It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Assassination plot against Her Majesty the Queen thwarted

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah




Why do people on this forum constantly diminish the danger of ISIS, and try to push some kind of fantasy that terrorists are only full-on attacks with hordes of people and dirty bombs, or some other such dramatic conflict?


The answer to this question is over the last couple years ATS has had a large membership increase from people trying to influence us towards their agenda.
edit on 8-11-2014 by whywhynot because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot

You can clearly see that is a protest and not a riot...

Are you often this disingenuous?



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I'm so glad that nice old lady didn't get shanked. Terrible way to die. Could you imagine? Anybody that wants to shank or harm an old lady should be locked up.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Anyone who thinks they would be able to kill the Queen needs to take a long hard look in the mirror.


Elizabeth is the last person on the Planet that would be assasinated, bar none!


Not possible, complete non threat from a bunch of invalids!



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Thank God that the morons who plan stuff like this are incompetent. And how can you tell they're incompetent? The fact that they were going to assassinate such a high-profile individual does not necessarily indicate incompetence, but the way they were planning on going about the operation most definitely proves they were idiots. The way I see things there are two ways that assassinations could be pulled off successfully, with the perpetrators even getting away, but I won't share those opinions for fear that there will be that one person who is dumb enough to actually try to take such action. I am surprised that the methods I refer to have never really been used during such attempts.

I suppose I can talk about one method which I think would be hard to defend against, which is the use of a high-powered rifle, because only a trained sniper could consistently make such a shot at the distances I'm referring to. The JFK assassination does not fit this bill, as the shooter was almost right on top of the target. In modern times they could never escape after taking the shot. Beyond 1,000 yards would be incredibly difficult to defend against, and that is the number one threat to heads of state and high-profile individuals in my opinion. The shooter need not expose themselves, and by taking a single shot it would be incredibly difficult to get a bearing on their location. Although if history has shown us anything about assassination attempts, it tells us that if there is a person willing to die to kill someone else there is virtually no way to stop that determined person. These are the people who get right on top of the targets and open fire, like the RFK assassination.

Secret Service agents and bodyguards are more adept in modern times, but they would have only a second or two to see an assassin pull out a firearm and level it, and it is virtually impossible to react that quickly. This is why civilians should not be allowed to get close to such high-profile individuals, as it is incredibly difficult to prevent them from doing something stupid. For someone on the street to try and attempt a plot like this, they would have a handgun as opposed to a rifle, and the further away they are forced to stand, the greater the chance of them missing. One of the best ways to prevent assassinations is intelligence. What happened in this case was intelligence work paying off. If you can get wind of the plot beforehand, there is virtually no way it will succeed.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: nonspecific

And the 9/11 hijackers were armed with ????????????


Nothing. Those planes were remote controlled and the supposed 'hijackers' mostly turned up alive after the fact. The FBI never saw fit to tell us who exactly they were, if they were.... oh, and there is no video footage of them going through security and getting on the planes in question on the day of the event. Only footage claiming to be them, on a different flight, and footage suspiciously lacking time stamps that could have been anybody given the crap video quality.

But back on topic, were these horrid individuals low IQ homeless types, approached and convinced into the plot by the London equivalent of the FBI, and then busted by the same FBI, like we have here in the US all the time?



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

One man's protest is another man's riot. But if you really want to convince yourself, and are not here just to spread disinformation, just google it and find the term "riot" used oh so many times before in London. The police will not even go into those districts.

Did a little google work for you: www.theguardian.com...

RIOT
edit on 8-11-2014 by whywhynot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Why don't we put it to a vote?

Who has caused more crime, more misappropriation of funds, more deaths, the Royal Family or ISIS?

And for that 'loyal subject' up above who said the Queen was only costing him 25p a year, she's got billions. Why is she costing you, or everyone you know, anything? Besides waving and looking the fool, what has she done to earn her extreme wealth?

How many homeless children are there in England and does she even care?



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot

Lol you tried to fool me with the London riots...
Statistically it was bound to involve a Muslim...

