On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:56:27 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

Plus there are dirty bombs - nuclear devices that release massive
radiation rather than powerful explosions, chemical and biological
weapons of all kinds. They can be detonated almost anywhere.

I must admit that, when I first heard of the botched explosions of
this week, I did wonder if the small explosive combined with an odd
smell meant that some such agent had been used. Judging by the
chemical suits, the police clearly shared this concern, though
obviously it has not proven to be the case.

A dirty bomb (or even a large conventional bomb, perhaps of the nail
variety) in the middle of Oxford Street in the height of a shopping
Saturday, perhaps in the run up to Christmas, would probably be vastly
more destructive in terms of death and injury than a bomb on a train,
which by virtue of the long, thin nature of its target will be rather
limited in its effect. Several bombs, perhaps staggered to catch
panicking crowds running away from the first explosion, would be
worse. There is just about nothing that can be done to stop that,
even if it *was* a police state.

Thus, the only solution is much deeper than trying to catch the
perpetrators beforehand. As the IRA have already proven, if
terrorists want to bomb something, they will do so, just as if someone
wishes to steal a given car, however secure it may be, they will find
a means of doing so.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
(Neil Williams) wrote:
[1] Difficult with suicide bombers, of course. That said, the
security measures some people are suggesting might stop people being
blown up in Tube trains. It won't stop them being blown up while
waiting in a queue for security outside a busy Tube station, for
example, and it won't stop a suicide van bomb in the middle of Oxford
Street on a Saturday afternoon. If one avenue is closed to the
terrorists, they'll simply find another.


Football matches, cinemas, department stores, supermarkets,
restaurants, educational institutions ... they are all easy targets
for terror.

Slightly less easy, but very vulnerable to small airborne attacks with
light aircraft are ... our nuclear power stations.

Plus there are dirty bombs - nuclear devices that release massive
radiation rather than powerful explosions, chemical and biological
weapons of all kinds. They can be detonated almost anywhere.

So was it worth going to war in Iraq, Mr Bliar?

Well, about two million of us did march, begging him not to make this
mistake.
As Pandora's box, the lifted lid of Iraq revealed much that was much better
hid.

When's he going to resign, to be suddenly and unexpectedly assasinated by a
suicide bomber who in the future some time steps out of the shadows in
Umbria, or Sicily, or Paris...?

GF.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:37:51 UTC, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

: On 22 Jul 2005 12:06:03 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
: wrote:
:
: : 2. He who gives up liberty to gain security deserves neither liberty
: : nor security[2].
:
: I've never believed that. Does it mean that, because I have to use a
: PIN to get money from a hole in the wall, I deserve to have my account
: cleaned out?
:
: No, of course it doesn't. How does using a PIN infringe on your civil
: liberties?

Takes time, means I have to remember something. But if you want
another example,
do I deserve niether liberty nor security because I lock my front door
when I go out?

: It isn't an absolute statement, anyway. The point is that I would
: prefer to live in a society where unpleasant things happen
: occasionally, and where if/when caught the perpetrators of said
: unpleasant things are punished suitably[1], than in a police state.

Agreed completely. It's just the absolutist nature of the statement
that turns me off - and the fact that it's often touted by American
right wingers (I think it's a Franklin quote originally) to justify
their bizarre idea of a proper society. "Giving up liberty" to them
normally means "not carrying guns" ...

: (Similarly, I applaud the 15-year-old who overturned a curfew order
: recently....)

Yes. Well done that kid.

Ian

Ian Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:58:38 UTC, Guy Gorton
wrote:

: I have never understood this policy. Even in the armed forces a
: wounded prisoner may be a source of information and certainly is to
: the police. Firing at long range with inaccurate weapons there may be
: no choice, but firing at short range with reasonably accurate weapons
: there is.
: Is it to do with fear that the wounded person still might be able to
: fight back?

I think it's because the police in this country only rarely carry
weapons, and only use them when they believe there to be an immediate
risk to life (OK, that's the theory, and it doesn't always work like
that, but I still prefer it to having routinely armed police who think
"running away" is justification for shooting). In other words, police
guns are only supposed to be fired to stop someone else being killed,
and in that case it is logical to make as certain as possible.

