Heathrow - Troops in to guard against terrorism.

[Used Ink]

Another day drinking coffee..Waiting for something to happen, when an article catches my eye about Heathrow.

Now then, the paragraph says....

"Sending in the Army to guard Heathrow is the first time troops have been deployed on home security duties since just after the IRA tried to mortar-bomb the runways at the airport nine years ago"

Are the troops there to protect from a terrorist attack?
I think the answer is yes.

Therefore, one can deduce that the IRA are recognised to be a terrorist outfit by the home office, (9 years ago) officially and in public.

They aren't terrorists, their acts are for a 'cause', I think was the excuse why Belfast isn't being bombed.

OK Dubya, after Baghdad, next stop Belfast and get that shambles sorted once and for all.

Oh, by the way, that nail bomb I'm about to throw, isn't really there.......right! I'm just waving to a mate!

Its the cheeky accent that gets them away with it.

[SPIT]

Hi
I go to S Ireland a lot to see relatives there and I would lovew to see their reaction if they heard ther were B!s over Dublin or B52s over Dungannon ??:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :)

[steamchicken]

How do you get "recognised" as a terrorist outfit? Is there a ceremony? WTF else did the Home Office ever consider the IRA to be? Don't talk rubbish. It would be very, very silly to think that using the word terrorist means that Ireland should be bombed (bomb what? who? where? to what purpose?), especially as Paddy and Co. (Bombs) Ltd. appear to have ceased trading. Just another troll from Used.

[Proone]

Well at least those Al Qaeda submarines in and around London now have somethng to worry about, mighty hunter'll get 'em!


hhmmm..................

[rivetjoint]

Assuming it was a member of the kipper fleet that was tasked with the "communications aircraft" role the Beeb described.

[Proone]

If you are inferring it might be one with a little less length, shouldn't they all be heading for fun in a sandpit?

Can't the mighty Northolt fixed gear fleet cope?

[Used Ink]

Hi again steamchicken,

You are quite right when you said "How do you get "recognised" as a terrorist outfit?"

In my experience they always wear a balaclava or shcmag, (never could spell it properly).
But then again, if you are wearing either of those bits of kit, then you would be recognised as a terrorist, but not 'recognised'.

So, you would not be recognised as a terrorist outfit, but your clothing would be.;)

But when you say, "WTF else did the Home Office ever consider the IRA to be? Don't talk rubbish "

I think you'll find that the Home Office statement, made about 2 weeks after 11/9, was that the troubles in NI were not terrorist related, but civil unrest and a just cause for the beliefs of the affected communities.

Now, you and I, personally, know that terrorism is involved, so why don't they?
Who's talking rubbish??:confused:

As for trolls..........just remember to look under bridges before you cross them, unless of course you're the biggest goat around!!!
:p

[Blue_ranger]

The home office must be correct.

When you consider that the citizens of the USA have been giving millions of their hard earned dollars for the past 30 odd years to the “cause”, there can’t be any way that they would have been funding a “TERRORIST” organization, now is there?

A war against terrorism should be that. They should stop dressing it up and just sort it out.

[Scud-U-Like]

I thought the size and nature of the deployment of troops at Heathrow set a very interesting precedent. British governments (of all parties) have always fiercely resisted using the armed forces in support of sustained mainland policing operations. Behind this resistance have been the chief police officers, who, rightly or wrongly, jealously guard their primacy in homeland policing and security matters. Whilst the troops at Heathrow were under the 'operational control of the police', it appears they were deployed in spite of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's preference that they should not be.

Now that the Rubicon has been crossed, I am sure we will see an increased overt use of the armed forces in support of counter-terrorism operations within the UK. Whilst this is a sad reflection on the times in which we live, it is no bad thing for the armed forces, who so often operate out of the sight (and therefore out of the mind) of the British public.

[opso]

Raising the military profile wouldn't be a necessarily bad thing (although the firmen, fuel protesters and F&M have all done the same recently, albeit for shorter periods), but a further front on which to deploy troops isn't going to be that welcome by the planners unless either resources increase or there is a siginificant rethink about military priorities and the way we address them. Of course, a major rethink about our modus operandi is long overdue, but unlikely as the decision makers have reached their position through a system that they would then be loathed to change.