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.

 

Possible military coup in the United Kingdom?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SKUNK2

Well i see his point.
Hitler for example was all for the people, he wanted the best for his country and people.


Well, except for the Jews, the Gypsies, the crippled, lame, deaf, blind, mentally defective, political opponents, trade unionists, ministers, priests, homosexuals, and artists that didn't make what Hitler liked.

All of those people he put in murder factories.

But, other than that, GREAT POINT!

[edit on 23-11-2007 by The Good Reverend Roger]




posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
As much as it pains me to say this I don't think the majority of the British public really gives a toss anymore.
The public have been dummed down that much that they are far more interested in who wins X Factor than who wins a General Election.
They view politics as an inconvenience.
The minority who have an opinion are deemed politically uncorrect and and feel afraid to express their opinion.

As such, if a Military coup did happen I don't think many people would notice anyway.

Could it happen? Yeah sure.

Will it happen? I don't think so, the powers that be who really run the country are the elf same people that run the military and are the arms manufacturers.


Your spot on there.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite

But would you want someone like Hitler running the United Kingdom?


No, the thought of having someone like that would force me to vote against them.

I couldnt vote *for* anyone, just against people who are as evil as those two.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I'm sorry, but all, ALL political opponents except for the green party (who as soon as they gain momentum, will receive funding from some elitist) are just a front for the bigger body, the NWO. The politicians we 'elect' are all fundamentally doing a different thing for the same outcome, to further the wealth of the elitist families. Don't get me wrong, they all play the game differently, but thats the beauty of it!
If we are to ever have a party of the people, it will have to be setup, run and FUNDED by the people directly, to do this I'm afraid i don't know, I am not a political scientist. People claim this is what we have now, and I'm afraid they are sorely mistaken, the figure head who we don't elect ad their family is the true master of this puppet show, them and their nearest and dearest...just my thoughts!

thanks.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
I'm sorry, but all, ALL political opponents except for the green party (who as soon as they gain momentum, will receive funding from some elitist) are just a front for the bigger body, the NWO. The politicians we 'elect' are all fundamentally doing a different thing for the same outcome, to further the wealth of the elitist families. Don't get me wrong, they all play the game differently, but thats the beauty of it!thanks.


Oh dear
I was wondering just how long it would be before the NWO fantasists arrived

[edit on 23-11-2007 by The Todal]



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Fanaticist...hmmm...not quite there yet...believer...yes.

From the research I have done it is quite possible this is true, then adding my intuition, which again says theres something there to be wary of, I state my views of the situation, this IS what we do here isn't it? explore different views to come up with the truth? at least I showed some respect...were did I say you were a close minded sheep waiting for their horny farmer? I didn't, so don't call me a fanaticist when you don't know who I am, or what I stand for.

thanks



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
There's no way the Queen would support a coup against a democratically elected government & to think otherwise is just fanciful. And as such anyone who gives support to a coup is guilty of treason, which is defined under the Treason Act of 1351 as being -



Item, whereas divers opinions have been before this time in what case reason shall be said, and in what not; the King, at the request of the lords and of the commons, hath made a declaration in the manner as hereafter followeth, that is to say; when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and heir; or if a man do violate the King's companion, or the King's eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife the King's eldest son and heir; or if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be probably attainted of open deed by the people of their condition:. . . and if a man slea the chancellor, treasurer, or the King's justices of the one bench or the other, justices in eyre, or justices of assise, and all other justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their places, doing their offices: and it is to be understood, that in the cases above rehearsed, that ought to be judged treason which extends to our lord the King, and his royal majesty:.


Treason Act 1351

The military wouldn't be so daft as to try a direct coup. No matter how compliant you think the population is, the public just wouldn't stand for it. But the military & the security service would do everything they could to undermine the Government, bugging Ministers offices & phones, selectively leaking damaging information and such like. And also wheeling out retired ex military chiefs to do as much damage as they can.

The real reason these ex military heads hate Brown is because he's -

1. Scottish
2. Old Labour and
3. Always subjecting their requests for extra funding to close scrutiny. And sometimes denying them on the grounds that they haven't made a sufficiently persuasive case.

