal is probably a general precaution as opposed to anything specific to the recent attack.

There were also tons of police around the London as the Horse Guard were practicing in the streets for the Queens Birthday . . . . they were even firing cannons which created a loud and disturbing noise and had people pausing.

Cowperson

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Jul 17 2005, 08:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Jul 17 2005, 08:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-kermitology@Jul 16 2005, 07:33 PM
My cousin was in London during the bombings, and having just spoken to him he had some interesting things to say about being there.

First, he was at Kings Cross, about 24 hours before the bombers and noticed a few things during the days before the attack. There seemed to be an increased police presence on the streets of London with officers carrying semi-automatic weapons, and strangely that there were no garbage cans around. Anything remotely resembling a garbage can was either removed or sealed. At one point after having something to eat him and a friend, on their way to the Tower of London, couldn't find anywhere to put their garbage. They stopped and asked a police officer where they could find somewhere to throw the stuff out and the officer told them they had to keep it with them. After explaining that the Tower of London probably wouldn't want them to have the garbage on them the officer took it from them.

Seems to me that the British tried to do something to prevent something centred around leaving a bomb in a garbage can or something of that ilk..

We were at Kings Cross in late May - about five weeks before the attacks - and my wife asked an officer where a garbage can was and he said there wasn't any . . . . . well ahead of your experience.

Garbage cans, I think, were removed probably via the IRA experience. They're an obvious place to drop a bomb and their removal is probably a general precaution as opposed to anything specific to the recent attack.

There were also tons of police around the London as the Horse Guard were practicing in the streets for the Queens Birthday . . . . they were even firing cannons which created a loud and disturbing noise and had people pausing.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Cowperson's bang on - when I lived in London in 1991 there were no "rubbish bins" anywhere to be found due to the fact that the IRA liked to leave small packages of explosives in them. (And on top of this I lived across the street across from Penguin books after Solmon Rushdie published Satanic Verses and summarily had a fatwa placed on his head).

I would think the G8 would account for the ramped up security, and it turns out they needed it.

At work this week we were discussing a similar attack on Tokyo (as it seems a logical place to get hit next) and what can you do? You can't stop random foreign looking guys for no reason in train stations as consistently crowded as they are here in Tokyo, and if you wanted to bring some sarin, explosives or other stuff on the train there's very little you can do other than hope you're not involved in some way, shape or form.

[Claeren]

Originally posted by Hack&Lube+Jul 16 2005, 02:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hack&Lube @ Jul 16 2005, 02:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Claeren@Jul 16 2005, 02:51 PM
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.

Bomb sniffer dogs, undercover cops, xray and metal detecting machines, and random searches all seem FAR more effective. Every dollar spent on heavy weapons is a dollar not spent on other forms of protection.


Claeren.

They're not machine guns. They are almost always simply a shotgun or an automatic rifle.

What the tax dollars go toward are the appearance of an armed force as a a deterrent from entering an area and doing something that would be conspicuous.

But it's true, armed police officers can't stop a guy with a bomb in his backback. [/b][/quote]
That type of response is the entire goal of terrorism and that is why it is so effective against the American-mindset.

Every soldier in the street is a reminder to the American people of how scared they need to be. (Regardless of any small benefit of an illusion of safety)

Terrorists are about the only people NOT scared of the joke-soldiers in the streets with big guns.


And regardless of the actual gun type, it is always excessive and will/could never be used in repelling a non-conventional attack. Again, that would go against everything that terrorism trys to achieve and the means they use to do to so.


Claeren.

[Cowperson]

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.

In the 1970's and 1980's, when shooting up airports was a popular game, terrorists were being gunned down by cops with first world guns all the time.

Terrorists are about the only people NOT scared of the joke-soldiers in the streets with big guns.

While I agree with your premise that better spies, better detection equipment, etc. is the front line, I think its silly to suggest that eyes with guns don't have SOME deterrent effect on how a terrorist might approach a target . . . . or leave a target and go onto something softer.

Cowperson

[Claeren]

Most guns are first world guns.

Which airports? By which terrorists? (Curiosity, not a challenge, i can see it in a then 3rd world Greece, Turkey, etc. But America, Canada, Japan, Britain?)


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.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Cowperson the problem is though if it is a suicide attack as from the news reports that I have read they think it to be how does the police officer on the street recognize and neutralize the terrorist in an efficient manner. If that individual doesn't realize who the terrorist is then they could have a M-4 Carbine on every street corner and you would be left with the same problem.

But if you want another example of police use of force with regards to terrorists just look at the Munich Olympics in 1972 where the police forces used definate force againt the terrorists (that comment was in responce to Claeren about no terrorist being directly confronted. Once again though the problem is how does one single out the terrorist. What is the body language of the common terrorist, how do they walk, how do they hold their head, how do they respond to questioning, what questions do they respond to, what is the typical method for delivering an explosive device, where is the device typically located. Find out who these terrorists are and it is really only then that the use of the large weapons would be an effective means in terms of deterance and the prevention of an attack. I mean if they are willing to die already?

[Claeren]

Munich games is a special event - that is different.

And to my knowledge the effective response was by special forces not by the glorified army-cop standing on the corner.

Obviously there should be heavily armed back-up available, but to think that the random army-cops on street corners could properly respond to a multi-faceted threat in need of heavy arms with any good effect and little collateral damage is silly.

Those army-cops are going to wait it out for the same backup to arrive that would have to arrive to assist normally equiped officers.


Claeren.

[Cowperson]

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

[Neeper]

That's funny. When I was in London 2 months ago, I noticed men in army uniform carrying semi automatic weapons as well. I thought it was pretty strange.