Olympics, SAMs, and "1000 US agents"

[Jimbeaux]

mph1977 said:

the US have not grown up since the red panic of the early - mid C20th they are also paranoid aobut the number of South Asian faces in the UK as the average merkin thinks Team America World Police is a documentary ....

SAM wise the British Army has Rapier and Starstreak in it's inventory and both the LML version and the Stormer HVM vehicle-mount version of Starstreak (Stormer being stretched CVR(T)) and the trailer version of Rapier designed for a semi fixed site

You writing as if you believe this stuff may be indicative of your grown up status.

[Jimbeaux]

andy_s said:

Munich.


Typical overkill by the US.



(That'll be my visa refused then...)

How about Entebbe (sp?)?

[smegmore]

My feeling is that there WILL be some kind of terrorist event at the games.

It will be carried out by home-grown individuals who will be ecstatic to martyr themselves in the name of the religion of peace and goodwill to show the kaffar that one day, all the world will bow to the will of Allah.

Just my opinion on things, I hope I'm wrong but somehow I think not. It's just too big an event for the shahid to ignore.

[AndrewW-G]

So we have another thousand people renting hotel rooms, eating in restaurants and spending money, what’s not to like about it? . . . . the more the merrier (no problem for me as I won’t be going within 100 miles of London whilst the southern Olympics are on)

A complete and utter guess would be that any terrorist trouble at the London Olympics will come from somebody with a UK passport and not flying a plane. It will only take one nutter on a tube or in a pedestrian tunnel, with the fire power of half a dozen grenades going boom to cause complete and utter chaos

[Frankeh]

I'm just happy that terrorists just as a whole aren't very good at terrorism. All it would take is a guy with a gun and 12 rounds of ammo. Go somewhere busy, shoot as many people as possible before shooting yourself.

10 attacks like that in as many months and people would be petrified to do anything.

I'm probably on a bloody list now.

[just me]

AJS- said:

Jasandjules said:

AJS- said:

Pathetic country.

Us or them?

Both

Then you should have written countries, not country.

[thinfourth2]

smegmore said:

My feeling is that there WILL be some kind of terrorist event at the games.

It's already a terrorist event

The amount of security BS means that the terrorists are winning

[scenario8]

People seem to enjoy telling me the terrorists have already won and that we live in a Police/surveillance state but honestly I don't see this. I live and work in London and limits on my freedom of movement are very slight. Relative to other parts of the world I can roam pretty much uninterrupted. I'd expect security around the Olympics sites to be fairly heavy but even there I imagine most visitors will just accept a bit of queueing and badge and bag checking as part of the package.

I wouldn't want to work or live near the US athletes village/training centre though. I bet that would be somewhere to avoid this summer (from an overzealous security approach perspective, I mean).

[AJS-]

just me said:

AJS- said:

Jasandjules said:

AJS- said:

Pathetic country.

Us or them?

Both

Then you should have written countries, not country.

But they're both pathetic in different ways and I was thinking of one in particular when I wrote the original post. However, since you ask...

America is pathetic because it feels it needs to show it's military muscle at every opportunity, as though this will deter a type of combatant who has evolved specifically to fight the military might of a global superpower with homemade weapons, and has so far beaten them at every turn.

Britain is pathetic because our acceptance of America doing this on our shores is an admission that we can't do it ourselves, nor can we think of a better way of tackling or avoiding this unwinnable "war;" and yet we must be seen in the eyes of "the world" to be doing all that we can to stop terrorists ruining the Olympics, lest the government be denied such an honour for itself.


Ironically America borrowed from England (who promptly forgot it) a much more effective way of maintaining civil order that doesn't cost the exchequer a penny, doesn't require a massive military presence in peacetime and wasn't designed only to combat other super states with gigantic armed forces. Both countries though, thought they ought to host the Olympics.

If they had re-introduced the right to bear arms for the Olympics then it would be a genuinely impressive, imaginative move and might just have thwarted an attack. If they had clung to the Olympic ideal of a pure sporting contest devoid of all politics, and thrown the gates open to all and sundry it might have seemed reckless but at least it would be principled, and that would force any would be terrorists into true pariahood if they chose to blow people up.

If they had simply decided to take their chances with the same sort of security that happens every week at sporting and other large events that people are actually interested in, then it would have been sensible.

But no. They've chosen to engage in an utterly pointless waste of everyone's money that allows them to run around playing soldiers in a place where nobody will shoot back so that they can all give each other a pat on the back when the people who never wanted to do anything in the first place don't do what they never intended to do anyway, so that the people who couldn't stop them if they did want to can claim that they were somehow responsible for the non-event that didn't happen at the non-event that did. Pathetic.

[just me]

AJS- said:

But they're both pathetic in different ways and I was thinking of one in particular when I wrote the original post. However, since you ask...

Which one in particular were you thinking of? Still not clear. I am inclined to think you had England in mind?

