Jump to content

Munich shooting


skygod

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, skygod said:

"Two armed men who took hostages at a church near Rouen in northern France are dead and one hostage has been killed, police and media have said.

The hostage-takers were reported to have been holding between four and six people at the church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray.

A priest and two nuns, as well as churchgoers, were among those held, local media said.

France 3 television said a number of shots had been heard."

 

Fancy that - innocent hostages' lives saved by armed policemen!

Sadly, the poor priest had his throat cut.

Too bad we couldn't have had a reasonable discussion on the subject without it descending into ridicule.

 

And would the priest have had a better chance of survival if one of those in the church had been armed?

Listen, I'm not saying that armed police never take down bad guys. Of course they do. Sometimes. But in the case of the Orlando nightclub shootings, it was too late. They let people be executed whilst they waited outside for the guy to kill himself or give up.

What I am saying is that police are generally not numerous enough (because it would be unaffordable to have the numbers required) to respond quickly enough to every such scenario. Just because they occasionally respond quickly enough (simply down to the law of averages) does not mean that the situation could not have been bettered, or that you ignore all the other times when they simply can't do so, or won't do so, because they won't put themselves in the firing line.

If one person in that church had been armed, would the priest had a better chance of NOT having his head chopped off? Of course he would have. And do you think that the idiots that done this would have been as likely to do so, knowing that the public can carry/conceal weapons? No, they chose an easy target (a priest and nuns, most likely elderly) because they knew they couldn't defend themselves against such an attack.

It's funny that France/Germany are suffering such attacks every week now, yet rarely do such things happen in Switzerland. I wonder why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brianstorm said:

If what happened in France this morning happened in the UK,  the two terrorists  would still be in that church killing people.  Instead,  the French took them out very quickly,  because they had the capability to do so.  

Like they did in Nice, you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Nice attacks: Can a lorry attack ever be stopped?

dominiccasciani.png
Dominic CascianiHome affairs correspondent
  • 15 July 2016
  •  
  • From the section UK
A truck smashing into a truck barrier ramp Image captionTesting a barrier: Just one of the options to stop a lorry attack

Can an attack like Nice ever be stopped? 

If we want to live in a free and open society, then no security infrastructure could ever remove all the risks. 

But there are really effective methods to stop lorry attacks and to protect public spaces. I'm among a small group of journalists fortunate enough to have seen one of the key methods tested, quite literally, to destruction. 

If the method I saw in 2009 had been in place at Nice, it could and probably would, have stopped a lorry. More on that in a moment. 

The US, Israel and the UK are among the nations that have led the thinking on protecting public spaces with the development of measures ranging from in-your-face massive barriers to incredibly subtle changes in the street scene that you and I would barely notice. 

Anyone who visits these nations' capitals will be in no doubt about the physical security that surrounds critical buildings. Our Parliament is ringed by massive black barriers. The area around the New York Stock Exchange is surrounded by anti-vehicle ramps and any visitor to Israel doesn't need to be told what security looks like. 

'Target hardening'

With careful planning, cities can be "hardened" by the creative use of special barriers and bollards capable of withstanding direct impacts - stopping a lorry from reaching its goal. 

Does this engineering and other related measures turn a city into a fortress? 

Let's go back to the example of Parliament. The large black barriers that surround the Palace of Westminster are obvious. 

They're designed to stop a lorry strike at high speed and I saw a prototype of them tested in 2009. 

Stopped: Counter-terrorism truck test witnessed by the BBC in 2009 Image captionStopped: Counter-terrorism lorry test witnessed by the BBC in 2009

You can watch the video of that exercise on the old version of our website - although it may not work on modern smartphones. 

But less than 100m from Parliament lies Whitehall, the home of many of the UK government's ministries. There are no large black barriers there. Well that's not strictly true. The barriers are there - you just can't see them because they've been built into the architecture of a street scene that allows the free movement of pedestrians but would stop a lorry attack. 

An anti-truck bomb wall in Whitehall Image captionWalls in Whitehall: This will stop a lorry too

Now, governments are obviously going to protect critical infrastructure - but what makes the Nice attack so frightening is that it was in a location far from the capital where people were out enjoying themselves. If attackers shift their focus from "national" landmarks to what's known in the security jargon as "soft targets", how can anywhere ever be safe?

Dedicated advisers

The UK government's approach has been to have a team of dedicated police officers, engineers, architects and other experts who advise everyone from city councils through to Premiership football clubs about how to reduce the risk of vehicle-borne attacks to crowded locations. 

There is planning guidance and the Royal Institute of British Architects has its own dedicated advice on designing for counter-terrorism without turning the nation into Alcatraz. 

When local police counter-terrorism security advisers assess a location, they don't just say, "pour a load of concrete and hope for the best". Each recommended measure for a UK location has been tested to internationally-recognised criteria, including an official British Standards Institute specification

So, depending on the specific location, many of the barriers increasingly built into our landscape have been tested to see if they can withstand a head-on impact from a seven-tonne lorry driven at 50mph (80 kmh).

