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.

 

Submachine Gun-Toting Cops To Patrol NYC Subways

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 


.........NWO huh ...

So uh, what do you think the police will be doing down there? .. honestly?..

Dog sniffs out a guy with explosives in his backpack, cops ask for it, guy takes off, cops load him up with their MP5's ...

Sounds good to me!

They won't be shooting around at innocent people, won't be heckling walkers waiting for a train...

Me thinks you are a bit paranoid..




posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
I've seen law enforcement officers carry AR15s. Submachine guns are just peashooters compare to that.





In the first counterterrorism strategy of its kind in the nation, roving teams of New York City police officers armed with automatic rifles and accompanied by bomb-sniffing dogs will patrol the city’s subway system daily, beginning next month, officials said on Friday.

Under a tactical plan called Operation Torch, the officers will board trains and patrol platforms, focusing on sites like Pennsylvania Station, Herald Square, Columbus Circle, Rockefeller Center and Times Square in Manhattan, and Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn.

Officials said the operation would begin in March.

www.nytimes.com...


As you can see, the CBS article and the NYT article are dated in February and the operation began in March, so this is hardly breaking news.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Actually, the police will be carrying M-4s. I would be surprised if the New York Police Department carries full auto weapons, but I guess it's possible. If they have auto capabilities, it's probably three round burst, rather than full auto.

You'd think that CBS could at least check out Wikipedia before going public with such statements, but of course, accuracy and objectivity in reporting is passé.

At any rate, the M-4 is a carbine, not a submachine gun.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 2008/4/24 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Howie47
Any real terrorist threat, simply work round, (known) defensives. Like in the (1974?) Olympics!
Unless this is supposed to make the dumb public feel safe. It is a total waste of money. Unless, as I said it is for a more diabolical purpose!


Are you suggesting that security measures are a waste of money because terrorists can outwit the police?

Sometimes, this kind of show of force is a deterrent that would make the subway a less desirable target, since soft targets are the terrorists' preference.

Then, of course, this is not the only operation to defeat terrorism. It's just one of the more obvious.

[edit on 2008/4/24 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Anyone ever ride the A train at 2am?

A cop with a machine gun would actually be a welcomed site - well- at least more welcomed then getting stabbed by a crackhead.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by CX

Originally posted by Maxmars

Can you imagine the next incident where cops kill an unarmed person by 'mistake'? Hundred's of rounds instead of dozens.



Contrary to what appears to be public opinion, most of these weapons have a single shot and semi auto option, and believe it or not the officers who carry these weapons are actualy trained to use that option.

Not sure i can remember the last time i heard of a cop spraying anyone with automatic fire like they do in the movies.


Mention the word "machine gun" and i'm sure some people think you'll have the cops stood there at the end of the platform with a big .50 cal spraying the crowds of commmuters!

CX.



Agreed. I have to confess to two knee-jerk reactions.

One being the idea of some uniformed officer whipping out a MAC-10 to affirm his manhood, and the other of the prevailing NWO sentiments being drummed into my head...

Frankly, I wasn't clear on what weapon they were being issued, so I kind of overreacted; also I didn't think through about how they are not likely to wander around with these things set to full auto (gasp!). That isn't very wise, as anyone who has handled such weapons can imagine, (unless you actually are assaulting a barricaded position).

Also, I don't mean to imply that our peace officers are 'nuts' or 'Rambo-esk'. It's just that these weapons and many like it are 'higher stakes' weapons, their use, in my opinion, calls for a higher order of responsibility, and frankly, I don't like the idea of a disgruntled police officer being armed, much less wit a weapon that can take out a bus full of passengers.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Howie47
Any real terrorist threat, simply work round, (known) defensives. Like in the (1974?) Olympics!
Unless this is supposed to make the dumb public feel safe. It is a total waste of money. Unless, as I said it is for a more diabolical purpose!


Are you suggesting that security measures are a waste of money because terrorists can outwit the police?

