Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 54 Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1010 times:
The government can't close anything down! They can ask, and they can be(and have been) told to bugger off.
Like anyone would get genuinely confused anyway.
I think it's quite amusing (including the George Bush references, especially put in for those lacking any sense of humour); they were talking about this on the radio the other morning, and comparing it to Protect and Survive from the late seventies/early eighties. It was deeply disconcerting to wake up to the sound of that "Government Information film" that scared the living daylights out of my generation as kids.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
JGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 994 times:
Hehe ! The parody site is MUCH better than the genuine one. Bloody stupid government, honestly - who do they think they're kidding ? Its like tanks parked outside LHR T4, hoping to prevent missile attacks on aircraft - NOBODY BELIEVES YOU, you lying scumbags.
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 54 Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 972 times:
I flew out of Heathrow that morning, JGPH1A. Arrived at the airport at about 6am to go to Warsaw, and didn't know anything about it until I got to the hotel as the army turned up around half an hour later. I was quite pleased about that really. Slightly disconcerting to say the least.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
JGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 969 times:
It must have been a complete pain in the ass for pax trying to fly that day. I've been at LHR when they've evacuated terminals because of bomb-threats and such before, these things happen, and people do their best and don't complain by and large. Nobody minds the authorities genuinely doing their job and acting soberly and sensibly to mitigate threats - its when they come over all testosterone and start throwing their weight about that people get annoyed.
777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 932 times:
That was blatantly done to soften up the public so the government could get the support needed for their illegal war and silence public dissent. The timing was perfect.
There was no more of a threat on that day than any other, it was all just a show.
Where has the threat gone now?
If there were bogeymen with missiles, and they weren't caught, isn't the threat still there? Where are the tanks now?
No I don't think it was done to muster up support for the war.
That would require a concious cover-up and invention of a threat - history has shown governments aren't good at that. Iraq was different because many people did say Saddam was a threat. Arguments against the war rely mainly on semantics.
There ARE threats against Britain, I hope you realise this. While I think the war on Iraq was unnessecary, don't take the view that Britain is safe from terror threats - it's not.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12972 posts, RR: 79 Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 917 times:
The parody leaflet was funny.
However, the deployment around LHR last year was NOT for show.
You see in real life, unlike in James Bond, Spooks or Hollywood, most attacks are thwarted by the presence of security forces, not after a shoot out.
I suppose a cancelled attack does not count?
Funny how many who say that more police on the beat prevents general crime, but the same, if more targeted principle, somehow cannot work for terrorism.
Who'd have bitched the loudest if a SAM had been launched at LHR?
This has been a concern for 30 years (after a PLO cell tried to get SAM-7s into Rome and LHR in 1974), troop deployments started then and are not so uncommon, however I realise that this is looking at things in depth so invalid for the mass media opinion formers.
You have to remain open indeed and sensible, not to lapse into knee jerk reactions, but that goes for both sides of the argument.
JGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 901 times:
Re: However, the deployment around LHR last year was NOT for show.
I'm sure it wasn't just ALL for show, however deploying armoured vehicles outside the terminals, even to a non-military mind such as my own, does not seem a sensible way to thwart attacks that would HAVE to come from somewhere else. I'm pretty sure those vehicles outside T4 were there mostly for news impact, after all putting them out by the Staines Reservoir is far less visible and therefore far less likely to make the 6 o'clock news.
Ben From Switzerland, joined Aug 1999, 1391 posts, RR: 51 Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 896 times:
You beat me to that response, JGPH1A.
I fail to see how a tank outside T4 will prevent a SAM attack.
Within about a mile of the airport wouldn't be a very good place to launch a missile anyway. In only a 3 mile or so radius of LHR there are any number of completely deserted, ideal launch points for an attack. All the tanks and soldiers in the UK can't cover even that small area.
There may well have been some sort of minor threat, but the ideal timing and the opportunity to whip the media into a frenzy was too good for the government to pass up.
777236ER, I fully understand that there are threats against this country. However they are no worse now than at any time in my lifetime. This time the paranoia is being carefully managed to manipulate public opinion.
This booklet will probably only appeal to bored housewives who watch far too much daytime TV and Sky News 'analysis'.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12972 posts, RR: 79 Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 891 times:
How do you know where the troops were mostly deployed, aside from brief glimpse on the news?
Did you drive around in concentric circles away from LHR counting troops?
Most were not in the central area.
I only live here of course, only have colleagues who were privy to BA operational meetings about security around this period, what do I know compared to a quick news soundbite?
SAM's were suspected of being one method of attack, but not the only one, ever heard of suicide bombers in cars for example?
Yes it was to create an impression, or deterrence, on the surface, but there was rather more to it than what you saw on the news.
As I said, I've lived and worked around here a long time, troop deployments are not as unusual as you clearly think, just that this time there was more press attention.
Remember at the same time BA Kenya flights were stopped, the same country where AQ did launch SAMs at a 757 a few months before.