A woman looks at a truck stand guarded by the police on the Promenade des Anglais seafront in the French Riviera town of Nice on 15 July 2016Image copyrightAFP Image captionOpen spaces: British government and allies have invested thousands of hours thinking how to protect them

The most well-known example of that kind of planning in action can be found at Arsenal's Emirates' Stadium, where giant letters spelling out the club name are, in fact, also a massive shield. If a Nice-like lorry attack were attempted at the stadium, the letters would absorb the energy of the collision. In all likelihood, the lorry would simply smash itself to pieces. Other public locations around the UK have been similarly hardened. 

The giant Arsenal lettersImage copyrightALAMY Image captionEmirates Stadium: Letters are an anti-attack measure

Now, fairly obviously, nobody wants to see massive Parliament-style black barriers on the seafront of seaside resorts. But, again, there are measures that can reduce the risk. Temporary road barriers made of large reinforced concrete blocks can be deployed at public events within hours and can even be securely anchored into the ground with the minimum of disturbance to the landscape. 

Lesser measures, such as a series of complex chicanes, may be enough to thwart a lorry attack long enough for the police to arrive. 

These kinds of measures are regularly seen at major political events, such as party conferences or summits - but less so at public events. 

Could a Nice attack happen in the UK? Fairly obviously, yes, which is why the UK has guides for event organisers, urging them to think through how they mitigate the risks of becoming a target for terrorism. 

The key guide for major outdoor events runs to 81 pages, and it starts by urging organisers to answer some key questions: 

  • Identity the threat - that means take some proper advice from people in the know
  • Establish what you want to protect and what's vulnerable 
  • Identity the security improvements that would offer protection 
  • Review and rehearse to make sure you've got it right 

So when the French authorities investigate the full circumstances of how this lorry attacker was able to cause such devastation, they will have to ask themselves whether they have a system in place that can prepare and protect for such an atrocity.

^^^ Combined with police officers properly equipped and trained in the use of non-lethal weapons, is more than adequate for our security needs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brianstorm said:

I cannot fathom why nothing has really happened in this country, have we been lucky? do they not hate us as much as they do the French and Germans? Do we have nicer Muslims? Do we have fewer immigrants?  Why are we not facing similar attacks?

7/7, Glasgow Airport, Lee Rigby, Asad Shah. We've had our fair share of it.

Every time a major disaster happens eg. George Square, the first thing TPTB try to eliminate is a terrorist link.

Edited by Fankle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brianstorm said:

What's your point? Its a very different incident, in Nice the cops shot the driver of the lorry, if in the UK I hope we would have been able to do the same,  unlikely as quickly as the French did,  this morning, the police stormed the place and shot the guys early doors. 

 

Right, okay.

Glad you agree that because it's impossible to try and gauge outcomes of such events, and that terrorists will simply change their tactics to suit the situations they find themselves in, that simply plonking armed police on every street corner is pointless.

It worked in France today because there were only SIX people in the church when the attack happened. Had there been 200 folk in that church, you can bet your arse they wouldn't have gone in all guns blazing to kill the bad guys.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brianstorm said:

I cannot fathom why nothing has really happened in this country, have we been lucky? do they not hate us as much as they do the French and Germans? Do we have nicer Muslims? Do we have fewer immigrants?  Why are we not facing similar attacks?

We do have fewer immigrants, yes. Far fewer than Germany and France, certainly. And it's far more difficult for the bad guys to just stream across our borders without papers, since we're on an island. Not impossible, but certainly more difficult.

Why try crossing the channel to blow up something in London (which they undoubtedly hate) when you can cause just as much terror in Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Brussels etc. with far less risk of you being caught?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Brianstorm said:

Asad Shah was killed by a taxi driver from Bradford who has no links to terrorist organisations whatsoever.  The whole of Scotland was up in arms,  well they were for a couple of days when they thought it was a white fella and a racist attack,  as soon as they found out it was a fellow Muslim who killed him for disrespecting the prophet Muhammed (f**king ridiculous even typing that) they for some reason stopped giving a s**t.  

Anyway,  France,  Germany,  Belgium. Have all has several attacks in the past two years,  in fact several the past two weeks,  those were ages ago and long before the recent migrant crisis the rise of isis.  Poor comparison.

Disagree there. If anything the outpouring increased after it became apparent what happened.

I do agree other countries have suffered worse recently. However as rsheddon said that could be down to geography, or maybe good intelligence on our part, or just plain luck. It certainly helps that it's much more difficult to smuggle the kind of weaponry used in most of these attacks into Great Britain.

Incidents like these although more frequent recently are still very rare. The chances of one of the small band of Syrians on Bute turning into a suicidal jihadi will be very slim. FFS a guy got stabbed 40 times in Stevenston in broad daylight yesterday. You're far more likely to get done in by a Scottish ned than an immigrant refugee...