AJS- said:

America is pathetic because it feels it needs to show it's military muscle at every opportunity, as though this will deter a type of combatant who has evolved specifically to fight the military might of a global superpower with homemade weapons,

Agree to some extent. There is a "show of force" and you are seeing that. There are also many covert measures that we are not aware of.

AJS- said:

and has so far beaten them at every turn.

No, they have been foiled on numerous occasions as well.

AJS- said:

Britain is pathetic because our acceptance of America doing this on our shores is an admission that we can't do it ourselves, nor can we think of a better way of tackling or avoiding this unwinnable "war;" and yet we must be seen in the eyes of "the world" to be doing all that we can to stop terrorists ruining the Olympics, lest the government be denied such an honour for itself.

Well, America does have bigger budgets, more "assets" etc., and it is an alliance. Setting egos aside and teaming up is probably a good thing. The war is unwinnable, I give you that. That's the problem, really. Or we would have won it handily.

AJS- said:

Ironically America borrowed from England (who promptly forgot it) a much more effective way of maintaining civil order that doesn't cost the exchequer a penny, doesn't require a massive military presence in peacetime and wasn't designed only to combat other super states with gigantic armed forces. Both countries though, thought they ought to host the Olympics.

If they had re-introduced the right to bear arms for the Olympics then it would be a genuinely impressive, imaginative move and might just have thwarted an attack.

Unless you spot a suicide bomber and hit him with one shot, it's unlikely that this would have thwarted anything. More than likely, paranoid white people would have ended up killing a bunch of non-white people who appeared "suspicious". It may yet happen, at the hands of uniformed and plainclothes officers, but I am really glad the average numpty is not walking around packing heat. That would create more problems than it solves. It would lead to absolute mayhem, especially once the alcohol starts flowing.

AJS- said:

If they had clung to the Olympic ideal of a pure sporting contest devoid of all politics, and thrown the gates open to all and sundry it might have seemed reckless but at least it would be principled, and that would force any would be terrorists into true pariahood if they chose to blow people up.

But the terrorists don't care about pariah-hood. They don't subscribe to the same ideas as you or me. And, to be honest, these ideals are constructs of our own governments to make us feel good and righteous when we often engage in similarly cowardly tactics. Which, to some extent, has driven them to terrorism in the first place. Not all of them are doing it out of religious fanaticism. Whatever the case, to prevent carnage, the Olympics need to be held under layer upon layer of security.

AJS- said:

If they had simply decided to take their chances with the same sort of security that happens every week at sporting and other large events that people are actually interested in, then it would have been sensible.

No, it wouldn't. New York city is a bigger target than Madison, Wisconsin, and requires more security. Similarly, the Olympics are a far bigger target than weekly matches, and afford the terrorists a stage in front of a global audience. Obviously they are going to require far more security measures.

AJS- said:

But no. They've chosen to engage in an utterly pointless waste of everyone's money that allows them to run around playing soldiers in a place where nobody will shoot back so that they can all give each other a pat on the back when the people who never wanted to do anything in the first place don't do what they never intended to do anyway, so that the people who couldn't stop them if they did want to can claim that they were somehow responsible for the non-event that didn't happen at the non-event that did. Pathetic.

In the world of run-on sentences, that one deserves its own special award. Come again? I think you are saying that nobody is planning to attack the Olympics. Simple fact is, you don't know. You and I also don't know about the many measures being taken that are not immediately visible, or of the leads and credible threats being chased down.

Even if an attack does happen, and succeed, I would not blame the governments of the US/UK entirely. It's the nature of an open society. There are far too many targets and it is far too easy to carry out an attack.

As for patting themselves on the back, that's what politicians are known for. Fully agree with you there. They will do it regardless of success or failure. Pathetic indeed.

[AJS-]

just me said:

In the world of run-on sentences, that one deserves its own special award. Come again? I think you are saying that nobody is planning to attack the Olympics. Simple fact is, you don't know. You and I also don't know about the many measures being taken that are not immediately visible, or of the leads and credible threats being chased down.

Thanks! I was pretty pleased with the run on nature of that on re-reading it.

True that we will never know what was planned and foiled. Just as we will never know what was "foiled" even if it was never planned.

In a more concise way, the whole operation seems desperate and nervous to me. It seems like they are throwing resources at it because they have no idea how better to protect it. Nor who to protect it from. Or even whether they need to protect it at all. So they make a big announcement that

As for global viewing figures, I live in Thailand and I can't count on one hand the number of people who have asked me about premier league football this week, however I can confidently say that no-one has mentioned the Olympics to me. And this is casual conversation with taxi drivers, colleagues and friends, not me giving a one way lecture on the irrelevance of the games. Most people have some knowledge of F1, and Moto GP has a following too. Not sure how representative that is of the world as a whole, but ultimately, just because it's the Olympics people are no more interested in bunny hops, pooh sticks or egg-and-spoon races during the Olympics than they are for the 4 years inbetween, in my experience.