How much more funding do the military need exactly ? The Navy are getting two new aircraft carriers, new Type 45 destroyers, Astute class attack submarines, landing ships, JSF planes & Merlin helicopters The RAF are getting new Typhoon squadrons. F-35's, A400M heavy transports, A330 tanker aircraft & Sentinel R1 intell aircraft. And the Army have got orders in for a whole new class of fighting vehicles. And all that's in addition to all the kit the forces have got already.

We're only a nation of 60 million, for heavens sake. The way the military carry on you'd think we still had an empire to defend.

They want a coup ? Bring it on.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I don't think a coup would change anything, we'll be exchanging a submissive form of oppression to an aggressive one, having our laws and rights being taken from gunpoint and not the good old fashion laws and acts past that takes them a way layer by layer. This would in turn cause a rebellion, and many people would die, seen V? paint s a dull future, thats 1 of many...



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Hmm, how much military spending do we need?

Those comments made me fairly angry. Your whole post stinks of SNP policy.

Rightly or wrongly, we are a nation at war and a soldier’s being killed because they have to share body armour is completely unacceptable.

Rescue helicopters being grounded due to because they are so old and unreliable, is completely unacceptable.

Nimrods falling out the sky is unacceptable.

Military spending has been neglected for decades, our troops deserve better, and this needs to be addressed now.

As for the original topic, I think it is unlikely, but a lot of people are unhappy with the way things are going. The two party system is completely flawed, but will remain until a better alternative comes up and there doesn’t seem to be one at the moment



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   
This coup will not occur in my opinion.

Its easy in this country to get rid of someone in politics or with celebrity status, we just use there own weapon against them , its called the media.

When the viewing figures are high enough , and enough newspapers can be sold in the millions they will get crucified and a shake up will occur of those in power.

It has happened this way many , many times before.

Our limited selection of party's to choose from is a bigger and much more complicated problem and as to who may be controling those party's .. does anyone really know for sure?


[edit on 23/11/07 by Quantum_Squirrel]



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DeepCoverUK
 


Spot on mate the retired general's are speaking out because the army doesn't have the resources or the equipment to fight on two fronts.

Why are they spending billions on the nuclear trident?

It's a waste of money, give the billions to our military so They can do what the government has asked of them.

The government gives little and expects everything.

[edit on 23uFriday07/27/20 by paul76]



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
One big problem we have now is that we've signed the EU treaty, in all but ink.

Is the UK anymore, or just "Western Europe"?

The UK should be free from any political outside influence but that isn't the case anymore. Whilst the scandal of the lost information was going on (before the public were made aware), the PM was going to football matches and visiting Europe. He should have been in his office finding out what the hell was going on.

It seems that the politicians of this country seem to think that the UK is just dandy and are doing other things.

I don't know why the Queen doesn't exert her position on the Government and why she doesn't hold them accountable. She has the power to do that - why won't she do it? She should never have permitted the signing of the EU Treaty - it just shouldn't be allowed - EVER. Talking of joining the Euro and scrapping the Pound should be a treasonable offense.

I read last week that the UK Government raises £400 Billion in taxes every year - why then do our troops have insufficient equipment to fight an (illegitimate?) war? They gave £40 Billion to Northern Rock last week to secure its position - the entire UK defense budget was only £33 Billion. They show contempt to our troops and I can see why they're getting upset.

[edit on 23-11-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I recently caught some tidbit on news about Scotland wanting to become independent nation(again)..Could someone from UK provide update on that issue? Tx



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackProjects
I recently caught some tidbit on news about Scotland wanting to become independent nation(again)..Could someone from UK provide update on that issue? Tx


It's a completely different subject from this altogether, visit the UK Politics section on PTS (we have a thread going about it)



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Thanks I'll check that out..



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   
In the true sense of an up front coup, where the military go on the streets and detain the political leaders, and for a period of time, run the country, I see this as very unlikely.

I could see elements of the military being in the background of attempts to dis-credit the government.

Lets just run with the OP's concept:

Could the military today with its commitments around the world, actually plan and execute a coup. One could think that these operations were part of a bigger picture to ensure that the UK military is not in any position to support or encourage a more forced change of Government.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   
It sound to me like you guys over there have the exact same problem we do here in America. The elites are calling the shots while the masses get lots of Television entertainment. Over here we get Paris Hilton and O.J. Simpson while huge world stories get no news coverage at all.
Have you found the press like that over there? There is a lot of talk here about the press be involved in this up to their necks.
Over here they call anyone who speaks out against the war, Lunatics or even terrorist.
They have us fighting each other while in a real sence Rome is burning.
It's quite obvious someone is going about a seperate agenda than what most of the world wants, which is peace "NOT WAR".
What the hell is going on here????



