Essex and Glasgow universities are evacuated after suspicious packages are found within hours of each other - a day after letter bombs were sent to three London transport hubs

Two British universities were evacuated today after suspicious packages were found on campus 24 hours after letter bombs were sent to three London transport hubs. Buildings at the University of Essex were cleared this morning at 11.50am, just under an hour after parts of the University of Glasgow were also shutdown.

Police Scotland has since carried out a controlled explosion on the suspicious package found in Glasgow, but says it was not opened and no-one has been injured. Officers are now liaising with the Metropolitan Police but say it is too early to say if the package is linked to the crude small improvised explosive devices sent in Jiffy bags to Heathrow, London City Airport and Waterloo station yesterday.

Workers at the RBS building in Gogarburn in Edinburgh were also evacuated at around the same time after another suspicious item was found, but it was later ruled a false alarm and turned out to 'contain promotional goods'.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6777117/New-IRA-frame-letter-bomb-plot-amid-fears-dissident-terror-groups-exploit-Brexit.html

Does the IRA tend to take credit for its attacks and attempts like other terrorist groups do?

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Does the IRA tend to take credit for its attacks and attempts like other terrorist groups do?

It could be the IRA

It could be about a view to instll a fear about brexit to make out the IRA is going to cause a shit storm

The reality is, we know the severe level of terrorism from the IRA in Northern Ireland is severe Ben

In the Uk moderate

So was this politically motivated to make it look IRA or was it in fact IRA

The sophistication of the letter bombs would point to the latter. As they had and have many excellent bomb makers

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Does the IRA tend to take credit for its attacks and attempts like other terrorist groups do?

Terrorists acts are designed to send a message. If you don't claim credit, you don't send the message.

Original Quill wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Does the IRA tend to take credit for its attacks and attempts like other terrorist groups do?

Terrorists acts are designed to send a message.  If you don't claim credit, you don't send the message.

Pretty much what I was thinking as well, though I suppose their tactics may have changed in light of Brexit.

Original Quill wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Does the IRA tend to take credit for its attacks and attempts like other terrorist groups do?

Terrorists acts are designed to send a message.  If you don't claim credit, you don't send the message.

Not if your intent is to confuse the security services

If the view is to sow doubt and concern. Then this is a very good method

You both are not thing
king outside the box

The IRA have changed their methods many times

To not warning, to warning and not even owning up to attacks

The pair of you think very simplistically 

If the message was to sow confusion. So it could be used to center blame against the IRA and that it is Far right. Did you think about that?

Or its the IRA making it look like the Far right, to divert attention away from them?

Come on, you two have a brain, start using one

None of have lived under the IRA and none of you have some scum relatives that support the IRA as I have within my family. Hence I have a better grasp of their mentality than two Americans

Hence I know both sides and can at least use empathic intelligence to understand your thinking is so bloody short minded

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Terrorists acts are designed to send a message.  If you don't claim credit, you don't send the message.

Pretty much what I was thinking as well, though I suppose their tactics may have changed in light of Brexit.

The reason why I responded to your post is I was having this same conversation running through my head at the same time. I was thinking: how would Brexit be any different?

Acts of violence have only two possible purposes: 2) to annihilate; or, to communicate. If the purpose is to communicate, one has to identify one's self. Right?

Didge wrote:Not if your intent is to confuse the security services

If the view is to sow doubt and concern. Then this is a very good method

A subtle point, but still communication. Miscommunication, to be precise.

Original Quill wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Pretty much what I was thinking as well, though I suppose their tactics may have changed in light of Brexit.

The reason why I responded to your post is I was having this same conversation running through my head at the same time.  I was thinking: how would Brexit be any different?

Acts of violence have only two possible purposes: 2) to annihilate; or, to communicate.  If the purpose is to communicate, one has to identify one's self.  Right?

3) Create confusion

History lesson

The 150 Panzer brigade during the Ardennes offensive. Was to creat confusion. So much so it led to such a fear. Tht had American units challenge each other over their own American identity. It was the only successful aspect of this unit. That failed to carry out many of its objectives but did on one single thing. It made just about every American unit be confused and challenged many and ask questions over their identity. It worked so well that Eisenhower thought he was going to be assassinated by Skorzeny. The leader of this unit.

Didge wrote:3) Create confusion

Still, communication: miscommunication, to be precise. No one said you had to tell the truth. You communicate for effect; confusion is such an effect.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:3) Create confusion

Still, communication: miscommunication, to be precise.  No one said you had to tell the truth.  You communicate for effect; confusion is such an effect.

But an element of terrorism, is to sow confusion. Leaving the people on the end of this not know where the enemy is coming from

So who do the security services look to as the cause?

How then do you look to protect, when you cannot assertain where that threat is coming from

Its a higher level of terrorism. You are unable to know where that terrrorism is directed from and leaves people second guessing

The one saving grace on this is we have people able to detect terrorist bombing technics

It narrows down the possible suspects

I get your point. It may be communication, but not necessarily to identify yourself.

Original Quill wrote:I get your point.  It may be communication, but not necessarily to identify yourself.

Indeed, it could even be die hard brexit supporters

In fact a number of the armed forces are brexit suppoters, who have a skill in explosives

The point is, the view here is to clearly sow the seeds of doubt, to emphatically raise the element of the fear of the unknown.