Possible attack on heathrow

[maddogx 13]

Nevertheless, the gov should be doing that kind of stuff itself and not using documents from the internet.

[interstat 0]

Yeah O.K if it was accurate thats fine. good work by the postgrad. But my point is the way Blair and his govt presented it to the public as some great dossier that the MI6 had come up with which was impecably put together.

Too many times this government has tried to present things to the public here in a crafty way. Luckily, we are becoming use to the wyly ways Mr Blair and his croonies work.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 12 2003,21:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But that's the point I'm making -- it WAS a government researched document.  It's just that a source used in the research wasn't credited properly (assuming APA standards apply to intelligence briefs?).  It doesn't affect the accuracy of the material presented, and accuracy is all that counts in intel.<span id='postcolor'>

The biggest point was that they used facts from a document that is over 10 years old and presented it as 'current intel'.

[interstat 0]

If its 10 years old occording to denoir then that's dodgy...

But as I say I don't doubt Iraq has got weapons of mass destruction. Is he more likely to use them if he's attacked or not attacked?

As for Heathrow, well maybe Bin Laden could level it then we would have some free space to build all thos house Prescott wants to build down south.

[E6Hotel 0]

Point taken, and I'm setting myself up to be shot down here 'cause I don't have the passages in front of me and can't remember exactly what was in them, but: If a source published in 1993 says that "x" happened in 1992 and I look at a source published in 2003, won't it say the same thing?

Semper Fi

[interstat 0]

'If a source published in 1993 says that "x" happened in 1992 and I look at a source published in 2003, won't it say the same thing?,

Not neccesarily, is it the same source as in 1993. Things change over a ten year period, maybe events have happened that make a source in 1993 not valid in 2003.

If I have a report on an army base in Iraq from 1993 and publish it in 2003 as credible up to date evidence and have not checked to see if the facts are correct from 10yrs ago then that's not good intel, especially by a national govt.

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MadDogX @ Feb. 12 2003,21:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Quote (MrMilli @ Feb. 12 2003,18:57)

It would look a lot better taking out a empty light armoured vehicle of three crew when people are in it, than hitting a plane with 160 odd in it.

You obviously don't get it.

<span id='postcolor'>

I think he was referring to MrMilli and he is right so. The terrorists aren't interested in attacking military targets. They want to scare people, and the best way to do that is target the people that are the most vulnerable: innocent civilians!<span id='postcolor'>

Yes I know that, but think of the embarrasment if some plane gets taken out then a bunch of armoured vehicles that were supposed to be preventing it?

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Maybe all that security payed off.....

Grenade Scare

[Mister Frag 0]

Now, if only some other countries got with the program and beefed up their security so that people don't waltz through security with live hand grenades to begin with, we'd get somewhere...

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Feb. 14 2003,02:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now, if only some other countries got with the program and beefed up their security so that people don't waltz through security with live hand grenades to begin with, we'd get somewhere...<span id='postcolor'>

I cant believe the guys luggage made it through security with the grenade still in there. I mean, it's one of those items that on an xray will pretty much be instantly identifiable!

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Well then, Britian shouldn't be deploying tanks around its airports, rather they should get better trained personal who can identify what a hand grenade looks like

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Feb. 14 2003,02:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well then, Britian shouldn't be deploying tanks around its airports, rather they should get better trained personal who can identify what a hand grenade looks like <span id='postcolor'>

Actually, the Brits found the grenade allright. Pretty lucky too, since it was just a random customs check of the guy's luggage. The real problem lies in Venezuela, where he boarded the plane. It's hard to believe that the National Guard takes care of airport security there.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Feb. 14 2003,11:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The real problem lies in Venezuela, where he boarded the plane. It's hard to believe that the National Guard takes care of airport security there.<span id='postcolor'>

Thats a good point, many countries probably don't have what could be considered 'top notch security'. I doubt the airports in most 3rd world countries exactly have advanced X-Ray machines.....

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Feb. 14 2003,11:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Feb. 14 2003,11:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The real problem lies in Venezuela, where he boarded the plane. It's hard to believe that the National Guard takes care of airport security there.<span id='postcolor'>

Thats a good point, many countries probably don't have what could be considered 'top notch security'. I doubt the airports in most 3rd world countries exactly have advanced X-Ray machines.....<span id='postcolor'>

Of course not, after all Al-Qaida could use the contents of those machines to build dirty nukes

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Feb. 14 2003,13:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Feb. 14 2003,111)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Feb. 14 2003,11:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The real problem lies in Venezuela, where he boarded the plane. It's hard to believe that the National Guard takes care of airport security there.<span id='postcolor'>

Thats a good point, many countries probably don't have what could be considered 'top notch security'. I doubt the airports in most 3rd world countries exactly have advanced X-Ray machines.....<span id='postcolor'>

Of course not, after all Al-Qaida could use the contents of those machines to build dirty nukes <span id='postcolor'>

rofl

[Jinef 2]

The APCs are just to show the public that the Army's there, unless they see a big green tank (no not a green goddess! they don't suspect anything.

