Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!clewis
From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: In the service of the citizen.
Message-ID: <837@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-May-85 10:13:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.837
Posted: Tue May 21 10:13:26 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 21-May-85 11:09:28 EDT
References: <1126@ihuxe.UUCP> <10705@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1140@ihuxe.UUCP>
Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Distribution: net
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 87
Summary: 

In article <1140@ihuxe.UUCP> chas@ihuxe.UUCP (Charles Lambert) writes:
>As you say, it was uncontrolled.  There is a very good precedent for the
>use of explosive in breaking a siege.  In the Balcome Street seige against
>a terrorist group in London, who were holed-up in a row-house, an elite force
>punctured the party wall from the adjoining house, simultaneously gaining
>entry and causing such confusion that they were able to rescue the group's
>hostages without harm to them or the attacking team.

I recall that the SAS used a device called a "Thunder flash".  This
device is used by many different countries as part of their military
training.  For example, the Canadian armed forces (and militia) use it
during exercises to simulate shells or mines exploding and will, using
some care, freely use them on the simulated "battlefield" that also
contains real live people.  As it's name implies, the Thunder flash is
primarily intended to generate a hell of a lot of noise and flash but
essentially no concussion or fire.  I expect that it is essentially a
rather large firecracker with paper sheathing.  A friend of mine was in
the Canadian Militia.  He said that if you stood on one when it went
off you'd get blown a foot or two into the air, but usually would be
unhurt except for bruised feet (provided of course that you were
wearing your military issue GREB Kodiaks).  Obviously, though eyes are
vulnerable to a thunderflash.  A thunderflash is quite a small device
(a large "cherry bomb" perhaps?).  Somewhat like the "bang" part of a
firework.

In the Balcome street incident, the SAS would have used some plastic
explosives to break through the wall and have thrown a thunderflash
through the hole.  The noise from a thunderflash is so loud that it
would momentarily stun everybody around.  The SAS men would have been
wearing flack jackets and possibly ear/eye protectors.  The plastic
explosive blast would have been greatly contained against the wall
(there were probably SAS men leaning against it when it went off).
They wouldn't have used heavy duty explosives for fear of hurting the
hostages.

The reason I went through this explanation is to make a point.  From
what I saw of the Philadelphia incident on the news, the explosive was
considerably more than a thunderflash - it was intended to blow apart
the "bunker" on the roof.  In retrospect it seems to have been
unnecessary, considering the amount of weapons fire poured into the
house (many of the occupants were hit) and the fact that no return fire
had occured for some number of hours.  Due to a natural reluctance on
the part of the Police to risk their own lives I can see why they
decided not to try to enter the house.  It is quite common for "seiges"
to last considerably beyond the time when the "defenders" have been
killed or committed suicide.  You certainly can't blame the fireman
for not acting if the police were still afraid to enter the house.

It is interesting to compare the two incidents.  At Balcome St.
there was very little gun-fire and I don't think that the police
replied to any of it.  They merely kept the streets blocked off
and blockaded the building.  They attempted to negotiate for several
days.  When they had exhausted all avenues of "peaceful" surrender,
they utilized the best trained troops they had to take the rooms
that the terrorists were in as quickly as possible.

Similar Canadian incidents tend to be a mixture of both.  Sometimes
there is a fair bit of gunfire, but usually the result is that the
hostage-taker[s] surrender.  Now that some of the SWAT teams are using
UZIs, there is more gunfire.  One of last ones had the Ontario
Provincial Police kill one of their own men with an UZI.  (Two early
arriving OPP constables were ill-informed of the situation and were
told to scout out the place before the two they were chasing even knew
the police were there.  They saw one of the people and walked up to him
to ask for ID.  The person pulled his gun and shot both policemen
(minor wounds because they were wearing bullet-proof vests).  Both
officers were knocked down, but one pulled his revolver and shot the
man dead.  At this point, the OPP special weapons team heard the shots
and opened up with an UZI - one of the bullets went through the seam of
the bullet-proof vest of the other constable on the ground and killed
him.) The other person surrendered with no shots being fired.

In contrast, in true "wild west" fashion, the Philadelphia police
hosed the MOVE house with gunfire, waited, dropped a home-made bomb,
and then waited until the whole area burned down.  They'd have
been far better off if they had used a properly trained force (SWAT
teams are probably not sufficiently trained for this purpose) to
assault the house when all other "peaceful" means had failed.
All the gunfire did was to stiffen the resolve of the surviving
MOVE members to fight - they had no alternative (yeah, I know,
if they had surrendered they probably would have survived, but
with all the gunfire going on it wouldn't have seemed like a very
good idea).
-- 
Chris Lewis,
UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis
BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321