Olympics, SAMs, and "1000 US agents"
Discussion
ninja-lewis said:
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).I'm surprised the conversation is not more towards what sort of mandate they would be given.
Still, as long as they pay for UK hotels I'm ok with that.
In UK they tell you the 1,500 metres will be at xx pm and it is.
In the US they tell you it is "coming up next"
Obviously the word "next" is not understood.
Unwatchable.
There's a clear commercial advantage to just saying 'next' rather than specifying a time.
If you say 'next' then people have to keep watching, including the adverts.
If you give a time then people will turn off until that time. The olympic over here is (I assume) covered on the BBC which doesn't care either way if you're watching or not.
Hence the times.
If you say 'next' then people have to keep watching, including the adverts.
If you give a time then people will turn off until that time. The olympic over here is (I assume) covered on the BBC which doesn't care either way if you're watching or not.
Hence the times.
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.If they're really doing it then it is a waste of time and resources, if they're pretending to do it it doesn't inspire me with much confidence, and if it inspires confidence in the general public then they're stupid as well.
What do you suggest? Do nothing? That won't work, and is equally stupid.
In the event of a known threat, I am sure they go after any leads as vigorously as possible. It's not like it's a hidden problem--the governments are openly and deeply committed to fighting terrorism. They are doing what they can, though the missteps by politicians at every turn are laughable.
If the threat is vague or completely unknown, all that they can do is do their utmost to put in detection mechanisms, put in as many layers of security as possible, and hope to deter the terrorists or minimize the damage if the attacker(s) do carry out their plan. They are doing this.
Not sure what your point is, besides having a rant for the sake of having one. Are you saying that they are going about it wrong? How? They are certainly aware of both state sponsored terrorism as well as the loner, and are trying to prepare for both. What would you change? Are you saying that they shouldn't do anything? Don't think many will agree with you there. Or are you saying that it's all just an act to deceive the public. Don't think you are correct, though there are elements of propaganda involved, sure. However, even the propaganda has a tactical value.
What would you do instead?
In the event of a known threat, I am sure they go after any leads as vigorously as possible. It's not like it's a hidden problem--the governments are openly and deeply committed to fighting terrorism. They are doing what they can, though the missteps by politicians at every turn are laughable.
If the threat is vague or completely unknown, all that they can do is do their utmost to put in detection mechanisms, put in as many layers of security as possible, and hope to deter the terrorists or minimize the damage if the attacker(s) do carry out their plan. They are doing this.
Not sure what your point is, besides having a rant for the sake of having one. Are you saying that they are going about it wrong? How? They are certainly aware of both state sponsored terrorism as well as the loner, and are trying to prepare for both. What would you change? Are you saying that they shouldn't do anything? Don't think many will agree with you there. Or are you saying that it's all just an act to deceive the public. Don't think you are correct, though there are elements of propaganda involved, sure. However, even the propaganda has a tactical value.
What would you do instead?
Well first of all I wouldn't have the Olympics in the first place, but given that we do, then I'd just have the normal security they have at football matches, and the normal protection offered to visiting VIPs.
How and when are they ever going to use SAMs over London during the Olympics? And what are these 1,000 agents doing? Suspect they're doing a lot of nothing courtesy of British and American tax payers.
I don't have any magic answer. If someone is really determined to sneak a bomb in and set it off there's really nothing we can do to stop them, beyond metal detectors and reasonable searches of suspicious packages. Retribution against the families of suicide bombers might reduce the likelihood of it. Compared to the absurd lengths we've gone to then it would be better simply to kick out all the Muslims, in my view.
My point though, is that they clearly don't have any answers either, so they're just pouring money and resources into it (or at least announcing that they are) giving gullible people a false sense of security, and making them look stupid to everyone else.
How and when are they ever going to use SAMs over London during the Olympics? And what are these 1,000 agents doing? Suspect they're doing a lot of nothing courtesy of British and American tax payers.
I don't have any magic answer. If someone is really determined to sneak a bomb in and set it off there's really nothing we can do to stop them, beyond metal detectors and reasonable searches of suspicious packages. Retribution against the families of suicide bombers might reduce the likelihood of it. Compared to the absurd lengths we've gone to then it would be better simply to kick out all the Muslims, in my view.
My point though, is that they clearly don't have any answers either, so they're just pouring money and resources into it (or at least announcing that they are) giving gullible people a false sense of security, and making them look stupid to everyone else.
rxtx said:
I heard on BBC news tonight there will be SAMs in some "woods" in south London, and the US wants to send 1000 agents to protect their athletes and diplomats.
After a search it seems it's relatively old news, with reports from November saying the same thing. Do we really need 1000 (armed?) US agents here, apparently 500 of them FBI? Is our own security that lacking?
They just wish to protect all those lovely steroids the US athletes will be gorging on.After a search it seems it's relatively old news, with reports from November saying the same thing. Do we really need 1000 (armed?) US agents here, apparently 500 of them FBI? Is our own security that lacking?
Halb said:
rxtx said:
I heard on BBC news tonight there will be SAMs in some "woods" in south London, and the US wants to send 1000 agents to protect their athletes and diplomats.
After a search it seems it's relatively old news, with reports from November saying the same thing. Do we really need 1000 (armed?) US agents here, apparently 500 of them FBI? Is our own security that lacking?
They just wish to protect all those lovely steroids the US athletes will be gorging on.After a search it seems it's relatively old news, with reports from November saying the same thing. Do we really need 1000 (armed?) US agents here, apparently 500 of them FBI? Is our own security that lacking?
Jimbeaux said:
Extremely ignorant statement there H. All athletes have trouble with those. Chinese, Cuban, and N.Korean athletes especially due to the fact that their athletes are government controlled and "winning" is a matter of national significance. Athletes here are mainly independent and privately sponsored. Still happens I am sure, but hardly just us.
Not if you follow my logic, yes I know they all take them Jimbo, but the US secret service isn't going to defend the Chinese fella's juicebox are they!!?;)Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff