The War in Syria - ISIS et al

[P.K.]

Call me all the names you like.

 

There are 31,000 policemen in London - you are making a deal out of adding 10K soldiers to support them during an ongoing situation.

 

 

And how many of those 31,000 are routinely armed?

 

If you can't handle a situation with 31,000 police (even if only 1% are armed that is still 310 armed police) in the city of London, do you honestly think setting loose thousands of armed troops is going to make it better?

 

The Army is not designed for counter terrorism, it is designed to engage the enemies armies in warfare...the clue is in the name.

 

Also please explain how 10,000 troops would help in the ongoing situation in Brussels? You defeat terrorism with intelligence activities not mobbing the streets with armed troops.

 

The planks would be deployed simply to act as a deterrent. If they manage to drop a terrorist or two then that's a bonus.

 

Of course they couldn't fix bayonets but never mind...

[the stinking enigma]

I'm not sure it would Woolley. I think it would emphasize the threat and fear more

[rmanx]

But it would give comfort to the mass of the population in a crisis. Apart from the 1984 theorists and the terrorists of course.

 

How did that work out in NI? Or the streets of Kabul or Baghdad for that matter?

[gerrydandridge]

According to 2011 data, the chances of you being attacked by a terrorist are roughly 1 in 20 million. Compared to the likelihood of you drowning in a bathtub (1 in 800,000), losing your life in a car crash (1 in 19,000), dying in a building fire (1 in 99,000), or being struck by lightning (1 in 5,500,000).

 

You wouldn't think there would be a problem until you listen to the scaremongering media and the traumatised posters on social media.

 

What possible benefit would there be in psychologically traumatizing the sheep of imminent terrorist attack could there be? Are they perhaps looking for a swing in public opinion.

[rmanx]

 

Call me all the names you like.

 

There are 31,000 policemen in London - you are making a deal out of adding 10K soldiers to support them during an ongoing situation.

 

 

And how many of those 31,000 are routinely armed?

 

If you can't handle a situation with 31,000 police (even if only 1% are armed that is still 310 armed police) in the city of London, do you honestly think setting loose thousands of armed troops is going to make it better?

 

The Army is not designed for counter terrorism, it is designed to engage the enemies armies in warfare...the clue is in the name.

 

Also please explain how 10,000 troops would help in the ongoing situation in Brussels? You defeat terrorism with intelligence activities not mobbing the streets with armed troops.

 

The planks would be deployed simply to act as a deterrent. If they manage to drop a terrorist or two then that's a bonus.

 

Of course they couldn't fix bayonets but never mind...

 

 

What do you realistically think the likely hood of Joe Army even seeing a terrorist let alone get to shoot at one?

 

The logistics alone of trying to organise a focused response in a massive metropolitan area (like London) is a nightmare already, then throw troops into the mix...

[P.K.]

What do you realistically think the likely hood of Joe Army even seeing a terrorist let alone get to shoot at one?

 

The logistics alone of trying to organise a focused response in a massive metropolitan area (like London) is a nightmare already, then throw troops into the mix...

That's the whole idea of using the planks. They have their own command and control, transport, loggies etc etc. As for spotting a terrorist you just have to shoot at the person shooting at you. Worked all the time in places like Belfast...

[the stinking enigma]

No it didnt

[rmanx]

 

What do you realistically think the likely hood of Joe Army even seeing a terrorist let alone get to shoot at one?

 

The logistics alone of trying to organise a focused response in a massive metropolitan area (like London) is a nightmare already, then throw troops into the mix...

That's the whole idea of using the planks. They have their own command and control, transport, loggies etc etc. As for spotting a terrorist you just have to shoot at the person shooting at you. Worked all the time in places like Belfast...

 

 

But they are there to "support" the police, how will combat troops integrate into a domestic police forces remit?

[rmanx]

No it didn't

 

And then some...

[rmanx]

Even the British Army thinks its a bad idea...

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/26/british-army-reluctant-post-troops-uk-terror-attack

 

"The British army is resistant to the idea of deploying thousands of troops on to UK streets in the event of a terrorist attack on home soil, despite the perceived increase in threat from groups such as Islamic State.

Although the army has drawn up detailed contingency plans, it is understood to be reluctant to follow the example of the French military, which sent 10,000 troops on to the streets of Paris and elsewhere around the country after the Charlie Hebdo attack."

 

 

"Part of the argument against is that the army, having been cut down from 102,000 to 82,000, is already overstretched and that if 5,000 troops were to be deployed to the streets, it would leave a significant hole in the number available for military duties.

There could also be a morale problem after the initial novelty of being posted to the streets begins to wear off, with the attendant boredom of guard duty day after day.

But the biggest single objection is that once troops are committed to the streets, it is hard to pull them back. It would require the security services to declare that the threat level had dropped sufficiently to allow them to return to barracks."