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DeepCoverUK
 


All British Army soldiers serving in Iraq & Afghanistan have Enhanced Combat Body Armour.

Essentially brand new Nimrod MRA4's are coming on stream in 2009 and the MoD are investigating fuel problems with the existing Nimrod fleet. 5 Nimrods have crashed in the last 27 years. They're hardly dropping out of the sky. But I'm sure the guys who have to fly them thank you for your dazzling insight.

I'm unsure what you mean by rescue helicopters being grounded, I assume you mean the older Sea Kings which operate in the UK. Yeah you're right. They're long overdue for replacement although are still achieving over 95% availability against a 98% target. With careful maintenance there's a few years left in them yet. And the RAF, together with the Maritime & Coastguard Agency, intends replacing Sea Kings with an as yet unnamed replacement from 2013 onwards anyway.

The British Government might not be to your political liking. But defence expenditure is getting real terms increases over & above inflation and has been for years ... new ships in the works, new aircraft, new fighting vehicles. You should be reminded that the Tories would have cut defence expenditure - in real terms - had they been elected in 2005.

But are the military so overstretched that all this background noise from the ex military chiefs is justified ?

Nar. We've got 12,000 troops on active duty in the middle east (assuming, for 5,000 of them at least, "active duty" counts as twiddling your thumbs at Basra Airport) from an army of 107,000 regulars - and that last total doesn't even count the Royal Marines or the TA. That doesn't strike me as being overstretched.

But it's not what some of them would like - they've got a real chance of actually serving in a combat zone instead of poncing up and down the Mall on horseback at the public expense in front of Queen Elizabeth's palace. But that risk comes with the territory. It's a volunteer army. They joined up knowing the risks. As did we all. Tough.

The last day has had nothing to do with the ex military chiefs expressing any real concerns about the troops or their welfare. It's just Westminster party politicking at its very worst.

And you're right, I'm not a fan of the Union. Few Scots are. But whether that discontent manifests itself in a vote for independence remains to be seen. I quite like SNP policy ... Scottish troops being brought home from Iraq & Afghanistan and the Trident submarines being either repatriated to English waters or towed off for decommissioning, whatever gets agreed at the time. Can't grumble with that.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
These are only a few examples, but is it possible the army could overthrow the government? Well, there was a plot remove Harold Wilson's government during the 70s. Could another plot happen again?

Who was plotting an army coup against Wilson?



The plot to remove Harold Wilson, was not essentially what you would call a military coup, it did involve MI6 but that is not the same thing. They would not have been able to get the Army involved for a start and would be reliant on the Navy and possibly some members of the RAF. The necessity to attempt to get the weight of Mountbatten behind them shows that such an action requires a suitable leader.

Whether the Army is now sufficiently politicised to partake in a coup is another matter, I still think it highly unlikely. Who would lead the replacement government? Answer that question and we can discuss the feasibility.

It is unlikely that had Wilson kept fighting them they would have used a coup as the force necessary to silence him. Wilson felt as though his life and that of his family was sufficiently in danger to warrant resignation. It is a great pity as this country lost a potentially great socialist leader, the likes of which we will proably never again see reach power. Never say never though...we can but hope.

As both the Wilson coup attempt and those machinations that occured throughout the second world war and immediately after confirm, it is not the Military that are the problem but the permanent civil service that are appointed to run the country behind closed doors and their business associates. We have no say in who these people are and what they do, they are not elected and yet they hold power greater than the PM and the Queen.

Harold Wilson had long promised reform of the civil service, he wanted to root out corruption, of which there was and is much and he wanted to increase accountability. He was a threat and what is clear by his subsequent actions is that he could not be bought.

Therefore for a 'military coup' to occur against the current government. Gordon Brown would have to be rocking the status quo ie threatening our establishment, beyond corruption and finally, brave enough (or fool-hardy enough) to stand up to threats on the life of his family. As I don't think that he is doing the former all other points are moot.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Love the moniker, Kilgore.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join