By the way I'm no footballitarian either. I don't follow it myself and am ideologically against it, but for a global following it leaves the Olympics for dead.

[Jimbeaux]

AJS- said:

just me said:

AJS- said:

Jasandjules said:

AJS- said:

Pathetic country.

Us or them?

Both

Then you should have written countries, not country.

But they're both pathetic in different ways and I was thinking of one in particular when I wrote the original post. However, since you ask...

America is pathetic because it feels it needs to show it's military muscle at every opportunity, as though this will deter a type of combatant who has evolved specifically to fight the military might of a global superpower with homemade weapons, and has so far beaten them at every turn.

Britain is pathetic because our acceptance of America doing this on our shores is an admission that we can't do it ourselves, nor can we think of a better way of tackling or avoiding this unwinnable "war;" and yet we must be seen in the eyes of "the world" to be doing all that we can to stop terrorists ruining the Olympics, lest the government be denied such an honour for itself.


Ironically America borrowed from England (who promptly forgot it) a much more effective way of maintaining civil order that doesn't cost the exchequer a penny, doesn't require a massive military presence in peacetime and wasn't designed only to combat other super states with gigantic armed forces. Both countries though, thought they ought to host the Olympics.

If they had re-introduced the right to bear arms for the Olympics then it would be a genuinely impressive, imaginative move and might just have thwarted an attack. If they had clung to the Olympic ideal of a pure sporting contest devoid of all politics, and thrown the gates open to all and sundry it might have seemed reckless but at least it would be principled, and that would force any would be terrorists into true pariahood if they chose to blow people up.

If they had simply decided to take their chances with the same sort of security that happens every week at sporting and other large events that people are actually interested in, then it would have been sensible.

But no. They've chosen to engage in an utterly pointless waste of everyone's money that allows them to run around playing soldiers in a place where nobody will shoot back so that they can all give each other a pat on the back when the people who never wanted to do anything in the first place don't do what they never intended to do anyway, so that the people who couldn't stop them if they did want to can claim that they were somehow responsible for the non-event that didn't happen at the non-event that did. Pathetic.

Now that you have pontificated, are you certain this massive foreign security influx is even actually occuring?

[AJS-]

Jimbeaux said:

Now that you have pontificated, are you certain this massive foreign security influx is even actually occuring?

No, I don't have any way of verifying it, but I can be sure some sad somewhere announced it so that people think they're doing something.

[Jimbeaux]

AJS- said:

Jimbeaux said:

Now that you have pontificated, are you certain this massive foreign security influx is even actually occuring?

No, I don't have any way of verifying it, but I can be sure some sad somewhere announced it so that people think they're doing something.

You are likely correct; my point is that you are very solidly applying the "pathetic" label as if the act is a done deal and not, as you just admitted, a ploy for public confidence.

[Meridius]

One of my friends is going with the TA. Said hes got to sit around on roofs for three months pointing lasers at planes.

[jeff m2]

According to Yahoo the US has 651 Olympic athletes, so a 1,000 babysitters seems unlikely.

I'm surprised the conversation is not more towards what sort of mandate they would be given.

[andy_s]

Jimbeaux said:

AJS- said:

Jimbeaux said:

Now that you have pontificated, are you certain this massive foreign security influx is even actually occuring?

No, I don't have any way of verifying it, but I can be sure some sad somewhere announced it so that people think they're doing something.

You are likely correct; my point is that you are very solidly applying the "pathetic" label as if the act is a done deal and not, as you just admitted, a ploy for public confidence.

'Security is always too much until it's not enough' and all that...anyway, as ever, it's very easy to critique when you aren't actually responsible and you don't actually know the threats nor the full range of countermeasures, including disinformation.

The nightmare scenario is perhaps not a sophisticated operation but rather a lone person making a statement as per Norway last year, then stuff like game theory analysis and model decision calculus tend to go out of the window.

[Shuvi McTupya]

Meridius said:

One of my friends is going with the TA. Said hes got to sit around on roofs for three months pointing lasers at planes.

What does that achieve?

[richtea78]

Dr Banjo said:

Ah yes.. and didnt it fail to detonate properly ?? but still went off with a bit of a bang.

If I remember correctly the german scientist they hired to make it used too much tritium and it fissled out instead of detonating at full yield. They had taken the bomb from an existing device but had reshaped it in the Becaa valley to hopefully increase the yield.

[ninja-lewis]

jeff m2 said:

According to Yahoo the US has 651 Olympic athletes, so a 1,000 babysitters seems unlikely.

I'm surprised the conversation is not more towards what sort of mandate they would be given.

Just wait until NBC arrive. They sent 3,000 staff to cover Beijing (the BBC sent 600 while the Germans sent 900).