 

Edited by Fankle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brianstorm said:

Because most of them have already been settled in the country they've attacked for several years. What's to stop some Syrian in Rothsey getting a lorry and smashing it into a few folk shouting big ally akbars gonny get ye big ally akbars gonny get you. It would be pretty effective.  

*Rothesay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Brianstorm said:

I cannot fathom why nothing has really happened in this country, have we been lucky? do they not hate us as much as they do the French and Germans? Do we have nicer Muslims? Do we have fewer immigrants?  Why are we not facing similar attacks?

An expert (what do they know?) on the telly said that Britain's deradicalisation programmes were very important in reducing the likelihood of attacks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Brianstorm said:

I don't agree,  I think that as soon as they realise that the situation is a terrorist attack,  ie the aim is to cause the biggest loss of life,  then they will storm it quickly, and effectively. Obviously they need to work that out first and that it's not a looney that wants money or that's split up with his bird and lost the plot.  Obviously they'd deploy different tactics in that situation.  

Like in Orlando, you mean? Why should the tactics be any different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, skygod said:

An expert (what do they know?) on the telly said that Britain's deradicalisation programmes were very important in reducing the likelihood of attacks.

 

I'm not an expert but, I'm going to suggest the UK's Northern Ireland experience has helped prepare the intelligence community in identifying people likely to be radicalised, an awareness of potential targets, monitoring communications, covert surveillance and infiltration of its own citizens. I'd be very surprised if places like mosques and areas with large concentrations of Muslims weren't under routine surveillance. While shooting the occasional knife-wielding maniac might satisfy some people's bloodlust, identifying the leaders spreading the idea of jihad, will be more effective in combating terrorism in the long run. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Brianstorm said:

Because Switzerland are pussies who would stand bye and watch isis set up a caliphate across the Arab world.  We won't.  Nothing weird about it. 

US/UK Foreign Policy created ISIS, ffs.

Every time we intervene in the middle-east, we make things worse, not better. 

Has the last 80-odd years pissing about in the desert, messing around with tribes and their religious fanaticism that we don't even remotely understand, has it made things, better, or worse?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said anything about creating the ideology? I was talking about the creation of the modern caliphate nutjobs and the conditions that have been created to allow them to prosper, not the idea, ffs .

I'm afraid that whether you like it or not, USA/UK military-intervention provided the instability/vacuum required for ISIS to spring up and take control of certain areas. 

That's not pathetic, it's factual.

This has nothing to do with the brave men and women that serve gallantly on the front line, and certainly isn't a criticism of them, or their actions, but the political decisions taken by 'experts' and continual sticking-plaster 'fixes' that have only succeeded in making the middle-east less stable.

Sometimes, the best thing to do if there isn't a clear path is absolutely nothing . To be seen to be doing something for the hell of it often only makes problems worse, not better.  Can you imagine the further devastation right now had we invaded Syria and toppled Assad in 2013, as was the plan by supposed political experts?!

Edited by rshedden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, rshedden said:

Who said anything about creating the ideology? I was talking about the creation of the modern caliphate nutjobs and the conditions that have been created to allow them to prosper, not the idea, ffs .

I'm afraid that whether you like it or not, USA/UK military-intervention provided the instability/vacuum required for ISIS to spring up and take control of certain areas. 

That's not pathetic, it's factual.

This has nothing to do with the brave men and women that serve gallantly on the front line, and certainly isn't a criticism of them, or their actions, but the political decisions taken by 'experts' and continual sticking-plaster 'fixes' that have only succeeded in making the middle-east less stable.

Sometimes, the best thing to do if there isn't a clear path is absolutely nothing . To be seen to be doing something for the hell of it often only makes problems worse, not better.  Can you imagine the further devastation right now had we invaded Syria and toppled Assad in 2013, as was the plan by supposed political experts?!

I agree, with hindsight we should have left Saddam and Gaddafi in charge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The options in Syria are:

 

a) Assad

OR

b) ISIS

 

That's it. Pick one. No amount of unicorn-s**tting-skittles fairytale-thinking will change that. No one is saying, "We love option A!", but it's certainly the 'least worst option'. Like leaving Saddam in charge would've been. Hindsight's a wonderful thing, of course, but we now have a lot of evidence to suggest that our meddling has made things a lot worse, so what in f**k's name are we doing still sticking our oar in in the Middle-East? It's a form of madness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, rshedden said:

The options in Syria are:

 

a) Assad

OR

b) ISIS

 

That's it. Pick one. No amount of unicorn-s**tting-skittles fairytale-thinking will change that. No one is saying, "We love option A!", but it's certainly the 'least worst option'. Like leaving Saddam in charge would've been. Hindsight's a wonderful thing, of course, but we now have a lot of evidence to suggest that our meddling has made things a lot worse, so what in f**k's name are we doing still sticking our oar in in the Middle-East? It's a form of madness.

Agree completely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...