Sometimes, this kind of show of force is a deterrent that would make the subway a less desirable target, since soft targets are the terrorists' preference.

Then, of course, this is not the only operation to defeat terrorism. It's just one of the more obvious.

[edit on 2008/4/24 by GradyPhilpott]


I'm not actually arguing against your point here, but 'soft target' is a media term to me. Targets are neither soft or hard, they are either opportune or not. Military barracks, warships, the pentagon, these were neither soft, nor unprotected yet they worked out to be among the most effective out there, despite their categorization.

I think our first mistake in 'preventing' terrorism is to think that they plot and plan as military people do. They will just as soon exploit a day care center as military base, it just depends which becomes effectively 'opportune.' The whole point of effective terrorism is to exploit the fact that you can't protect yourself from it without living in a steel prison-like bubble (and even then - who knows?)

[edit on 24-4-2008 by Maxmars]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthWithin
Anyone ever ride the A train at 2am?

A cop with a machine gun would actually be a welcomed site - well- at least more welcomed then getting stabbed by a crackhead.



LOL.. that is actually a very good point..

Can't see why anyone would have a problem with that... unless they plan on doing the stabbing??



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


This from a Master Mason. Thanks, You've proved my paranoia to be real!



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   


At any rate, the M-4 is a carbine, not a submachine gun.
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


That is simple semantics. The real difference is the size of the ammo.
Sub-machinegun fires pistol ammo. Assault rifle fires rifle ammo!



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   


reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 





Are you suggesting that security measures are a waste of money because terrorists can outwit the police?



What part of "(known) security measures", did you not understand?



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


A simple police officer would stop any crack head. But we can't afford one on every subway car.
The real paranoids, are those that see a terrorist under every tree. So they call for the implementation of the police state, and label anyone who protest, "a terrorist!"



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Dog sniffs out a guy with explosives in his backpack, cops ask for it, guy takes off, cops load him up with their MP5's ...


What if the dog was wrong? They make mistakes too.

And please, don't bother with the "why did he run" BS... LOTS of people run from the cops these days, if for no other reason than the bad reputation of police. Barely anyone respects them anymore, and it's their own damn fault. Ask Sean Bell, shot by police as he was leaving a bar, unarmed, after his bachelor party. Oh that's right--he's DEAD. For NO REASON (besides Gung-Ho cops proving their manliness). Ask Amadou Diallo, shot by police 41 times in the vestibule of his apartment. Oh right, HE'S dead too. Unarmed. No good reason. Ask the female bartender beaten senseless by off-duty drunken bastard cop Anthony Abbate here in Chicago for the crime of cutting him off when he'd had too much. The video's easy to find. Now that she's able to talk again I'm sure she has plenty of glowing things to say about the police.

Oh yeah, cops with carbines, or sub-machineguns, or whatever they end up carrying on patrols in subway stations really makes ME feel safe. About as safe as a fly in a spider's web...

And as for its effectiveness as a "deterrent", I'd think real "terrorists" would gladly carry out an attack despite a heavily-armed police presence--wouldn't they think it's even more "glorious"? They do seem to have a knack for attacking targets that are supposed to be well-defended...



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars


I'm not actually arguing against your point here, but 'soft target' is a media term to me. Targets are neither soft or hard, they are either opportune or not.


Opportune works for me. Whatever you call it, terrorists are known for choosing targets that are the most vulnerable, have little security, and will inflict the most casualties.

No amount of security will stop the truly motivated, but along with other measures, high-profile, armed police might convince terrorists to try something else somewhere else.

I'll use Mardi Gras as an example. Uniformed policemen are everywhere and create a sense of security for both the law-abiding and the scofflaws alike.