Ian

As someone who was an armed officer for 16 of my 22 years service and
served in various specialist branches in relation to this, let me
explain.
The "new powers" being spoken about on the TV and in some papers is
nothing new. The same procedures are being employed. The reason we were
trained to shoot at the largest part of the body, the torso, (and this
includes the back as well as the front) was to make sure the target was
hit and stopped, we were always taught to fire at least twice, rapidly,
one to stop, one to avoid a reactive return shot. However, if a suspect
had a way of triggering any sort of device either remotely or strapped
to the body then there is only one way to prevent loss of life, be it
the officers or other people, is a number of head shots to disrupt the
central nervous system and prevent the trigger being activated. By
necesity this has to be done at close range when a pistol or carbine is
used. Therefore those officers yesterday, if they believed this man had
the potential to set off a bomb, were extremely brave in my view. I
suspect the person involved had "sussed" that MI5 walkers/plain clothes
officers were following and before he could be contained ran into the
station. Whatever, the inquest will be extremely thorough and I still
expect that we may yet find some armed forces personnel were involved.
Media comment about "recent advice from Israel" is total ********.
These techniques were being trained, to my knowledge, in 1981 when
Close Protection officers were receiving training from the SAS, RMP and
in my case the Royal Marines. Many remember the furore surrounding the
Gibralter shootings of known IRA members, whether it turned out there
was a bomb or not, if I had been briefed that these people had a bomb
planted in Gib, and may have had a trigger on their person, then I too
would have kept firing until I was sure they were dead. Brutally
simple, the training was succinctly put to us in this fashion as
(contrary to assertions some make) officers were not as readily
adaptable as the armed forces personnel. My instructor was plain, "Keep
squeezing rapidly until the **** stops twitching". There are no
niceties, this isn't a game, many people died two weeks ago because men
as brave as those at Stockwell yesterday were not in the right place at
the right time.

Ian Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 06:36:32 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

: However, without Iraq there would be one less grievance that can be
: used to inflame people. The way to deal with terrorism is to drain
: the poison, not to try and look macho with so-called security
: measures and the like.

Absolutely. I'm trying to think of a single case, anywhere, where a
significant terrorist problem has been resolved by force alone, and I
can't.

Ian

Speak to them by all means, but it is the support of the comunity they
come from being withdrawn that will beat them, and effective use of
force in conjunction with the dialogue. Of course at present we are
being treated to lots of tv coverage of armed officers all over London,
whilst the cameras seem to ignore the vast majority of other officers
nearby armed with nothing more than an extendable baton and a cs gas
canister. Tends to distort perceptions.

On 23 Jul 2005 01:16:05 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

There are no
niceties, this isn't a game, many people died two weeks ago because men
as brave as those at Stockwell yesterday were not in the right place at
the right time.

Discussion of the bravery, or otherwise, of those involved makes no
difference to the questions that are being asked.

So far I have an open mind, but as time goes on it looks more and
more like an operation which went horribly wrong. BTW I hope that is
not the case.

I will be interested to see what the brave new "independent"
complaints bunch make of this and whether they are any better than
their predecessors.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On 23 Jul 2005 01:31:34 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

Speak to them by all means, but it is the support of the comunity they
come from being withdrawn that will beat them,

So far so good, with the caution that stigmatising a whole community
is a good recruiting sergeant.

and effective use of force in conjunction with the dialogue.

I'm not convinced. Use of force in the Northern Ireland context
seemed only to generate more people keen to take on their enemy.
That seems to be the case whether it is Bloody Sunday or Gibraltar
that one is thinking of.

Things only got better, a relative term, when the rogues in
Westminster stopped their childish posturing about not speaking to
terrorists. I use the term childish posturing because the party
politicians concerned were delighted to speak to some terrorists and
even welcome them to the UK, such as the one involved in the murder
of 91 people by exploding a bomb in the King David Hotel in
Jerusalem. It is that sort of thing that causes many people to have
a low opinion of party politicians.

Of course at present we are
being treated to lots of tv coverage of armed officers all over London,
whilst the cameras seem to ignore the vast majority of other officers
nearby armed with nothing more than an extendable baton and a cs gas
canister. Tends to distort perceptions.

I think this may well be the case, though I watch little television
news. Newspapers also tend to pick their pictures with care.

