97 replies to this topic

[Mr Right Wing]

TheLastLazyGun, on 03 May 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

Islamists blow up underground trains and buses in several places throughout central London killing 52 people; just two weeks later Islamists try and fail to detonate another four bombs throughout London; Islamists try but fail to detonate a car bomb outside the capital's crowded Tiger Tiger nightclub in Haymarket and on nearby Cockspur Street; four Islamists have just admitted their part in a plot to blow up the London Stock Exchange and the US Embassy; a study shows that London is Al Qaeda's top target, more so than any other Western European nation and more so even than New York City and Washington DC.

Yet, despite all this, you think the authorities are just being "over the top" in beefing up security against Islamist terrorism in the run up to the Olympics?

Firstly I'm English and secondly yes they are going over the top.

Having armed guards and vehicle dotted around the capital is one thing but helicopters? fighter jets? Sam missles?

They are terrorists not the French armed forces.

[Render]

Quote

Residents in east London are due to have missiles placed on their roofs this week to protect the Olympic Games from airborne terrorist attacks.
Military planners at the Ministry of Defence have decided to fit high-velocity rockets with a range of 5km to several apartment blocks close to the Olympic Park. This weekend they informed the occupants of the Lexington Building apartment complex in Bow that a missile battery would be installed this week.
The weapons are capable of shooting down aircraft and can counter "pop-up strikes" by helicopters, according to the MoD. During the Games, they will be controlled around the clock by 10 unarmed soldiers, who might be guarded by armed police.
The MoD is to send leaflets to residents in other blocks chosen as temporary missile bases before the systems are deployed with dummy missiles for a national Olympic security exercise starting on Wednesday.


"I've looked these [missiles] up and I don't think they're the kind of thing you can fire over a highly populated area like Tower Hamlets – think of the debris," said Brian Whelan, 28, a resident. "[The leaflet] says the missiles will only be used as a last resort. It's totally unsuitable."
A member of staff at Madison's, the complex's bar and restaurant, said: "We don't really know if it will make us feel safer or more of a target."

http://www.guardian....s-olympic-games

it's sad how England is the next to fall so heavily in the terrorism hype.
They're already so close to being the next America.

[Coffey]

Render, on 11 July 2012 - 04:58 AM, said:

http://www.guardian....s-olympic-games

it's sad how England is the next to fall so heavily in the terrorism hype.
They're already so close to being the next America.

We've been there for a while sadly.

It's just Cameron flexing his guns... Pathetic really.

Porbably trying to impress Obama again.

Edited by Coffey, 11 July 2012 - 11:26 AM.

[Taun]

I can understand the objections to this - and frankly I'd feel pretty much the same - but it's kind of a no win situation for the government...

If they put the missiles there - they are 'endangering the local population' - if they don't and something bad happens they 'didn't do enough'...

maybe some stinger type missiles rather than larger ones?...

[ThePhantomFlanFlinger]

Taun, on 11 July 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

I can understand the objections to this - and frankly I'd feel pretty much the same - but it's kind of a no win situation for the government...

If they put the missiles there - they are 'endangering the local population' - if they don't and something bad happens they 'didn't do enough'...

maybe some stinger type missiles rather than larger ones?...

I can understand ramped up security but missiles on roofs...?..most planes now have secure cockpits and even if one slips through,then we are not the same size as the US...we could have jets scrambled within minutes to take down any threat.If its a land based threat..how many innocent people would get killed in the aftermath of a missile strike trying to take out the threat...?..probably more than the terrorists intended...just ramp up security but dont be silly and offensive about it...

Edited by BrianPotter, 11 July 2012 - 11:57 AM.

[The New Richard Nixon]

BrianPotter, on 11 July 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

I can understand ramped up security but missiles on roofs...?..most planes now have secure cockpits and even if one slips through,then we are not the same size as the US...we could have jets scrambled within minutes to take down any threat.If its a land based threat..how many innocent people would get killed in the aftermath of a missile strike trying to take out the threat...?..probably more than the terrorists intended...just ramp up security but dont be silly and offensive about it...

Using jets would be the same problem though and maybe costs more money to have them flying around

[libstaK]

Every law that's put in place - someone is going to break it.

Every control that's put in place - someone is going to break it.

It's an entropic spiral, things just get worse, not better when decisions are based on "fears".

[ThePhantomFlanFlinger]

The New Richard Nixon, on 11 July 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Using jets would be the same problem though and maybe costs more money to have them flying around

You would have casualties regardless Nix, but id like to bet it would be over water and not urban if jets were on standby..

[ThePhantomFlanFlinger]

The RAF pilots do not just sit around doing nothing all day...most pilots have training flights and landings details everyday..it would cost less to have a few jets armed on a runway and ready to fly than stationing some squaddies on a roof..

[Sky Scanner]

It's a precautionary measure, that will most likely never be used, so in essence will be a success, then taken down and not seen again.....no big deal.