However, when something really goes down, undercover officers appear en masse seemingly from nowhere. It's an astounding phenomenon to witness first-hand

The armed police in the subway offer a visible warning, but without some activity behind the scenes, they are not likely to be very effective.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I was in Paris in the mid-90s when the French were combatting a series of attacks by Algerian terrorists--about a dozen people were killed in various incidents, the worst being bombs in a dep't store and a metro station that was closed for six months from the blast damage.

The national police (CRS) was out in force and one day the entire neighborhood where I was staying was cordoned off and checkpoints were set up by these SWAT troops toting semi-automatics. You couldn't get out without valid ID and I had to go back and get my passport to get to dinner. You saw them constantly in the subway and on street corners and on patrol.

At the time it was a shock, and I said that if that sort of surprise clampdown would ever happen in an American city, the uproar would unseat the mayor and the governor.

Well, times have changed. Something like this will be next.

And I agree, it's conditioning, like the indignities you suffer at airports. Getting you "comfortable" with the idea of substituting "security" for freedom, and for substituting the National Security State for the United States.

And it also makes tasers seem relatively harmless...

[edit on 24-4-2008 by gottago]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


You raise a valid point. It would be interesting to hear, from a terrorist him/herself, whether the visibility of armed police/paramilitary actually is a 'deterrent' for them. I can say it would make a difference to me, but then I don't have the 'glorious death of a martyr' as my 'prize.'

But at the end of the day, it's population they are frightening, not the terrorists.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
You raise a valid point. It would be interesting to hear, from a terrorist him/herself, whether the visibility of armed police/paramilitary actually is a 'deterrent' for them. I can say it would make a difference to me, but then I don't have the 'glorious death of a martyr' as my 'prize.'


A big, visibly armed deterrent sure didn't stop the guys who put a big honkin' hole in the USS Cole.


But at the end of the day, it's population they are frightening, not the terrorists.


I think that's really the whole point. Now the real question is, will there now be an attack that "coincidentally" happens at the exact same time police are conducting anti-terror exercises, just like 9/11 and the London bombing?



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

Originally posted by Maxmars
You raise a valid point. It would be interesting to hear, from a terrorist him/herself, whether the visibility of armed police/paramilitary actually is a 'deterrent' for them. I can say it would make a difference to me, but then I don't have the 'glorious death of a martyr' as my 'prize.'


A big, visibly armed deterrent sure didn't stop the guys who put a big honkin' hole in the USS Cole.


But at the end of the day, it's population they are frightening, not the terrorists.


I think that's really the whole point. Now the real question is, will there now be an attack that "coincidentally" happens at the exact same time police are conducting anti-terror exercises, just like 9/11 and the London bombing?


I had expected the Papal visit to be a really good time for that ploy (I'm very glad I was wrong).

I'm still trying to get my head around how you convince an entire police force that 'people must be kept in line' when there are working in their own home town. It's different if you military and stationed somewhere where you've got no relatives or friends. But what happens when you are ordered to do harm to your next door neighbor's boyfriend, or you're classmate's Dad? I just can't picture that going over without a hitch.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Well, for a suicide bomber, I doubt it would make much difference one way or the other, but except for 9/11, we haven't had much problem with suicide bombers, if that's the right term.

But for those who intent of other types of terrorism the high profile security might work.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

But for those who intent of other types of terrorism the high profile security might work.



This is about terrorism alright. Its about the government getting ready for our revolt when the stuff hits the fan. This has nothing to do with protecting you, its about terrifying you into not protesting or doing the "Patriotic duty as an American" when the Government gets tyrannical.

Why don't most people see the big picture? The media is distracting you thats why. This is not a 3rd world country and terror is a thousand times less dangerous than slipping in your shower and hitting your head. It is a bout 50 thousand times less dangerous than driving down the freeway.

Grow some balls and wake up please.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
But what happens when you are ordered to do harm to your next door neighbor's boyfriend, or you're classmate's Dad? I just can't picture that going over without a hitch.


They think all of you are potential dangerous criminals. Its so easy the commanding officers tell them those people in those people are dangerous domestic terrorists.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join