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.
originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: NOTurTypical
What exactly are you hoping to achive?
Would you like everyone to stop having a conversation because you feel it is without merit?
originally posted by: Dabrazzo
a reply to: nonspecific
Seems to be one of the thread derailment people.
Three people have been arrested with drones near a nuclear power plant in the Cher region south of Paris,
The three twentysomethings, detained near Belleville-sur-Loire plant on Wednesday night with two drones, are thought to be model plane enthusiasts and unconnected to the recent spate of drones spotted over nuclear reactors in recent weeks by mystery operators.
The three, who include a locksmith and student couple, now face possible one-year prison sentences [..]
There are also reports of flights in Saclay, south of Paris and other facilities. Greenpeace have been saying for days that EDF is not the only nuclear operator affected by these flights and this has not been denied by other operators or by the government. So this is not strictly speaking a targeting of EDF sites.”
But Rousselet, who lives close to the Flamanville plant, said that two army helicopters failed to intercept drones there on 27 October. “They were efficient and high speed helicopters,” he said. “They tried to follow the drones, but lost them.”
Marignac said that he believed there were three possible culprits.
“One is that anti-nuclear people have formed an underground group although the operation seems to involve too much capacity for a really secret group,” he said.
“The second option is a group like Anonymous or an anti-government group, trying to defy the government and show that there are breaches in security.”
“The third and most worrying possibility is that it is a malevolent and potentially terrorist group really challenging the government, saying ‘These are the means we have.’”
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
originally posted by: Dabrazzo
a reply to: nonspecific
Seems to be one of the thread derailment people.
Not at all. I'm a rational thinker. I reject arbitrariness, it's illogical and I can't help that my mind reacts this way. Assumptions have to be supported by evidence, any evidence. I'm just asking what the evidence is that leads to the assumption that this is a distraction.
Would it help to think of it as mere speculation then
originally posted by: rockpaperhammock
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I fail to see the rationale behind putting the authorities on high alert as a precursor to getting away with something. Most criminals wait until the authorities aren't paying attention to make their moves.
Actually terrorists have done this tactic a few times to some extent....I forget which attack it was but they stood outside a building or barracks and tossed 2 grenades...then everyone went to the window and the detonated the big one....the majority of the people died from glass because they were looking to see what was outside.
There is another one where they do this and as emergency services show they detonate the bigger bomb.
I used to be able to name each one of the top of my head but there are so many know I can't remember em all :/
Create a diversion....plan an attack and go on the run to draw police from the scene you really want to do something at. If the place they really wanted to hit was already heavily patrolled then this would certainly have drawn some of that patrol away.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: nonspecific
Would it help to think of it as mere speculation then
It seems that way to me. That's why I asked originally if there was some kind of evidence to assume it was a distraction for something else or if the idea was just a "wild arbitrary conjecture".
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: rockpaperhammock
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I fail to see the rationale behind putting the authorities on high alert as a precursor to getting away with something. Most criminals wait until the authorities aren't paying attention to make their moves.
Actually terrorists have done this tactic a few times to some extent....I forget which attack it was but they stood outside a building or barracks and tossed 2 grenades...then everyone went to the window and the detonated the big one....the majority of the people died from glass because they were looking to see what was outside.
There is another one where they do this and as emergency services show they detonate the bigger bomb.
I used to be able to name each one of the top of my head but there are so many know I can't remember em all :/
All of those diversions involve the big event happening shortly after the diversion. The example in the OP suggests that the diversion is a long con to get away with something down the line.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Precisely. A flank only works while the decoy unit is engaging the enemy.
originally posted by: Vasa Croe
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: rockpaperhammock
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I fail to see the rationale behind putting the authorities on high alert as a precursor to getting away with something. Most criminals wait until the authorities aren't paying attention to make their moves.
Actually terrorists have done this tactic a few times to some extent....I forget which attack it was but they stood outside a building or barracks and tossed 2 grenades...then everyone went to the window and the detonated the big one....the majority of the people died from glass because they were looking to see what was outside.
There is another one where they do this and as emergency services show they detonate the bigger bomb.
I used to be able to name each one of the top of my head but there are so many know I can't remember em all :/
All of those diversions involve the big event happening shortly after the diversion. The example in the OP suggests that the diversion is a long con to get away with something down the line.
Yes...this is exactly what I am talking about. Basically a distraction to get something set for a larger attack down the road.
originally posted by: Vasa Croe
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Precisely. A flank only works while the decoy unit is engaging the enemy.
Like KS said...long term goal here...
If I wanted to get something done within a large city that was heavily police patrolled I would need to get a LOT of those police to leave the area. My reasoning was not that something was going to happen NOW.....it is that there is a possibility that the larger plan included having to pull the police force away from the area in order for the next part of the plan to bear fruit.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
originally posted by: Vasa Croe
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: rockpaperhammock
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I fail to see the rationale behind putting the authorities on high alert as a precursor to getting away with something. Most criminals wait until the authorities aren't paying attention to make their moves.
Actually terrorists have done this tactic a few times to some extent....I forget which attack it was but they stood outside a building or barracks and tossed 2 grenades...then everyone went to the window and the detonated the big one....the majority of the people died from glass because they were looking to see what was outside.
There is another one where they do this and as emergency services show they detonate the bigger bomb.
I used to be able to name each one of the top of my head but there are so many know I can't remember em all :/
All of those diversions involve the big event happening shortly after the diversion. The example in the OP suggests that the diversion is a long con to get away with something down the line.
Yes...this is exactly what I am talking about. Basically a distraction to get something set for a larger attack down the road.
You misread what the member was saying. For it to have been a distraction to a larger event the larger event would have had to have happened while resources were preoccupied at the smaller event.
The example in the OP suggests that the diversion is a long con to get away with something down the line.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
originally posted by: Vasa Croe
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Precisely. A flank only works while the decoy unit is engaging the enemy.
Like KS said...long term goal here...
If I wanted to get something done within a large city that was heavily police patrolled I would need to get a LOT of those police to leave the area. My reasoning was not that something was going to happen NOW.....it is that there is a possibility that the larger plan included having to pull the police force away from the area in order for the next part of the plan to bear fruit.
Then if that were the case the smaller event wouldn't be a "distraction" for the larger event, it would be merely a planned attack to learn tactics of the police for example. The larger event would be limited in it's relation to the smaller event. For the smaller event to be a "distraction" for the larger, or a ruse event the larger event would need to happen while police assets were focused and preoccupied with the smaller event.