However, if people are to be killed for (amongst other things)
"refus[ing] to obey police instructions", the words of Mr Blair
quoted in http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1670832005
then I think we need to consider two thoughts:

1) the terrorists have won

2) those responsible for training and drawing up procedures have
been watching too many films and need to experience "the real world"
rather more

I find it particularly disturbing to read in
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1669962005 that, "the
Met has been advised by Israeli security officials". These are the
people who appear to think that firing missiles from a helicopter at
a man in a wheelchair who left the same mosque at the same time
every day is a legitimate operation. Whatever one's views of Mr
Yassin's views and activities the photographs in reports like
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Special%20Reports/Shaikh%20Ahmed%20Yassin's%20Assassination.htm
are unlikely to do anything to calm the situation. I imagine the
Israeli operation was a great boost to those organising attacks on
Israel. Are these the people we should be taking advice from?




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

wrote:



Ian Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:58:38 UTC, Guy Gorton
wrote:

: I have never understood this policy. Even in the armed forces a
: wounded prisoner may be a source of information and certainly is to
: the police. Firing at long range with inaccurate weapons there may be
: no choice, but firing at short range with reasonably accurate weapons
: there is.
: Is it to do with fear that the wounded person still might be able to
: fight back?

I think it's because the police in this country only rarely carry
weapons, and only use them when they believe there to be an immediate
risk to life (OK, that's the theory, and it doesn't always work like
that, but I still prefer it to having routinely armed police who think
"running away" is justification for shooting). In other words, police
guns are only supposed to be fired to stop someone else being killed,
and in that case it is logical to make as certain as possible.

Ian

As someone who was an armed officer for 16 of my 22 years service and
served in various specialist branches in relation to this, let me
explain.
The "new powers" being spoken about on the TV and in some papers is
nothing new. The same procedures are being employed. The reason we were
trained to shoot at the largest part of the body, the torso, (and this
includes the back as well as the front) was to make sure the target was
hit and stopped, we were always taught to fire at least twice, rapidly,
one to stop, one to avoid a reactive return shot. However, if a suspect
had a way of triggering any sort of device either remotely or strapped
to the body then there is only one way to prevent loss of life, be it
the officers or other people, is a number of head shots to disrupt the
central nervous system and prevent the trigger being activated. By
necesity this has to be done at close range when a pistol or carbine is
used. Therefore those officers yesterday, if they believed this man had
the potential to set off a bomb, were extremely brave in my view. I
suspect the person involved had "sussed" that MI5 walkers/plain clothes
officers were following and before he could be contained ran into the
station. Whatever, the inquest will be extremely thorough and I still
expect that we may yet find some armed forces personnel were involved.
Media comment about "recent advice from Israel" is total ********.
These techniques were being trained, to my knowledge, in 1981 when
Close Protection officers were receiving training from the SAS, RMP and
in my case the Royal Marines. Many remember the furore surrounding the
Gibralter shootings of known IRA members, whether it turned out there
was a bomb or not, if I had been briefed that these people had a bomb
planted in Gib, and may have had a trigger on their person, then I too
would have kept firing until I was sure they were dead. Brutally
simple, the training was succinctly put to us in this fashion as
(contrary to assertions some make) officers were not as readily
adaptable as the armed forces personnel. My instructor was plain, "Keep
squeezing rapidly until the **** stops twitching". There are no
niceties, this isn't a game, many people died two weeks ago because men
as brave as those at Stockwell yesterday were not in the right place at
the right time.


Wise words. Thank you.

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:16:05 UTC, wrote:

: As someone who was an armed officer for 16 of my 22 years service and
: served in various specialist branches in relation to this, let me
: explain.

Thanks - that's really interesting.

: Therefore those officers yesterday, if they believed this man had
: the potential to set off a bomb, were extremely brave in my view.

I agree. I'd hate to have to make that sort of decision in the time
they would have had.

Ian

Of course at present we are
being treated to lots of tv coverage of armed officers all over London,
whilst the cameras seem to ignore the vast majority of other officers
nearby armed with nothing more than an extendable baton and a cs gas
canister. Tends to distort perceptions.

I think this may well be the case, though I watch little television
news. Newspapers also tend to pick their pictures with care.


They certainly do, but there are still a lot of very heavily armed
officers around London who you can't miss if you spend any time there.
I feel very threatened by them, and I don't even look Asian.

(Yes, taking advice from Israel on how to avoid terrorism is like
taking advice from McDonalds on a healthy lifestyle.)