The real security put up is snipers covering possible launching areas in flight path and army guys patrolling with the police inside airport looking for suspicous people! (I know that sounds stupid)

[Jinef 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 12 2003,09:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is this really necesarry or just another try to convince public ?

Here in germany we have tight security at airports, too. But I think we have the smarter one...

We are controlling the airport region with helicopters equipped with thermal sights and full NV capacity. No need for tanks.<span id='postcolor'>

Well we would usually try to use helis as well, we have a few police ones but the RAF is too stretched out at the moment and the Army air corps pilots don't know how to get in a helicopter let alone fly on.....and of course they are on ships heading to the gulf.

I suspect the threat is strong enough to worry a few people but the goverment probably has played it up slightly just to add dramatic effect!

But honestly i'm not much of a gun person and for some reason it just looks odd to see the police with MP5s and then a soldier with a LSW! I doubt it's clever to use one of those things in a crowded airport.

The Tanks can also be useful, true they are taking up valuable parking space outside the airport but when overwatching a large area with thermal imaging they can provide good recon info. Plus i wouldn't want to fly a helicopter in observation pattern over an area with lot's of guys running around with redeyes/stingers/SA7s even if they are 'political creatures'!

[vade_101 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well we would usually try to use helis as well, we have a few police ones but the RAF is too stretched out at the moment and the Army air corps pilots don't know how to get in a helicopter let alone fly on.....and of course they are on ships heading to the gulf.<span id='postcolor'>

The army air corps operates the vast majority of the "light" Helicopters that the UK Armed Forces possess, all those Lynxs, Gazelles that would actually be of use in a situation like this.

Also the AAC consists of 7 regiments and 5 "independent flights". Only one regiment is going to Iraq (3rd Regiment Army Air Corps). So there are plenty still around.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But honestly i'm not much of a gun person and for some reason it just looks odd to see the police with MP5s and then a soldier with a LSW! I doubt it's clever to use one of those things in a crowded airport.<span id='postcolor'>

Now, if you are such a gun person you should know thats the job the LSW is designed for. it is a superb weapon for use in a built-up enviroment where accuracy and range are key. its in the "fire support" role that it struggles. and you'd not want someone laying down supressing fire in a crowded airport now would you.

[Jinef 2]

About the AAC - just a bit of good ol' forces rivalry

The LSW - if my understanding is correct the LSW fires the 5.56 round which means that it has quite a bit of penetration and might hit someone behind the guy you are shooting through. While the MP5s have 9mm and they don't have much penetration power (well enough to kill you but this is me trying to express my limited knowledge of ballistics)

But i'm sure they would kill someone and that is all that matters i suppose.

[Renagade 0]

The lsw looks just like an sa80 with extended barrel and bipod and a few titbits.

[vade_101 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The lsw looks just like an sa80 with extended barrel and bipod and a few titbits.<span id='postcolor'>

Thats because it is. But that does give it surprising amount of extra range, and accuracy.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The LSW - if my understanding is correct the LSW fires the 5.56 round which means that it has quite a bit of penetration and might hit someone behind the guy you are shooting through. <span id='postcolor'>

I doubt it. If you hit any average person in the centre of mass, I doubt there would be any 'over penetration'. Besides, those guys are only there as a show of force.

Why do they call it an LSW? REAL support weapons are belt fed.

Tyler

[vade_101 0]

I belive the idea was to have a whole "family" of weapons based on the SA-80 (like the AK-47 has), Carbine, Rifle, LSW .. but it never really happened.

The primary "op" that drove the development of the LSW seems to have been Northern Ireland (where a hybrid MG/Sniper Rifle makes a great deal of sense) however, it does struggle to provide any sort of surpressing fire .. hence the British Army is trialing a number of LMGs

[Renagade 0]

then why didnt they outfit most of them with lsws when going to fight at range and leave the sa80s for urrban conflicts ?

[MrMilli 0]

LSW's

some old general missed his bren gun and decided there should be something to replace it.

It was never designed to replace the GPMG and it hasn't.

"Fighting at range"

Lining out and exchanging ammunition isn't a good way to win

you have to get in close

'cos them jerries don't like it up 'em.

(does stabby stabby motion with bayonet)

The LSW is meant to sit at the back and fire at the bad guys to keep them down, while everyone else runs up and introduces them to the afterlife.