What about all the other people involved in the riot?


You do know that riot was caused by police brutality and not a Muslim thing?
I'm from London, & that was a poor, bigoted attempt at painting Muslims with a brush that wasn't made for them.


Get a grip, I can clearly see who has an agenda here and it's you.



You obviously are just disingenuous by nature, we will converse no further!



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Screw the queen........this was another intelligence agency instigated propaganda scene......
We don't need royalty and we don't need mi6 either....



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: signalfire

Actually her personal worth is 500 million . In the time frame isis has been around i would go with them .



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot

Just re-read your post...


The police will not even go into those districts.


As I said I'm from London and there is not a single place the Police won't go...


You are a liar...

& I hope everyone at ATS sees this to know that you are a liar!!!



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I have read there are some areas of the United Kingdom where police do not go.
Let me find some backup for this...
M urders and rapes going unreported in no-go zones for police as minority communities launch own justice systems


It seems to have more to do with areas that have designated themselves as being under Sharia Law. People there do not call the police, because they consider themselves separate and have their own method of law and justice.

Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"



A Muslim group in the United Kingdom has launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities – including what it calls "Londonistan" – into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence. The Islamic Emirates Project, launched by the Muslims Against the Crusades group, names the British cities of Birmingham, Bradford, Derby, Dewsbury, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Sheffield, as well as Waltham Forest in northeast London and Tower Hamlets in East London as territories to be targeted for blanket Sharia rule.


European 'No-Go' Zones for Non-Muslims Proliferating

Perhaps this is what whywhynot was referring to.
edit on 11/8/14 by BlueAjah because: fixing links

edit on 11/8/14 by BlueAjah because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/8/14 by BlueAjah because: unfinished sentence



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

So all I have to do is declare my house to be under sharia law? I'm slapping my forehead right even as I type.

Come on.... do you think the police aren't going to go where they dang well please? Maybe they have no interest in a sharia law district but that's not to be confused.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Fanatics wanting No Go Zones and police giving them are two different things...

There is no place in London the police won't/can't go....


I assure you if there was then the whole of London would be the same, N, S, E & W!!!


Ask any Londoner on here if the police won't go to their area, you'll hear the same answer I gave, because it hasn't happened!



What the Mail(your source) has done is lied...


Not being called and not being prepared are two different things for the police.


I don't call the police, nor do any people I know...
That doesn't make the area a "no go"...
It means we don't rely on them.


But they still drive through these areas all the time!

Speaking for London btw, not UK!!!



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I did not say police won't go to those areas.
I said police are not called to those areas.
These are areas where people use their own form of law and justice.
This is also what my quoted sources said. Why do you think this is lying?



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: nukedog

I don't understand your criticism.

The police would go if they knew there was a crime. But people in those areas are not calling the police. People are getting away with murder and rape, because under Sharia law it is permitted and no one reports it as a crime.

And yes it is because they have declared themselves under Sharia law.

Is there something about that I am not explaining correctly?



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Because that is not what a no go zone is.
That's why Imo the headline of the article was a lie.
Aside from that The Mail isn't fit to be used as emergency toilet paper.


a reply to: BlueAjah



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Are you being serious?

People are getting away with murder and rape, because under Sharia law it is permitted and no one reports it as a crime.


"Permitted"???


Under Sharia Law a rapist or murderer would be stoned to death!
As long as it had a decent amount of witnesses & evidence!



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: nukedog

I don't understand your criticism.

The police would go if they knew there was a crime. But people in those areas are not calling the police. People are getting away with murder and rape, because under Sharia law it is permitted and no one reports it as a crime.

And yes it is because they have declared themselves under Sharia law.

Is there something about that I am not explaining correctly?


My criticism comes from a bunch of ignoramuses reading that and saying, "OMG they are taking overs!!!!"

I'm not leveling that at you personally but it is a bit of disinformation that certain forces are capitalizing on.

I have no real opinion on this personally outside of that fact. All the Muslims I have to worry about are the ones trying to over ring me for beer and cigs.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join