[Junior Chubb]

Render, on 11 July 2012 - 04:58 AM, said:

it's sad how England is the next to fall so heavily in the terrorism hype.
They're already so close to being the next America.

Coffey, on 11 July 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

We've been there for a while sadly.

I remember growing up in England with stories of IRA bombings all over the press long before this 'War on Terror' came about. I do wonder how these bombings would be viewed in today's world with its super communications, the web and misinformation.
Especially considering the innocent men that served time 'for terrorist activity' that have now been released . I was a young lad at the time, was there any 'False Flag' talk related to these terror campaigns of the 70's and 80's?

Talking of long ago, don't forget Guy Fawkes. The original terrorist villain. We still burn effigy's of this man on bonfire night and every time you call a man 'guy' its down to Mr Fawkes...

Edited by Junior Chubb, 11 July 2012 - 01:26 PM.

[Junior Chubb]

libstaK, on 11 July 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

Every law that's put in place - someone is going to break it.

Every control that's put in place - someone is going to break it.

It's an entropic spiral, things just get worse, not better when decisions are based on "fears".

Very true, but you could also look at it another way...

Every law that's put in place - is to stop people taking liberties when given the freedom of choice

Every control that's put in place - is to stop people taking liberties when given the freedom of choice

Just look at the bloke who burnt down his house setting fire to spider webs with a blow torch (a news tip on UM today). If the 'blow torch ban' comes into place it will be broken (as you predict) but if it wasn't for 'Mr Spider Web overkill' there would be no need for the 'Blow torch ban'.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Edited by Junior Chubb, 11 July 2012 - 12:59 PM.

[libstaK]

Junior Chubb, on 11 July 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

Very true, but you could also look at it another way...

Every law that's put in place - is to stop people taking liberties when given the freedom of choice

Every control that's put in place - is to stop people taking liberties when given the freedom of choice

Just look at the bloke who burnt down his house setting fire to spider webs with a blow torch (a news tip on UM today). If the 'blow torch ban' comes into place it will be broken (as you predict) but if it wasn't for 'Mr Spider Web overkill' there would be no need for the 'Blow torch ban'.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Yes, I see that side too and it is a conundrum - especially as it has become so prevalent lately.  

I still think there needs to be a point where we shrug and say "you can't fix stupid".  Banning blow torches is like being back in school where the whole class is held back for detention because a couple of dimwits refused to shut up after the teacher clearly said next "one more word and you all stay back".  

Blow torches were created for useful purposes, some random fool misused them, so now no one gets the benefits of them.  

Sorry for the edit my original example was kind of lame.

However, it's a fine line between "taking liberties" and experiencing freedom.

Naturally, any action that brings harm to another human and any action that brings "gratuitous" harm to any living creature should have consequences, I can't argue with that. What I do have a problem with is "pre-emptive" controls that are put in place "just in case" - where does that mindset end?

There is no easy answer, on that we agree.

Edited by libstaK, 11 July 2012 - 01:14 PM.

[Junior Chubb]

libstaK, on 11 July 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

Yes, I see that side too and it is a conundrum - especially as it has become so prevalent lately.  

I still think there needs to be a point where we shrug and say "you can't fix stupid".  Banning blow torches is like being back in school where the whole class is held back for detention because a couple of dimwits refused to shut up after the teacher clearly said next "one more word and you all stay back".  

Blow torches were created for useful purposes, some random fool misused them, so now no one gets the benefits of them.  

Do we ban highrise buildings because some dimwits jump off them next?

The blowtorch example is petty, it was just a relevant (read it today) example of how a law may be created. Stupid/Dangerous behaviour leads to overprotective law being created. You are right you cannot fix stupid, but you can be prepared for it.

I live in England and being part of Europe I am now worried that EU health and safety guru's are going to call for all high-rise buildings to be demolished ( I am on the third floor, I might become homeless).

Edited by Junior Chubb, 11 July 2012 - 01:27 PM.

[Sky Scanner]

libstaK, on 11 July 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

Yes, I see that side too and it is a conundrum - especially as it has become so prevalent lately.  

I still think there needs to be a point where we shrug and say "you can't fix stupid".  Banning blow torches is like being back in school where the whole class is held back for detention because a couple of dimwits refused to shut up after the teacher clearly said next "one more word and you all stay back".  

Blow torches were created for useful purposes, some random fool misused them, so now no one gets the benefits of them.  

Do we ban highrise buildings because some dimwits jump off them next?

You have many miles along the essex coast that are impossible to police even for drug smuggling, always have been. Leave East london and you are surrounded by fields, Essex, and (south of the river) North Kent. You could fill a private helicoptor with explosives, and have it airborne from say a field in Barking, and straight into the stadium in Stratford in probably under 2mins (without it reaching a hundred or so ft off the ground).....if these launchers just make someone think twice about that method of a spectacular strike then it's worth the tiny inconvenience to a couple of people....