[guzzi]

Call me all the names you like.

 

There are 31,000 policemen in London - you are making a deal out of adding 10K soldiers to support them during an ongoing situation.

 

 

And how many of those 31,000 are routinely armed?

 

If you can't handle a situation with 31,000 police (even if only 1% are armed that is still 310 armed police) in the city of London, do you honestly think setting loose thousands of armed troops is going to make it better?

 

The Army is not designed for counter terrorism, it is designed to engage the enemies armies in warfare...the clue is in the name.

 

Also please explain how 10,000 troops would help in the ongoing situation in Brussels? You defeat terrorism with intelligence activities not mobbing the streets with armed troops.

 

 

The police alone would not be able to cope, and unarmed police would be amongst those who became targets. Please use your imagination and think through what a marauding, Mumbai style attack would be like in the heart of London. It would be absolutely necessary to have the firepower and the numbers to deploy to multiple locations that come under attack.

 

The British Army does indeed train in anti-terrorist duties. Have a look at Army's web-site: http://www.army.mod.uk/operations-deployments/operations-deployments.aspx: . Note the reference to enforcing anti-terrorism measures.

 

​We are talking here about defending against armed terrorists intent on causing mass casualties. The awful truth is that the best we can probably hope for is to reduce the level of those casualties.

 

Of course we also require intelligence, why on earth do you think that we should use intelligence instead of planning defensive measures, when quite obviously both are vital?

[P.K.]

"Part of the argument against is that the army, having been cut down from 102,000 to 82,000, is already overstretched and that if 5,000 troops were to be deployed to the streets, it would leave a significant hole in the number available for military duties."

Like it.

 

They are absolutely right to take Osborne to task for cutting our Armed Forces. The day the accountants start to run the business is the first day the business starts to die a slow death.

[guzzi]

According to 2011 data, the chances of you being attacked by a terrorist are roughly 1 in 20 million. Compared to the likelihood of you drowning in a bathtub (1 in 800,000), losing your life in a car crash (1 in 19,000), dying in a building fire (1 in 99,000), or being struck by lightning (1 in 5,500,000).

 

You wouldn't think there would be a problem until you listen to the scaremongering media and the traumatised posters on social media.

 

What possible benefit would there be in psychologically traumatizing the sheep of imminent terrorist attack could there be? Are they perhaps looking for a swing in public opinion.

 

 

I have twice in my life come close to terrorist attack.

 

Firstly, the office I worked in had its windows blown in by a bomb placed by PIRA in June 1992.

 

Secondly, I was at Kings Cross at the time of the 7/7 terrorist attacks on London. I was evacuated from a Northern Line Train in a tunnel, joining the walking wounded from the Piccadilly Line train at the first landing in Kings Cross underground station, and making my way out with blackened, distraught and bleeding people.

 

My experience is not unusual for someone living and working in a large city, I think. Your thesis that the terrorist threat is some sort of invention designed to scare and control is balony, like most of what you post here.

[rmanx]

 

The British Army does indeed train in anti-terrorist duties. Have a look at Army's web-site: http://www.army.mod.uk/operations-deployments/operations-deployments.aspx: . Note the reference to enforcing anti-terrorism measures.

 

 

Parts of it may train in anti-terrorist duties. The vast majority don't.

 

Be interesting to see if there will be any anti-Tory protests while there are troops on the streets of London...

[rmanx]

 

According to 2011 data, the chances of you being attacked by a terrorist are roughly 1 in 20 million. Compared to the likelihood of you drowning in a bathtub (1 in 800,000), losing your life in a car crash (1 in 19,000), dying in a building fire (1 in 99,000), or being struck by lightning (1 in 5,500,000).

 

You wouldn't think there would be a problem until you listen to the scaremongering media and the traumatised posters on social media.

 

What possible benefit would there be in psychologically traumatizing the sheep of imminent terrorist attack could there be? Are they perhaps looking for a swing in public opinion.

 

 

I have twice in my life come close to terrorist attack.

 

Firstly, the office I worked in had its windows blown in by a bomb placed by PIRA in June 1992.

 

Secondly, I was at Kings Cross at the time of the 7/7 terrorist attacks on London. I was evacuated from a Northern Line Train in a tunnel, joining the walking wounded from the Piccadilly Line train at the first landing in Kings Cross underground station, and making my way out with blackened, distraught and bleeding people.

 

My experience is not unusual for someone living and working in a large city, I think. Your thesis that the terrorist threat is some sort of invention designed to scare and control is balony, like most of what you post here.

 

 

Some fella won the national lottery for the second time the other month. That is what is referred to as a statistically anomaly.

 

Pop quiz...How many people have been killed by terrorists on UK soil in the last 10 years (there is a follow up question)?